2010.09.07 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-3350 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2010.
C. AM-3353 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2010.
D. AM-3352 Approval of claim checks #120864 through #120962 dated August 26, 2010 for
$431,895.06, and claim checks #120963 through #121100 dated September 2, 2010 for
$339,226.45. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49749 through #49806 for
the period August 16, 2010 through August 31, 2010 for $662,509.81.
E. AM-3348 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Lisa Hanlon ($557.45) and from Terry
Canfield ($663.79).
F. AM-3347 Interlocal Agreement with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
G. AM-3324 Proclamation declaring September "National Alcohol and Substance Abuse Recovery
Month."
3. (45 Minutes) Public hearing on proposed updates to Edmonds Community Development Code
Packet Page 1 of 319
3. (45 Minutes)
AM-3349
Public hearing on proposed updates to Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA). The update is being conducted as
part of the City’s comprehensive review of its development regulations. The update is
being done to ensure ECDC 20.15A is consistent with WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806,
and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. This
update includes proposed increases to categorical exemption flexible threshold levels
for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center as defined by the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan.
4. (45 Minutes)
AM-3351
Public hearing on proposed updates to Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA). The update is being conducted as
part of the City’s comprehensive review of its development regulations. The update is
being done to ensure ECDC 20.15A is consistent with WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806,
and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. This
update includes proposed increases to categorical exemption flexible threshold levels
for the Highway 99 Corridor as defined by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed record Review or as Public
Hearings.
6. (20 Minutes)
AM-3356
Update from Planning Board on PRD/subdivision study, PRD perimeter buffer
ordinance and Planning Board needs/priorities.
7. (20 Minutes)
AM-3328
Continued discussion and possible action regarding a proposed “Tree Board.”
8. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 319
AM-3350 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
08-24-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/01/2010 02:07 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 3 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 24, 2010
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss
a pending claim/potential litigation and labor negotiation strategy. He stated that the executive session
was scheduled to last approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in
the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper and Councilmembers Bernheim,
Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney
Scott Snyder, Attorney Mark Bucklin, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, and City Clerk Sandy
Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:54 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debra Sharp, Accountant
Rob English, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA BY MOVING ITEMS 6 AND 7 TO FOLLOW ITEM
10. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Peterson requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Packet Page 4 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 2
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120748 THROUGH #120863 DATED AUGUST 19,
2010 FOR $868,092.51. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#49687 THROUGH #49848 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2010
FOR $667,388.42.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY DONNA
L. BRESKE ($344.67).
E. ACCEPTANCE OF LIST OF BUSINESSES REAPPLYING FOR LIQUOR LICENSES
WITH THE WSLCB.
G. RESOLUTION NO. 1233 – APPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANS FOR THE
2010 PROCESSES RELATING TO THE UPDATES OF THE STREET TREE PLAN,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT STATEMENTS, AND
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, ALL ELEMENTS OF THE EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ITEM F: CONFIRMATION OF REAPPOINTMENT OF MARIA MONTALVO TO THE
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD.
Councilmember Peterson disclosed Maria Montalvo is his wife.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Marianne Zagorski, Edmonds, Edmonds Economic Development Commission, explained in addition to
the tremendous potential that fiber optics has to improve the City’s revenue stream, fiber optics will also
play a crucial role in healthcare in the future. Swedish Hospital plans to invest $100 million in the coming
years to upgrade services and technology; fiber optics will play a key role. The City needs to act now so
that the City is ready to provide Swedish with fiber capacity when they need it. If the City is not ready,
the result will be either decreased income for the City and/or a delay in high quality healthcare services
resulting in the potential for increased illness and increased loss of life. She urged the Council to approve
the fiber optics proposal that will be presented later on the agenda; the life they save may be their own.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated two questions she has asked the City Council, first, what are the
multimodal connections mentioned in the ferry system’s long range plan for $26 million in Edmonds to
enhance multimodal connections. The City’s reply was this was a placeholder for unspecified future
enhancements to multimodal connections. No specific projects have been scoped at this time. The second
question, what is the one important project scheduled to be completed in Edmonds in the 2029-2031
biennium that will total $26 million. She has received no reply from the City to that question. She viewed
the use of the word placeholder as a dodge rather than an answer. Edmonds and three other port towns
will receive major improvements in the not too distant future of 15-20 years; the improvements in the
other cities are identified: Mukilteo will relocate its terminal but not the overhead loading to a site to the
north, Anacortes will replace its terminal building, Seattle will replace the north trestle, terminal building
and electrical upgrades. She displayed a drawing of the Main Street ferry terminal with a second slip, one
of five drawings illustrating a second slip contained in a 1994 Ferry Terminal Improvements report. She
Packet Page 5 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 3
asserted the ferry system knew exactly what they planned to do and she urged the City to ask on her
behalf or their own behalf what $26 million project would be constructed in Edmonds.
Donna Breske, Edmonds, requested the City refund the stormwater utility fees for the undeveloped lot
that she and her husband own at 9330 218th Place Southwest. She relayed the Washington State courts
found stormwater fees convey an area wide benefit and allow fees to be applied to developed and
undeveloped properties. However, that finding does not apply to their situation since the City asserts that
their lot is a drainage facility. The Edmonds Hearing Examiner’s decision of August 2008 states the City
has regarded lot 1 as a drainage facility for the plat of Westgate Village. There is a City-installed storm
drainage system capable of conveying stormwater runoff from the applicable 2.5 acre area within the plat
of Westgate Village that was installed by the City in 2002. However, she is not allowed to use that
drainage conveyance system. A May 14, 2008 letter from the former Public Works Director Noel Miller
states any work the City has performed previously adjacent to lot 1 was to alleviate flooding incidents to
the adjoining residential properties within the plat of Westgate Village and was not in any way to promote
the development of lot 1. She referred to an engineering drawing they submitted a year ago with an
infiltration gallery under the house. City Engineer Rob English’s response dated September 8, 2009
required lot 1 be the drainage repository for a 6.5 acre basin of which 4 acres are outside the plat of
Westgate Village. She summarized the City could not determine her lot to be a drainage facility for the
plat and also collect drainage utility fees and the perhaps the City should be paying them stormwater
utility fees.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, urged the Council to heed Ms. Breske’s comments. Next, with regard to
fiber optics, he urged the Council to reach a conclusion with regard to the financial status of the project.
With regard to his previous comments that WSF would park a ferry overnight if a second slip were
constructed, he stated the ferry would be a spare and parked there all day blocking views. He referred to
Ms. Shippen’s comments regarding a $26 million project, and urged the Council to seek a response from
WSDOT regarding that project. With regard to land use project permits, Mr. Hertrich estimated the
number of permits were down 50% in 2008 and 2009 and suggested the City could reduce staff by that
amount. He questioned the response to his comments at the Citizen Levy Committee meeting about
determining employees’ qualifications.
4. AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOCOM.
Police Chief Al Compaan explained this item was removed from last week’s Consent Agenda and a
decision delayed to allow Councilmembers to seek further information. The agenda memo describes the
issue in detail and he offered to respond to Council questions.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT TO RETURN FIRE DISTRICT 1 TO SNOCOM AS A VOTING MEMBER.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was unanimously approved by the SnoCom Board and both he
and Chief Compaan supported it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. QUARTERLY UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES OF CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY AND
SUSTAINABLE EDMONDS
Councilmember Plunkett requested in the future the reports from Sustainable Edmonds and Cascade Land
Conservancy be included in the Council packet.
Packet Page 6 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 4
Todd Cloutier, Sustainable Edmonds, explained Sustainable Edmonds is an all volunteer, non profit
committed to finding ways to make Edmonds a more sustainable community. He presented the second
quarterly update of the Save Energy Now program, a program the Council voted to support with $5000 in
funding last December. He displayed a comparison of 2008 and 2009 electricity and natural gas
consumption. Edmonds citizens spent $38 million on utilities in 2009. He displayed a comparison of
average 2008 and 2009 commercial and residential electricity and gas utility bills, approximately
$9100/year for a business and $1900/year for a residence. A 10% savings on utilities represents an
approximately $4 million “stimulus” package.
Save Energy Now was a pilot project to find the most cost effective ways for homes and businesses in
Edmonds to reduce utility usage via 10 homes and 10 businesses participating in a pilot program. The
Council funding is used to partially offset the cost of a home energy audit. The audits are useful in
identifying and prioritizing energy savings actions. Based on what the auditor finds, the participants then
begin taking action to reduce their usage as much as possible, for as little investment as possible with a
goal of at least a 10% sustained savings on their utility bills.
During the program, which lasts for one full year, Sustainable Edmonds tracks participants’ progress in
lowering their bills. Sustainable Edmonds also tracks utility bills of all Edmonds residents as well as the
weather. Sustainable Edmonds set up an online blog (http://edmondsenergy.blogspot.com) where lessons
learned by participants are posted. They also email this information to the Sustainable Edmonds email list
of friends, about 300 families. Their goal at the end of the pilot program is that all participants have saved
10% in their utilities and that they can sustain that savings over time.
Mr. Cloutier reported six months into the program, the combined utility bills of participants are down
12%. Although this is ahead of the goal of 10%, approximately 7% is due to mild weather. The goal was
10 businesses to participate in the program, to date 5 have signed up.
He explained the average home has already achieved savings of $250+ this year. One family has saved
$460 and are committed to reaching a $1000 savings by the end of the year. He displayed a graph
comparing 2009 usage, the 10% savings goal, heat demand, and actual natural gas usage, summarizing
the program was ahead of goal with regard to natural gas usage. He displayed a similar graph for
electricity, explaining the program is slightly below goal in electricity but well under 2009 usage. A graph
of the costs illustrated approximately $2500 savings this year for the 10 families participating in the
program.
Barriers to the success of their program include that more business participants are needed and the
challenge to communicate lessons learned from the pilot project to other residents. Opportunities include
the Sustainable Works program that was presented to the Council last week that mirrors much of the Save
Energy Now program as well as provides subsidized retrofit work and subsidized energy audits for some
income levels. He encouraged Edmonds and Lynnwood residents to learn more and sign up for the
Sustainable Works program online at www.sustainableworks.com. Approximately 20 people were signed
up for the program at Saturday’s Farmers Market.
Mr. Cloutier provided the Sustainable Edmonds email address: SustainableEdmonds@gmail.com for
anyone interested in obtaining more information or businesses interested in signing up for the program.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how information was disseminated to Edmonds citizens. Mr.
Cloutier explained the Save Energy Now program was first advertised to families on the email list and
then door-to-door. They advertised the program via the Chamber of Commerce’s email list as well as a
door-to-door campaign. Several businesses have indicated inability to participate due to landlord tenant
relationships. He suggested interested landlords could also apply for the Sustainable Works program. The
Packet Page 7 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 5
Save Energy Now program subsidized by the City is at its capacity for residents; the City Council funded
10 homes and 10 businesses as a pilot project to show that it works. The pilot project illustrates to
residents that the energy audit will assist them in identifying the most cost effective ways for energy
savings such as insulation, water heaters, and reduced consumption before making large investments such
as windows which are more expensive and provide less energy savings.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Mr. Cloutier email his PowerPoint presentation to the Council.
As one of the ten homes participating in the Save Energy Now program, Councilmember Peterson
thanked Sustainable Edmonds for developing the program. He commented the energy audit was a painless
process and he was impressed by the professionalism of the company conducting the audit, their ideas and
findings. The auditor found the windows in his 1970s home were in good condition and recommended
other ways to save energy such as turning down the water heater and adjusting the thermostat. By doing
those things, they have realized a significant reduction in their bill.
Jeff Aken, Cities Program Project Manager, Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC), relayed the City
Council voted last December to become a leadership City, a $5000 contract that committed CLC to
provide the City with a livability assessment, 25 hours of staff time and participation in the Learning
Network of Member Cities.
He provided a quarterly update, explaining they have been giving presentations to area organizations
including the Rotary and the Port as well as discussing with Sustainable Edmonds ways to work together.
They have also conducted outreach to Edmonds Community College, Edmonds Bike Club, Edmonds
Boys & Girls Club and various citizen groups and citizens.
He reported the Livability Assessment is underway; the City is in the process of completing the
questionnaire which will be followed by interviews conducted by CLC and a presentation of the findings.
The Assessment looks at policies where Edmonds is showing leadership and opportunity for sustainable
urban development in the built environment, and other cities’ ideas that may work in Edmonds. He
described the Community Stewards Program, a grant funded program CLC brought to Leadership Cities.
The goal of the program is to engage citizens in the planning process in a proactive, positive manner at
the policy stage. This began with the workshop on May 27 where a presentation on Complete Streets
Policies was attended by approximately 35 Shoreline and Edmonds residents. An Edmonds-specific event
was held on July 13 with approximately 17 community members. This was an opportunity for CLC to
learn about transportation issues in neighborhoods. They have also begun outreach regarding Complete
Streets with City staff and Councilmembers to determine the City’s interest in the policies and whether it
would be appropriate for CLC to draft a model ordinance for Council consideration.
The Learning Network is underway and included a presentation on Complete Streets Policies in May.
Future meeting topics include community gardens/urban agriculture and a form-based code workshop
with America Association of Architects. Leadership City members receive reduced or free admission to
those events.
The 25 hours of staff time will be used for CLC to work with the UW students/instructors on the Five
Corners and Westgate project. CLC will engage the community, community participation and feedback,
and provide visuals/pictures of potential development in those areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised Council President Bernheim and Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas,
Peterson and she were working with CLC on Complete Streets presentation in early September.
Packet Page 8 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 6
8. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION RELATED TO A PROPOSED
MARKET STUDY FOR THE FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE COMMERCIAL CENTERS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a follow-up to the Council’s discussion earlier this
month regarding the proposed market study. Jill Sterrett, University of Washington, provided a memo
recommending the lower cost, $10,000. The goal at this stage is a planning level study and it is likely the
City may wish to do future follow-up study but it is not needed at this early planning stage.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support. She asked whether the $10,000 cost of the study could
be reallocated from the vacant Development Services Director position. Mr. Chave responded there were
more than sufficient funds available from that source that could be allocated to fund this study.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO ALLOCATE $10,000 FOR THE MARKET SURVEY FROM THE SALARY SAVINGS OF
THE VACANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR POSITION.
Councilmember Petso explained since voting against the neighborhood study, she had conducted further
research including meeting with members of the Economic Development Commission (EDC). She was
not convinced this would be more than “another study for the shelf.” She was also not convinced this was
the most important proposal/request for funds from the EDC, it was simply the first request to be
presented to the Council. She suggested the EDC prioritize future funding requests.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what additional requests the EDC planned to make. Councilmember
Buckshnis, Council liaison to the EDC, responded the recommendations in the resolution from the EDC
that the Council approved contains seven items including a Strategic Plan that may have funds associated
with it. She planned to submit a recommendation to the Council to extend the EDC for an additional 18
months. She emphasized the study done by the UW students will provide a template for Westgate and
Five Corners. The Port is undertaking a similar study for Harbor Square utilizing UW students.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the resolution also references the EDC’s involvement with a
business plan/marketing for fiber. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed a preference to begin budgeting
for studies such as this in the future. Mr. Chave explained the timing of this request was related to the
ability to utilize UW classes that may not be available next year and the required relatively low cost.
Council President Bernheim commented development at Five Corners was one of his high priorities and
he was supportive of this project. He supported utilizing UW students at fairly affordable rates.
Councilmember Peterson explained this was one of the top priorities in the seven recommendations in the
resolution the Council adopted and planning for Five Corners and Westgate has been one of the Council’s
top priorities. This funding request and the funding the Council previously approved for Sustainable
Edmonds and Cascade Land Conservancy are examples of what a nominal amount of money can do via
leveraging organizations that have a great deal of volunteer and community support and, in the case of the
UW, have great graduate and under-graduate students. He thanked the EDC and staff for coordinating this
effort and expressed his enthusiastic support.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
9. EDMONDS FIBER OPTIC BROADBAND INITIATIVE – BACKGROUND AND UPDATE
Councilmember Plunkett explained this was not an effort by only the Citizens Technology Advisory
Committee (CTAC), it was a collaborative process between CTAC, the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) and staff. He thanked the members of CTAC, recognizing several members who were
Packet Page 9 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 7
in the audience. He also recognized EDC members who were involved in the effort, as well as staff
members.
He referred to materials in the Council packet including a background paper, fiber financial information
and a resolution reaffirming the Council’s commitment to this project. This presentation is an opportunity
to update the public and Council on the financials associated with the Fiber Optic Broadband Initiative. In
addition to business aspects of fiber, the City is also saving money as a result of fiber. Public Education
Accounts (PEG) provide revenue. Targets of opportunity will be presented to the Council with a
cost/benefit analysis and opportunity to approve an Interlocal Agreement. An overall business plan is
being developed by CTAC and EDC.
CTAC supports continuing the fiber project, the EDC has approved it from an economic point of view,
and Mr. Hines has vetted the numbers. He recognized Darrol Haug for developing the background paper
that describes the history of the Fiber Optic Broadband Initiative. The background paper indicates the
project began in 2005 with 24 strands and excess capacity. Approximately $500,000 has been expended
to date; those funds will be recouped by 2015 if no new accounts are added.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained in 2005 WSDOT offered Edmonds access to a fiber optic
backbone network as a result of a right-of-way transaction where the City was allowed to keep this asset.
With that opportunity came the challenge of determining how Edmonds could utilize the capacity of the
backbone for the benefit of the citizenry. He displayed a map of the existing multi-strand fiber network
from the ferry terminal to downtown Seattle. He provided a comparison of broadband capabilities, from
dial-up (64 Kpps phone line) to 100 Mbps Ethernet, explaining one strand of fiber provided tremendously
more capacity. Fiber is a great asset for moving information and a great asset to make available to
businesses and citizens.
The Council created the CTAC in 2004 to explore options to optimize the savings and revenue from the
network and to develop alternatives to use the capacity for internal savings and position the City to sell
excess capacity to citizens, businesses, and non-governmental entities in order to generate revenue in
excess of costs.
In 2009 the City sought court approval to sell its excess capacity to customers other than governmental
agencies. In October 2009 the Superior Court of Washington granted the City’s motion supporting the
City’s ability to sell excess capacity to private individuals and non-governmental businesses.
CTAC initially approached Comcast and Frontier/Verizon and they were not interested in partnering with
Edmonds. Frontier/Verizon initially announced plans to install their FIOS network throughout the City by
2021. Frontier/Verizon later decided to advance the installation of a fiber network within the City with the
intent of completing the system in 2009. This action made it less likely that the City could penetrate the
consumer market. CTAC believes Frontier moved up its schedule as a direct result of Edmonds proposing
its own network.
The City of Edmonds is currently using the fiber optic network for its internal use and is already enjoying
infrastructure flexibility and cost savings. In addition to internal savings, he, EDC, and CTAC are looking
for targets of opportunity. As those targets are identified, a cost/benefit analysis will be presented to the
Council. The current target market is PEG, other governmental entities, private sector businesses and
educational entities as well as healthcare providers.
Mr. Hines reviewed the project financials, explaining since 2006, the City has spent approximately
$492,022 to activate the network, internal City utilization, and preparing for offering services to other
entities. He provided a description and expenditures for supplies, small equipment, professional services,
Packet Page 10 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 8
communications, rental and lease, repair and maintenance, miscellaneous equipment. Additional
expenditures include pole rental and consortium dues, ISP services and Cisco maintenance of
$16,352/year. There are also recurring savings and revenues from replacement of the City’s two T-1 lines,
reduced transportation and reduced jail days due to video arraignment, and one customer, NetRiver that
results in annual savings of $97,428 or a net savings of approximately $81,000/year.
Mr. Hines explained fiber optics allows the City to recoup costs in their totality by 2015 and provides a
positive cashflow in future years. Any additional targets of opportunity will be secured via an Interlocal
Agreement that will be reviewed and approved by the City Council. He advised it was unlikely that
targets of opportunity that did not provide a positive cashflow would be presented to the Council.
Councilmember Petso asked how far the effort could proceed before it would be necessary to add City
employees? Mr. Hines answered the program was not at that point yet, the opportunities are not very
numerous because Frontier/Verizon has taken the bulk of the market share. The focus will be small
targets of opportunity from educational institutions and private sector business who do not fit
Frontier/Verizon’s customer profile. If the City took on 30-40 new customers, it may be necessary to add
employees; he did not anticipate that happening at this time.
Councilmember Petso pointed out some customers, SnoCom, Snohomish County and Lynnwood, were
not providing any revenue. Mr. Hines advised those entities are partners; what the City does not receive in
cash it may receive in services or other mutual benefits. CIO Carl Nelson explained the City uses their
services or they use the City’s services and via those savings they are a customer. He continues to seek
benefits from those partnerships and in the future there may be an opportunity to sell them service. He has
been approached by entities interested in fiber when they renew their internet provider contract.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the three entities are not shown as benefits in the revenue factor.
Mr. Hines responded only quantifiable revenues/savings were included in the financials; it is difficult to
quantify a mutually beneficial relationship.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled approximately two years ago the previous Finance Director posted
$104,000 to the fiber account that some thought should have been posted to Information Services and
therefore fiber is burdened with an additional $104,000 in expenses. Mr. Hines explained there was a
difference of opinion on CTAC; there were some who felt that the assets that fiber and the City shared
could be separated out to Information Services and to fiber. Separating the amounts would lower the
$492,000; he preferred to take a more conservative approach by overshooting the costs rather than
undershooting the costs and causing suspicion. The former Director booked that entry; it appeared just; he
was comfortable with it, and it has been audited.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) was created by the City
Council, a new government without its own staff, who approved placing an increase on the ballot. Last
year the Council voted to move forward with a property tax levy and later decided not to pursue it. In this
case, for the past five years the Council has asked for a proposal to expand the fiber. He referred to
language in the resolution, “WHEREAS such action on the part of the City has the potential to develop
significant revenue for the City of Edmonds” asking how the Council could get to an actionable proposal
that could be taken to the voters? He recalled when he first joined the Council, Mr. Jenness provided this
same information to him. Mr. Hines responded CTAC was not ready to make a proposal to the Council
until they can prove fiber optics works in a business sense. While they have taken small steps to get
customers and work with other entities to utilize the asset, the next step is to identify additional customers
to whom the City provides a service and they provide revenue. Once a clear pattern of customers can be
established, a proposal could be made to capitalize on it.
Packet Page 11 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson commented it may have been the general request of Council to reach that point
before making a proposal to capitalize the project, that would not be his ask of CTAC now. Although he
supported the proposed resolution which directed CTAC to continue their current efforts, he wanted to do
more. He suggested rather than CTAC identifying 10 additional customers, they explore a range of
business models such as being a wholesale provider, providing residential service, etc. and then allow the
Council to make a decision regarding capitalization, return on investment, etc. He commented several
Councilmembers are interested in taking a proposal to the voters to capitalize on CTAC’s efforts.
Councilmember Plunkett commented although it may seem nothing had happened in two years, in
actuality, a lot had happened, most importantly the Superior Court ruling. During that same period, the
worst economic conditions have occurred which has slowed the acquisition of PEG accounts. He
encouraged the Council to reaffirm continued development of fiber optic opportunities as a source of City
revenue.
Councilmember Wilson agreed the court case limited the ability to proceed, pointing out Seattle is using
Edmonds’ court case to move forward. Their Council and Mayor are supportive of pursuing fiber. He
questioned how Edmonds could proceed similarly, noting it may be necessary to identify funds for staff.
He urged CTAC and information technology and finance staff to help the Council understand what
needed to be done to put a funding proposal before the voters in November 2011.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 1234, EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL’S SUPPORT OF
CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF FIBER OPTIC OPPORTUNITIES AS A SOURCE OF CITY
REVENUE.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY ADDING AS ITEM 5, “ADMINISTRATION
SHALL PROVIDE QUARTERLY REPORTS TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.” THE VOTE
ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY REPLACING “ENTERING INTO” IN THE
PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS, “NOW THEREFORE...” “WITH CONSIDERATION OF.” THE
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY INSERTING “AND APPROVED BY
COUNCIL” IN PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 FOLLOWING “CITY STAFF.”
Councilmember Peterson commented the way he read paragraphs 2 and 3 was contracts with a net cost
would not be presented to Council. He questioned if the Council wanted to review all proposed contracts
regardless of the net cost/benefit. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council wanted an opportunity to
review all targets of opportunity. Mr. Hines has stated CTAC would not present a target unless it was it
had net revenue.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was comfortable with the amendment, noting information regarding
targets of opportunity would be provided to the Council quarterly.
Councilmember Wilson anticipated City Attorney Scott Snyder would say the Council could not waive or
abrogate its contractual responsibility; any contract would need Council approval. He preferred all targets
of opportunity be presented to the Council and allow the Council to consider them case-by-case. For
Packet Page 12 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 10
instance the City already has a contract in place with SnoCom that provides no revenue which would be
in violation of this resolution. He planned to propose an amendment to delete paragraphs 2 and 3.
Council President Bernheim noted the goal was for new customers not to result in a net cost to the City.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION BY STRIKING PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3.
Councilmember Wilson explained defining net cost can be a policy question and his intent was not to
have staff make policy decisions. He preferred staff present anything that made sense to the Council. He
did not want to preclude existing contracts such as with SnoCom and Snohomish County because they did
not comply with the resolution. He suggested replacing paragraphs 2 and 3 with a statement such as it is
the policy of the City of Edmonds to review any worthwhile, legitimate contract with any provider that
would serve the interest of the community. He summarized he did not want to limit the proposals that
staff could present to the Council.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for the amendment, commenting there may be
opportunities to partner with entities such as the Sno-Isle Library. Even if there were some upfront costs,
there may be an overall benefit. He preferred to provide staff the flexibility of presenting all options to the
Council.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
INSERT A STATEMENT IN THE RESOLUTION “IT WILL BE THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS TO REVIEW ANY LEGITIMATE CONTRACT OR OPPORTUNITY THAT SERVES
THE INTEREST OF THE CITIZENRY OF EDMONDS.”
Council President Bernheim suggested the language was unnecessary, the direction from the Council was
for CTAC and staff to continue exploring opportunities and to report to the Council. He was comfortable
with providing no parameters, recognizing the great work CTAC has done so far.
Councilmember Peterson voiced his support for the amendment, pointing out although the present
Council’s understanding is as Council President Bernheim stated, this would provide guidance to future
staff and Council.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED TO ADD AS PARAGRAPH 6 IN THE RESOLUTION,
“THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE CITIZENS TECHNOLOGY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKING TOGETHER WILL BRING THE COUNCIL A PLAN
FOR THE CAPITALIZATION OF A COUNCIL APPROVED BUSINESS STRATEGY BY A
VOTE OF THE PUBLIC BY NOVEMBER 2011. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Petso supported moving forward but suggested as opportunities are pursued equity be
kept in mind. With regard to land use, she assumed any issues would be presented to the Council. She
Packet Page 13 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 11
envisioned it would be less expensive to string cable above ground rather than underground. She wanted
to avoid any view blockage as a result of overhead fiber optic cable.
Council President Bernheim thanked everyone involved in bringing the fiber project to this stage. He
recalled attending a Council meeting as a citizen when the CTAC committee was originally formed. He
was very satisfied with the way this economic development opportunity was progressing.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the resolution limited the City from reviewing other business
models. Councilmember Plunkett answered no, assuring the members of CTAC and EDC wanted to
consider all possibilities whether it was a different model, the existing model, targets of opportunity, etc.
Mr. Hines assured they were open to any and all business models that result in a positive cash flow. The
targets of opportunity currently being considered lend themselves to a cost/benefit model; other targets
may lend themselves to other models. They will be as flexible as is necessary. Councilmember Wilson
responded it was his intent to move forward as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether it was necessary to identify tasks CTAC would undertake and
what tasks EDC would undertake. Councilmember Plunkett responded a collaborative process has
enabled the project to reach this point.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS.
Council President Bernheim suggested as part of the budget process the City ask qualified providers of
legal services to bid on the City’s professional services work. The City’s Hearing Examiner contract
expires at the end of the year and although there have been no issues with the work performance, there
may be opportunities for modest savings. With regard to legal services, Finance Director Lorenzo Hines
provided him a report that indicated legal expenses January 2009 through today are in excess of $1
million.
Councilmember Petso suggested the City also seek bids for actuarial services. Mayor Cooper questioned
whether the City had a contract for actuarial services and whether it was up for renewal. The contracts
Council President Bernheim has proposed the Council seek bids on are due to expire at the end of this
year. The option is to renew the contract or seeks bids. It was his understanding the only contracts
expiring this year are the Public Defender, Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney. Councilmember
Petso offered to research the actuarial contract.
Councilmember Peterson referred to a letter the City received today from Toweill Rice Taylor, the City’s
current Hearing Examiner, advising they would not be seeking renewal of their professional services
agreement. With regard to soliciting requests for proposals (RFP) for legal services, he acknowledged the
City’s legal fees have increased in recent years and he suggested comparing the City’s costs with other
cities’ costs. One of the reasons for increased legal fees is the increase in public records requests which is
epidemic statewide. Before embarking on a time consuming RFP process, he suggested investigating
whether other cities were experiencing increased legal fees. If everyone’s costs are increasing for the
same reasons, it was doubtful the City would realize a significant cost savings. If there were issues
regarding quality of service, that was a different discussion.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizen Levy Committee (CLC) has requested information on all
the City’s consultants. Council President Bernheim, Mayor Cooper, Mr. Clifton, Debi Humann and she
attended a seminar this week and talked to a number of cities. Renton recently made a change from a
contract City Attorney to an in-house attorney. She offered to contact Renton regarding a cost
Packet Page 14 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 12
comparison. She commented another consideration is the longevity that the City’s current City Attorney
Scott Snyder provides. He provided the CLC pros and cons of a contract City attorney and an in-house
attorney. He also provided the CLC information regarding moving emails to the web in response to a new
law that will allow public requests to be directed to a website as long as the website was identified. She
noted this would save paper although it would not save staff time.
Councilmember Wilson advised it was his understanding that actuary services were contracted for on a
project by project basis. Those projects were relatively rare, occurring only once every couple years.
Councilmember Wilson commented Edmonds uses Mr. Snyder far more than other cities use their City
Attorney. As a consultant working with various cities, in his experience cities are typically very
regimented in the use of their City Attorney. Edmonds has a policy of the City Attorney only attending
Council meetings the first and third Tuesdays but he often attends other meetings and is has become a
central resource for the Council. He noted although the Council sees Mr. Snyder, the City gets the benefit
of his entire firm. If the Council replaced Mr. Snyder with one attorney, there would be a significant
reduction in servicing the City’s needs. If the City hired an in-house attorney, it was likely 3-5 additional
support staff would be necessary.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested researching an in-house attorney. Other groups with budgets
similar to the City’s have moved from a contract attorney to an in-house attorney. Advantages of an in-
house attorney include that he/she is present in City Hall and his/her schedule is established in accordance
with the City’s needs. She agreed in addition to an in-house attorney, the City would need to hire a
paralegal and possibly a part-time assistant. The other groups who have changed to an in-house attorney
found it provided better coverage of legal representation.
Mayor Cooper explained the $1 million Council President Bernheim referred to is all the legal costs, not
just Ogden Murphy Wallace. It includes litigation costs that Mr. Weed and other attorneys have charged
the City. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines advised the $1,031,000 was all costs associated with the City
Attorney function, both retainer and litigation fees. It did not include costs for the prosecuting or defense
attorneys.
Mayor Cooper observed there have been two options discussed, 1) a RFP for a City Attorney, and 2)
researching hiring an in-house City Attorney rather than a contract City Attorney. He asked Council
President Bernheim clarify his request. Council President Bernheim responded his request was a RFP for
legal services in the manner in which they are currently provided. He was not interested in restructuring
the way legal services are provided at this time. He was satisfied there were many qualified firms and
lawyers who could provide the same or better quality legal advice for the same or better price.
Councilmember Peterson suggested if there was some uncertainty regarding whether the Council wanted
to have a contract versus an in-house attorney, qualified law firms may not apply to a RFP. He asked the
timeline for a RFP and whether there was time to have a further discussion regarding the City Attorney.
Mayor Cooper answered the Council needed to provide direction on how to proceed at one of their
September meetings in order to provide sufficient time for a RFP, interview and selection process and to
have an attorney under contract by January 1, 2011.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated his request to research cost increases other cities are experiencing to
determine whether Edmonds legal costs were out of whack before directing staff to proceed with a RFP
process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Peterson was interested in a comparison
of fees from cities with in-house and contract attorneys. Councilmember Peterson answered his interest
Packet Page 15 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 13
was in determining whether other cities’ legal costs have increased whether their attorney services are
provided in-house or via a contract. He anticipated legal costs were increasing due to increased public
records requests regardless of whether a city had an in-house or contract attorney.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in researching what other cities paid for in-house and
contract attorneys.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO,
THAT THE CITY ISSUE AN RFQ FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES AND HEARING
EXAMINER SERVICES WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he had a great deal of faith and trust in Mr. Snyder but in these
economic times he was interested in investigating what other possibilities were available and the cost.
Councilmember Wilson suggested rather than directing staff to do a great deal of work on in-house
counsel versus a contract attorney, consideration be given to hiring a legal staffing consultant to
determine how an in-house attorney’s office would be structured based on the City’s case load. He was
uncertain whether the City’s limited Human Resources staff had the capacity to provide that information.
If the Council was serious about changing the form of its legal services, the City should use a labor
negotiator separate from Ogden Murphy Wallace as he feared it could be complicated if labor
negotiations were not concluded by December 31. He suggested when researching the cost of an in-house
attorney, the City determine the true cost including medical benefits, and union contracts for support staff
now and in the future.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether AWC or Municipal Research Services Center could provide the
information Councilmember Wilson requested. Mayor Cooper advised Human Resources staff has done
some preliminary work on that matter at his request and could provide the information to the Council at a
future meeting.
Councilmember Wilson supported the request to research other cities’ costs. His request was to determine
the cost of an in-house legal department to accomplish Edmonds’ workload. He emphasized other cities
have different work loads; researching other cities costs for in-house staff would be informative but not
necessarily comparable to Edmonds. He reiterated his suggestion to consider hiring a legal staffing
consultant.
Mayor Cooper suggested the Council keep the two items separate. The motion is to seek bids for a City
Attorney. If the Council decides during the budget process or some other time to do a study or consider an
in-house legal department, there will be a transition period and the City likely would need a contract City
Attorney at least through 2011 even if a decision was made to pursue an in-house attorney.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
6. 2010 SECOND QUARTER BUDGET REPORT.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to the 2010 second quarter report, explaining the City’s revenue
position was approximately 55% of budget and expenditures were approximately 48% of budget. The
second quarter budget report contains two pending budget amendments that were included because they
were material and needed to be reflected in the budget. The first was an expenditure authority amendment
regarding a Council action that occurred earlier this year. The Council decided the proceeds from the sale
of fire assets would be moved out of the General Fund into a special reserve fund, the Public Safety
Reserve. Approximately $600,000 was moved into the Public Safety Reserve. The Council also made a
Packet Page 16 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 14
decision to move $100,000 to the Facilities Fund. The transfer was made; however, expenditure authority
needed to be granted, basically a technicality.
In completing the Fire Department transactions, it was discovered that there was approximately $700,000
in the Equipment Rental Fund set aside for fire vehicles and one fire engine. Since the City did not have a
need for those funds in the Equipment Rental Fund, a decision was made to move those funds to the
General Fund as the funds were originally the result of General Fund contributions. That adjustment was
also included in the second quarter budget amendment. Both adjustments are described on page 2 of the
second quarter budget report.
Councilmember Petso posed the following questions:
• EMS transport fees of approximately $700,000 were budgeted. Page 5 of the report indicates
the City has received only $184,000. Is that revenue stream expected to recover? Mr. Hines
advised that determination would be made in the latter half of the year. It appears that EMS
transport fees are not being received as budgeted. He offered to research and if necessary,
reduce the budgeted amount via the next budget amendment in late November, early
December.
• $700,000 was budgeted to be received from the Transportation Benefit District fee. The
report indicates the City has received $271,000. Mr. Hines offered to research.
• She was told TBD funds were not placed in the General Fund, page 5 identifies them as a
General Fund revenue source. Mr. Hines advised the funds are transferred to funds where
they can be accessed by Streets and Public Works.
• Where is that transfer in the second quarter report? Mr. Hines advised the transfer had not
yet been made.
• What is the Interfund Reimbursement – contract services for $1.3 million. Mr. Hines advised
he is researching that item.
• Sale of fixed assets (page 6), $1.7 million are anticipated to be sold. Accountant Debra Sharp
advised that was the original sale of the Fire Department rolling stock. The actual amount
was $1.4 million which was part of the amendment. She explained $1.7 million was
budgeted; the City received $1.4 million. The budget amendment reduces the $1.7 million to
$1.4 million. As part of the accounting transactions to remove the assets, the sale in the 511
(Equipment Rental Fund) must also be shown. Therefore it is moved from the General Fund
to the Equipment Fund and then the funds are transferred again via an interfund transfer.
• If the City received $1.4 million for selling the rolling stock, why was that amount not placed
in the Public Safety Reserve Fund? Mr. Hines explained the $1.4 million was reduced by
approximately $800,000 in firefighter vacation.
• Three interfund transfers on page 7 are not identified. She suggested in the future the fund to
which the transfer is made be included. Mr. Hines advised the interfund transfer of $25,000
was from Fund 113, the $25,086 transfer was from Fund 121 and the $54,000 transfer was
from Fund 411. He agreed to include that information in future quarterly reports.
• Page 8 includes a list of funds but not all funds are listed such as the Emergency Financial
Reserve Fund, the Council Contingency Fund, the Sister Cities Fund. She requested all the
funds be included in future reports. Mr. Hines answered historically only selected funds were
included in the quarterly report. He agreed to expand the list to include all 26 funds.
• When funds are allocated to a certain fund, isn’t administration constrained to spending
within the limit of the allocation?. Mr. Hines answered spending must stay within the limit
Council sets. If staff finds that authority will be exceeded, a budget amendment is proposed
explaining the reason the spending authority will be exceeded.
• In REET 125, $1.3 million has been spent when only $1.1 million was appropriated. She
inquired how those funds were spent and why it was not presented to the Council. Mr. Hines
Packet Page 17 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 15
explained these were costs from a Parks construction project that was originally to have
occurred in 2009. The expenditure did not occur in 2009 and was moved into 2010. This
issue has been brought to the Parks & Recreation Director’s attention. An amendment will be
made in the next mid-year amendment. He offered to forward the Council an email describing
the project.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that the expenditures in Fund 125 did not match the
appropriation, noting it was incumbent on staff to highlight that information in the Council packet so that
Council did not have to ask so many questions at the Council meeting. He found the expenditure in excess
of the allocation in Fund 125 egregious.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the Council’s intent when moving the funds remaining after the sale of
assets was that they be placed in a separate fund and not in the Public Safety Reserve Fund. Mr. Hines
explained the $600,000 from the fire proceeds were placed in a separate fund, the Public Safety Reserve
Fund. There is a $1.9 million balance in the City’s Emergency Reserve Fund which is a separate fund.
Councilmember Wilson suggested renaming the Public Safety Reserve Fund to avoid confusion.
With regard to transport fees, Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that Fire District 1 may not be
accurately charging or billing the transport fee. He requested staff research whether Fire District 1 was
accurately collecting those fees. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at this time last year, the revenue
from transport fees was $217,000 or 30%, similar to this year. At fiscal year end 2009, the City received
$682,258; the budget was $700,000.
With regard to TBD receipts, Councilmember Wilson explained the TBD is a separate governmental
entity that does not actually employ any staff or provide any services; the TBD contracts with the City to
collect the fees and to do the work. The funds collected are deposited into the General Fund and
transferred to the TBD. It may be appropriate to revise the Interlocal Agreement to identify a different
fund to receive those fees.
Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification of the sale of fixed assets on page 6. Mr. Hines explained
the City initially anticipated receiving $1.7 million; within that amount was approximately $350,000 in
aid cars. As a result of negotiations between the City and Fire District 1 it was decided Fire District 1
would pay for the aid cars and the associated sales tax. As a result the City received $1.4 million versus
$1.7 million. The City also paid out approximately $786,000 in firefighters vacation.
Councilmember Wilson questioned the $974,844 for sale of fixed assets as of June 30, 2010. Mr. Hines
anticipated there were accounting mechanisms that created the $974,844 figure. The numbers will change
in the next quarterly report as Fire District 1 transactions are completed. Councilmember Wilson asked
whether the $700,000 in the Equipment Rental Fund was reflected in the 511 transfer on page 11. Mr.
Hines answered it was. Councilmember Wilson concurred with Councilmember Petso’s request to expand
the list of funds within the General Fund.
Councilmember Wilson commented he did not have a high degree of confidence that today’s numbers
with regard to Fire District 1 exactly reflected the numbers the Council discussed last September/October.
He requested Mr. Hines provide a full report to the Council within the next few months comparing the
costs, savings, etc. that were proposed and the actual numbers. For example he recalled the Council was
informed by Fire District 1’s Fire Chief in his July 1, 2009 presentation that SnoCom would be a savings
to the City. In reality the City will continue to be liable for those fees.
Packet Page 18 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis posed the following questions/comments:
• At the end of July staff was still settling the 2009 Fire District 1 transaction. Will the CAFR need
to be revised? Mr. Hines answered no, all the Fire District 1 transactions occurred during fiscal
year 2010; the contract took effect January 1, 2010.
• The recently adopted financial policies will require reporting of fund balances and for all funds
to balance.
• The executive summary current forecast on the website for January 25, 2010 and June 5, 2010
uses January 20, 2010 actuals. She requested these be updated when the June information is
available. Mr. Hines responded the 2009 column has been updated to reflect yearend actuals. The
report will be released to the Council following review by Mayor Cooper and hopefully to the
Citizen Levy Committee on Thursday.
7. 2009-2010 MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - 08/24/2010
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the mid-year budget adjustment was a housekeeping issue, the
majority of the adjustments were to bring forward fund balances from 2009 into 2010. There are also
transactions to accommodate the sale of the Fire Department in 2009 and transactions to reflect activities
that occurred in 2009 that are brought forward into 2010. There were two incidents in 2009 where the
expenditure authority was exceeded. The State Auditor indicated because this is a biennial budget the
expenditure authority could be addressed in the next year.
Mr. Hines reviewed the General Fund summary:
Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) 902,405
Increases in revenue that increase the ending fund balance:
Fire Asset allocation from Fund 511 464,693
TBD 2010 Transportation Benefit District Revenue 580,000
Utility Utility Tax Increases from 2009 726,000
Fire Additional Fire District 1 savings – amended during the mid-
biennium 12/15/09
145,230
Total revenues that increase ending fund balance 1,915,923
Decreased in revenue that decrease ending fund balance
Police Loss of Mountlake Terrace Animal Control Contract (35,820)
Total revenues that decrease ending fund balance (35,820)
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance:
Multiple depts. 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget
review
(336,393)
Police March 13, 2009 police services cuts made for 2010 (119,128)
Total expenditures that increase ending fund balance (455,521)
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance:
City Clerk Temporary assistance due to extensive public records
requests
10,588
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 13,898
Fire Department Fire contract adjustment – amended during mid-biennium
12/15/2009
98,449
Utility Hydrant maintenance 340,000
Packet Page 19 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 17
Non-departmental Transfer to Public Safety Reserve Fund & Facilities
Maintenance Fund
700,000
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money 8,514
Total expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 1,171,449
Revenues & expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues or
expenditures:
Non-departmental Eliminated SnoCom Director Services in 2009 (179,022)
Public Works
Administration
N. Miller payout 52,000
Mayor L. Carl payout 16,800
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to PFD 91,447
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Asst Grant
12,876
Multiple depts. Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
Purchases and Dept of Energy
76,204
Non-departmental Allocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue 460,000
530,305
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) 2,066,580
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Hines’ indication that some items had been addressed in prior
budget amendments. Mr. Hines explained a number of amendments were made in 2009 that also needed
to be reflected in amendments in 2010. Councilmember Petso clarified all the above amendments were
2010 amendments. Mr. Hines agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested better labeling, descriptions and page numbers for the amendments
as she was unable to trace the amendments to the quarterly report. She observed all the funds were out of
balance and needed to be brought into balance with actuals. Mr. Hines explained the City just finalized its
2009 financial statements and the numbers are now accurate and agreed to by the State Auditor. He was
now comfortable moving those numbers into the individual funds to illustrate the state of the funds in
2010. He was not comfortable doing so until the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Finance Report) had
been released. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to illustrate how the General Fund balances to the
CAFR. Mr. Hines advised the CAFR was a point in time as of December 31, 2009.
Council President Bernheim suggested at the next Finance Committee meeting, September 14 or at a
special Finance Committee meeting, Mr. Hines, the Finance Committee and Mayor Cooper discuss the
mid-year budget adjustment and return it to the Council at the next possible opportunity. Mr. Hines
explained he is in the process of developing a 2011 budget; he cannot create the 2011 budget until he
knows what 2010 looks like which requires adoption of the mid-year budget adjustment. The Council has
scheduled a budget workshop on Tuesday, August 31; the adjustment needs to be finalized in order for the
budget workshop to be meaningful.
A special Finance Committee meeting was scheduled for Monday, August 30 at a time to be determined.
It was agreed to notice the meeting so that all Councilmembers could attend. City Clerk Sandy Chase
advised a special meeting required 24 hours notice.
Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers email questions to the Finance Director in advance
of the Finance Committee meeting.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the $902,405 beginning balance adjustment was determined. Mr.
Hines offered to provide Councilmember Wilson a reconciliation as it was complicated. Councilmember
Packet Page 20 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 18
Wilson asked why a $900,000 adjustment was necessary. Mr. Hines reiterated many of the adjustments
were reflected in the 2010 budget were things that happened in 2009 and were reflected in the 2009
budget amendment.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE
MEETING 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hines continued his explanation, the 2009-2010 budget is a biennial budget cycle; there were things
built into the 2009 budget in 2008 and things that happened once the budget is enacted. In 2009 a number
of things occurred that must also be reflected in 2010. Things that happened in 2009 do not automatically
carry over into 2010. The 2010 budget was originally developed in 2008. The amendments make 2010
more relevant and current. Councilmember Wilson observed there were amendments made in 2009 that
made 2010 more current. Councilmember Wilson observed the amendments made in 2009 carry over into
2010. Mr. Hines explained the mid-year adjustment is the vehicle by which they carry over into 2010.
Councilmember Wilson suggested a simple narrative to help him understand the $902,405 beginning fund
balance.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the $902,405 was primarily budget cuts made in 2009. Mr. Hines
answered the cuts played a role in that amount. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the budget cuts
were reflected in the CAFR. Mr. Hines answered they would have been reflected in the 2009 ending
General Fund balance which is being moved forward into 2010. Councilmember Wilson asked whether
the $902,405 reflected increases to the December 31 balance or everything from January 1, 2009 to June
30, 2010. Mr. Hines answered the December 31 balance reflects everything that occurred January 1
through December 31, 2009, the culmination of everything in and out of the General Fund during the year
and $902,405 is the residual of those transactions.
Mayor Cooper requested Councilmembers email additional questions to Mr. Hines prior to the August 30
Finance Committee meeting.
Councilmember Wilson commented the discussions at Council meetings were very helpful to him in
working through the materials. He cautioned he may not email a lot of questions but was likely to have
additional questions when the Council next discussed the mid-year budget adjustment.
11. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Plunkett distributed CTAC’s recommendation to the Council on computer use in Council
Chambers.
Councilmember Peterson reported the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee met early this month and is
moving forward with actionable items, moving from the theoretical stage to an action oriented stage.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the SeaShore Transportation Forum discussed the formation of a
TBD. Edmonds and Lake Forest Park have formed TBDs and many of the other members are interested in
the process. Next, she reported on the Economic Development Commission, advising two of the seven
recommendations were reviewed by the Council tonight. She plans to present to the Council a request to
extend the EDC another 18 months. The Citizen Levy Committee held its third meeting. The members
have formed subcommittees to discuss specific issues.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on a discussion at a recent Snohomish County Public Health
District policy committee meeting regarding prioritizing services due to funding.
Packet Page 21 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 19
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
In response to the concern raised last week regarding the 911 call at Engels Pub, Mayor Cooper advised
Assistant Chief Lawless sent Councilmembers an email describing the situation. Police officers were
flagged by a bystander; the police used their tazer on a gentleman and the aid car was called. The Fire
Department’s response time was 4.5 minutes, well within average response times. The Fire Department
remained in a staging area for another approximately two minutes because the Police Department felt the
scene was not secure. When aid was allowed onto the scene, the individual tried to fight the medics.
Mayor Cooper indicated he will forward the Council a much more detailed report from Fire District 1
Chief Widdis that shows actual Police and Fire response times from the dispatch center that illustrates the
response times were well within acceptable levels and that they responded in accordance with their
training. He thanked the Police and Fire Departments for their professionalism in handling a very difficult
situation.
Mayor Cooper advised the email to submit budget suggestions is now available:
budgetsuggestions@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Approximately 10-12 suggestions have been submitted since the
press release was issued.
With regard to Ms. Shippen’s request regarding the WSF budget, Mayor Cooper pointed out the State
legislature writes the transportation budget. The budget language in the long range plan was developed by
WSF, not the City. Mr. Clifton has inquired with WSF and their consistent response is that the $26
million is for a future project. If the Council feels strongly about that language, he urged them to include
it in the City’s legislative agenda.
Mayor Cooper reported he received a letter from the Chair of the Fire District 1 Commissioners,
Commissioner Kenny, summarizing the agreement to move the 1938 Ford fire engine back into the fire
station on a temporary basis until a long term solution can be worked out. Mayor Cooper planned to
convene a group of stakeholders to discuss a long term solution.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson explained he had been a candidate for the Snohomish County Council position
vacated by Mayor Cooper. Today the Snohomish County Council chose Lynnwood Councilmember
Stephanie Wright to fill that position.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the AWC budget conference, commenting it was interesting to
learn about what other cities have done such as reducing overtime, reducing overall budget by 5%,
looking at ways to renegotiate contracts with City contractors, looking at leasing versus buying, scaling
back, doing cost/benefit analyses, developing strategies where an employee is rewarded a day off for a
good solution, and idling excess parts or supplies.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas congratulated Stephanie Wright on her appointment to the Snohomish
County Council. She reported on the City baseball game that Councilmember Petso and she participated
in; Edmonds beat Mountlake Terrace 15-3.
Councilmember Petso suggested the City seek clarification from WSF regarding the $26 million project,
whether it is an improvement at the existing location or at an alternate location. She inquired about the
mechanism for clarifying the intent with the State.
Packet Page 22 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 24, 2010
Page 20
With regard to the budget amendments and the transfer of funds in the 511 to the General Fund of funds
intended to replace fire trucks, Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider whether they wished
to have those funds set aside in the same way that the proceeds of the sale of the fire trucks were.
Councilmember Peterson congratulated the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce on another successful Taste
of Edmonds and the Dave Stern Memorial Golf Classic. He announced the upcoming car show on
Sunday, September 12.
Council President Bernheim thanked Sustainable Edmonds for the Save Energy Now program, noting the
smaller savings at the household level are the most important and result in the greatest aggregate savings.
He urged other businesses to sign up.
Council President Bernheim referred to the murals being installed downtown, another example of a small
thing at a relatively low cost that adds a lot of value. He applauded the mural group for their efforts. He
relayed comments from recent visitors regarding the beauty of the City’s parks and flowers. He thanked
Mayor Cooper for reaching an agreement with Fire District 1 on an interim resolution for the 1938 fire
engine. He remarked it was nice that the Council was having discussions and getting along.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 319
AM-3353 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
08-31-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/02/2010 11:48 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 24 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
Budget Workshop
August 31, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Carl Nelson, CIO
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. OPENING REMARKS – MAYOR COOPER
Mayor Cooper explained this meeting was to provide the Council with information and to gather feedback
from the Council to assist in a more collaborative budget development process. He planned to share this
information with other stakeholder groups as well. This is not a presentation of the Mayor’s preliminary
budget but an exercise to provide current information and collect Council input. He explained the Council
requested the Mayor to prepare a status quo budget similar to the 2010 budget. Tonight staff will describe
their departments and any changes they have proposed in their 2011 budgets.
2. OVERVIEW OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES – FINANCE DIRECTOR
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines reviewed a comparison of General Fund revenues that includes 2009
actuals, 2010 budget, 2010 actuals as of July 31, 2010, and 2010 yearend estimates. He pointed out
estimated revenues at yearend were down approximately $1.5 million from the 2010 budget. He provided
information from the Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council indicating Washington
was still in economy decline and the situation is unlikely to improve dramatically in the immediate future.
Packet Page 25 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 2
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 12-month percent change in the Seattle-Tacoma-
Bremerton, Washington CPI is -0.5%
He reviewed factors affecting revenues:
• Preliminary projected 9% decrease in assessed value for the City of Edmonds.
• Reduced sales tax levels will continue into 2011. Sales tax projections in the 2010 budget: $5.5
million; later reduced in 2009 to $4.3 million; expected amendment later this year to reduce sales
tax revenue to $4.3-4.4 million.
• Potential factor – voter approval of initiatives that affect the Liquor Control Board (LCB) could
result in a loss of LCB related revenues, $200,000-$500,000 annually.
Mr. Hines also provided a list of historical financial management actions taken since 2001.
3. DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS
Municipal Court
Judge Doug Fair reviewed the court services 2009 and 2010 budget:
Year Total Annual Budget Administration Probation
2009 $749,628 $524,409 (Actual) $199,815 (Actual)
2010 $781,567 $585,114 $196,453
He identified two decision packages, pointing out that neither of the expenditures would require General
Funds; both can be purchased with Court Improvement Funds provided by the State:
• Probation software - $6,850
• Generator tie-in for court side of Public Safety building - $7,825
He provided facts regarding the Municipal Court:
• Since 2005 there has been a 47% increase in cases filed with the Court, from 5,318 cases to
7,853. This increase is evenly split between criminal and cases and civil infractions.
• Gross revenues have increased over the same period of time from $717,539 to $1,247,883, an
increase of 74%.
• In 2009 net revenues exceeded expenses by $140,682; $27,814 of this revenue (20%) was
generated from passport applications and locally supervised electronic home monitoring (EHM).
• All of this has been accomplished without any increase in staffing. Staff has actually decreased
since 2005.
He described mandated court services:
• Court hearings
• Data entry
• Probation, DUI and domestic violence
• Fine collection
• Processing judicial orders
Other services the Court provides include
• Passports
• Local EHM
• Other probation services
• Night court
Packet Page 26 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 3
He explained if budget cuts are made, the impact on the Court would be termination of non-essential
services which include passport services, non-mandated probation services, locally monitored EHM
services, local collection of fine payments, and night court for traffic infraction hearings. He pointed out
some of the optional services generate revenue. To date in 2010, the Court has generated approximately
$27,000 from optional services. If one position is cut (approximately $50,000 in salary and benefits) and
optional services eliminated, the actual net savings is $22,000. He commented on the value of the services
provided to the community for that $22,000.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether other cities offered night court. Judge Fair answered some do
but it is the exception rather than the rule. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why EHM and passport
services would be eliminated if they generated revenue. Judge Fair answered because he must provide
mandated services; the Court does not have to provide passport services or EHM. Losing one staff
member reduced the workforce by 20% and would require the elimination of optional services. He
summarized the court was not intended to make money but to dispense justice.
Police Department
Police Chief Al Compaan reviewed the Police Department’s 2010 budget:
• $9,662,319 budget
• Includes $1731,418 in jail costs
• Does not include $1,051,540 for SnoCom – SERS dispatch for Police, Fire and PW
He also reviewed specific amounts in the budget for salaries, overtime and benefits, uniforms, supplies,
small equipment, professional services, communication travel, advertising, rental/lease, repairs/
maintenance, miscellaneous (including training), intergovernmental services and vehicles/fuel.
Mandated services provided by the Police Department include:
• Primary law enforcement services provider for Edmonds
• Respond to 911 calls
• Investigate crimes
• Arrest suspects
• Evidence processing
• Domestic violence investigation
• Traffic collision investigation,
• Death investigation
• Maintain evidence/property collected
• Maintain criminal records
• Public disclosure requirements
• Mandated training of personnel
• Fingerprinting – CPL applicants
• Disaster coordination
• Emergency Operations Center
Other services the Police Department provides include
• Animal control
• Ordinance enforcement
• Parking enforcement
• Traffic enforcement
• K-9
• Street Crimes Unit
• Crime analysis
Packet Page 27 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 4
• Domestic Violence Coordinator
• Marine Unit/Dive Team
• SWAT/negotiators
• ALERT
• Bicycle Patrols
• Explorer Scouts
• Prisoner Transport
• Woodway emergency response
He described staffing and services rendered in 2009 by 55 commissioned and 9 full-time and 2 part-time
support staff. He reviewed the Police Department organization, commenting there were no mid-level
management positions; the Department has a compressed organizational structure with no captains or
lieutenants. He described historic Police Department staffing:
• 2009-10: 55 commissioned, 9 full-time and 2 part-time support staff (reduction one
commissioned and 2 full-time support staff – Crime Prevention Officer and Animal Control
Officer)
• 2008: 56 Commissioned, 11 full time and 4 part-time support staff (added three commissioned
for Street Crimes Unit, reduced 2 support positions in the records unit)
• 2000: 53 Commissioned, 13 full-time and 3 part-time support staff
• 1990: 34 Commissioned, 9 full-time and 2 part-time support staff
• 1985: 32 Commissioned plus support staff
Over the past decade the entire Reserve unit has wound down due to budget as well as operational and
accreditation issues and the difficulty recruiting reserve officers. This has eliminated supplemental staff to
assist the Police Department. Police Cadet positions were also defunded in 2003 as part of budget cuts. In
2006 the hospital security provided by Edmonds Police Department at Stevens Hospital of 7 FTE was
defunded by the hospital. Those officers assisted both at the hospital as well as were available to respond
to emergency calls in the area surrounding the hospital.
The 2011 budget will reflect the following 2009-10 cuts:
• DARE program including 1 FTE entry level police officer
• Crime Prevention volunteer program including 2 part-time staff
• Reserve Officer Program
• 1 FTE Animal Control Officer and Mountlake Terrace Animal Control contract
Chief Compaan reviewed their proposed 2011 budget:
• $25,679 moved to training supplies and SWAT supplies for munitions.
o Funds largely reallocated from Jail Intergovernmental Services and Training cost centers
o Military demand driving 80-100% cost increases
o Total munitions budget: $45,000
• $52,025 moved to Dispatch Interfund Rental for 17 patrol laptops reaching the end of their useful
life and warranty. Implementation of New World CAD/RMS in 2011 also requires more robust
capacity than existing computers
o Funds reallocated from Jail Intergovernmental Services
o Total Replacement cost: $83,767
• $5,238 moved to Patrol Communications from Records Professional Services
o Enhanced wireless connectivity for patrol vehicle to allow field access to databases, required
to use New World
o Personal communication devices for command staff, detectives, patrol vehicles and specialty
units
o New technologies since budget last changed in 1999
Packet Page 28 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 5
• $5,000 reallocated to Administration Rental/Lease from other Administration and Records
Management budget lines
o Considering lease versus purchase of multifunction machines to copy, print, fax, scan
o Budget unchanged since 1998
Chief Compaan summarized by reallocating the existing budget, the Department is able to absorb the cost
of these three decision packages, two needed for New World (computers and communications) and one
for munitions. The Department’s 2011 budget will also reduce their O&M budget by $19,000 over the
2010 budget.
Chief Compaan described a 2011 proposed decision package for bulletproof vest replacement:
• $20,720 net General Fund impact if $4,410 federal grant is authorized
• $25,130 total purchase price to replace 25 ballistic vests at the end of their five year warrantied
life
• Expiring vests do not meet new federal standards
• Officer safety and liability issue if vests not replaced
• The $19,000 O&M savings could be used to offset this purchase
Councilmember Petso thanked Chief Compaan for meeting with her. She suggested Chief Compaan
consider whether the charge for providing emergency response to Woodway was enough to cover the cost
of providing the service. Chief Compaan commented politics as well as relations between the cities were
part of that cost structure.
Councilmember Petso suggested contacting Swedish regarding reestablishing Edmonds Police
Department security at the hospital. Chief Compaan explained Stevens Hospital employed a private
security company to provide security services and any change would need to be initiated by the hospital.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Chief Compaan for meeting with her to address her questions. She
reported the Levy Committee is discovering that leasing is better than purchasing. She inquired about the
useful life of patrol car laptops. Chief Compaan answered the typical life is approximately five years. A
more rugged laptop is purchased for use in the patrol car due to the amount of vibration they encounter.
The 17 laptop computers are needed to replace aging laptops and because a more powerful laptop is
needed for the New World CAD/RMS that will be operational in July 2011. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked whether the laptops can be resold. Chief Compaan answered they are sold but used computers do
not generate a great deal of revenue.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the bulletproof vests were recycled. Chief Compaan explained
vests have a 5-year service life and best practices recommend replacement after 5 years as humidity can
cause degradation of the bullet-resistant material. The used vests are returned to the manufacturer.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the vests could be sold. Chief Compaan answered no, it was
important that the criminal element not have access to bulletproof vests.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the contract for service to Woodway cost Edmonds more than the
contract paid. He asked how politics entered into that relationship. Chief Compaan answered Edmonds
bills Woodway on a per call basis. Woodway operates a part-time Police Department comprised of
approximately 6 officers from other South Snohomish County agencies who each work 20 hours a month.
The contract negotiations have typically been handled by the Mayors of Edmonds and Woodway. The fee
was recently increased from $100 to $125, which he acknowledged was an arbitrary amount. He
explained it did not really cost any more to provide service to Woodway because Edmonds Police
Officers are on duty but it takes an Officer away from Edmonds. He summarized the service has been
provided in the past in an effort to be a good neighbor and there was no attempt for a full cost recovery.
Packet Page 29 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the amount for a full cost recovery be determined. He asked how
much Edmonds billed Woodway annually for emergency police response. Assistant Chief Gerry Gannon
answered approximately $10,000. The recent contract included a flat callout rate as well an hourly rate for
any additional officers who respond.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether providing emergency police response to Woodway was a burden
on Edmonds coverage. Chief Compaan explained Edmonds basically provides an insurance policy for
Woodway by providing first response 911 police service. Ideally he would prefer a 24/7 police contract
with Woodway but Woodway has not been interested in that in the past. Councilmember Plunkett
suggested approaching Woodway to offer Edmonds providing a 24/7 police contract.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Brian McIntosh explained the Department serves as the
community’s key resource for providing well kept parks, beautification, open space, family focused
recreation programs, special events and cultural arts for citizens and visitors. He reviewed the
Department’s 2010 budget ($3,449,470) and 10 cost centers (administration, park maintenance,
recreation/cultural services, Discovery programs aquatics, athletics, day camps, fitness, gymnastics and
Meadowdale Preschool). He described recreation revenues:
• 2007 – $1,142,971
• 2008 – $1,221,560
• 2009 – $1,288,811
• 2010 projected – $1,289,510
The Parks division is charged with protecting city assets and liability through professional parks
maintenance and includes:
• Project management and construction 6 waterfront beach parks with 3,000 feet of shoreline and a
fishing pier
• 31 active parts as well as 12 civic sites
• Sports fields
• Cemetery
• 20,000 square feet in 146 flowerbeds and gateway entrances and 151 hanging baskets
• Underwater Park
• Yost Pool
• Special event assistance
• Off Leash Dog Park
The Recreation division is charged with providing affordable quality programs and opportunities for all
ages and interests that include:
• Aquatics, fitness, athletics, gymnastics, camps, preschool, arts, crafts, nature, dance, outdoor
recreation, parent/child, special events and more
• Leader in environmental education and awareness since 1980
• Provide 65 summer jobs and 35 volunteer opportunity for youth
• Frances Anderson Center houses city and tenant programs with 1,000+ recreational participants
each day
• Facility rentals
• Recreation scholarships funded by fundraising activities
The Cultural Services division is charged with promoting and sustaining a vibrant cultural community
that include:
• Cultural tourism promotion
Packet Page 30 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 7
• Economic development
• Capital project planning and management
• Edmonds Arts Commission –Visual Performing and Literary Arts
The Department provides staff support and continuity to the Edmonds Arts Commission, Library Board,
Sister City Commission, Cemetery Board, Economic Development Commission, and reports to the
Planning Board. The Department partners with a wide range of organizations as well as numerous
businesses and volunteers through the City and region. Planning Documents include the Parks
Comprehensive Plan, Community Cultural Plan, Streetscape Plan, project studies such as the Aquatics
Feasibility Study and the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
Mr. McIntosh described historic budget cuts in the Department:
• 2003: 8 full-time seasonal positions cut and incrementally restored between 2004-2008
• 2009: Seasonal park maintenance staff cut and restored in 2010
• 2009: Flower Program at 50% and partially funded through the Parks Trust Fund
• 2009 and 2010: Yost Pool subsidy funded by citizens through the Parks Trust Fund
• Cemetery operations are no longer funded through the General Fund and now operate as an
enterprise with support from Parks Maintenance.
Mr. McIntosh described the Department’s 2011 decision packages:
• $7,003 Parks Fund 001
o Rental toilets increase and ongoing: $5,000
o Replacement of 21” Honda Mower: $1,200
o Replacement of Back Pack Blower: $503
o Replacement of Red Max Law Trimmer: $300
• $5,000: Columbarium rail painting (Cemetery Fund 130)
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the decision package for rental toilets was for more toilets or increased
service. Mr. McIntosh responded toilets are rented for ten sites, most are year-round sites due to increased
usage of the parks. The decision package was to increase the number of toilets from 20 to 25 as well as
increase the service level.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Department for their assistance at the Off Leash Dog Park. She
asked whether all the recreation classes were profitable. Mr. McIntosh a class is not conducted if it is not
profitable. The majority of recreation instructors are contracted and fees are split 60/40 instructor/City.
Minimum class sizes are established and if the minimum is not met, the class is not held. Occasionally a
new class will be allowed slightly below the minimum to get it started and if there is potential to build.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Concerts in the Park were funded entirely by sponsorship. Mr.
McIntosh answered the performer fees were paid by sponsors.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about reimbursement for special events. Mr. McIntosh advised the
Taste of Edmonds and the Edmonds Arts Festival pay a rental fee for use of the space.
Public Works
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented Bremerton, which is 10% smaller than Edmonds but in
the same geographic area, has 130-135 FTE in Public Works & Utilities compared to Edmonds’s 75
employees. He described Edmonds Public Works Department:
• 75 (authorized for 78) dedicated public employees with the education, training, experience and
certifications necessary to maintain the City’s extensive above ground and buried infrastructure
• Manage 40% of the City’s expenditure budget in six major funds
Packet Page 31 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 8
• Deliver 1.1 billion gallons of water to customer each year (3 million gallons per day) with no
water quality violations or defects
• Collect and treat over 2 billion gallons of residential and commercial wastewater at our regional
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) with zero violations YTD 2010 and have collected 6
outstanding performance annual awards
• WWTP located in the heart of downtown with very few odor or noise complaints
• Operate and maintain 14 wastewater lift stations, 1 water pump station and 20 pressure reducing
valve stations, 2100 valves, 2000 hydrants, 4 reservoirs (7.5 million gallons), 3,300 manholes,
180 miles of water mains and 190 miles of sewer mains
• Maintain 133 center line miles (288 lane miles) of paved surface in City right-of-way, 123 City-
owned streetlights, 18 signalized intersections, and 5,625 signs
• Maintain 7,077 catch basins, cleaning about 6,000/year, 571 public and private ditches or creeks
• Maintain, fuel and replace as necessary 158 pieces of rolling stock, 92 in Public Works &
Utilities
• Maintain and operate/maintain 20 major public buildings or facilities
He reviewed a list of required services:
• Maintain City buildings/facilities
• Maintain traffic signals, curbs, sidewalks, crosswalks, striping, signs, street lights, drainage
channels, etc.
• Maintain all paved surfaces in City right-of-way
• Comply with all NPDES Phase II Stormwater Regulations and permit requirements
• Comply with SDWA water utility and State Water Efficiency regulations
• Maintain all water and sewer lines, valves, hydrants, PRVs, water/sewer pump stations,
reservoirs, SCADA systems
• Comply with all NPDES Permit parameters for water quality and maintenance
• Maintain and replace City vehicles
• Site development review permitting
• Design improvements to City facilities, parks and public spaces, and utility systems
• Manage right-of-way franchises and permits
• Public records maintenance and archiving
Other services Public Works provides include:
• Community event support
• Street banners and support signage
• Recycling and waste reduction public information
• Environmental initiative support
• General public assistance and information
He described the General Fund percentage of the Public Works budget:
• Public Works Administration – 1%
• Engineering (development & permit review) – 2.5%
• Facilities (building maintenance) – 5.5%
• Fleet maintenance - $1.6%
• Total – 10.2%
Mr. Williams provided a comparison of the Public Works & Utilities Department budget by cost center
(administration, engineering, facilities, street, stormwater, water, sewer, treatment plant and fleet). The
2009 budget was $19,502,321 compared with $21,434,600 in 2010. He commented most cost centers
were stable year-to-year; the sewer cost center varies depending on the number of capital projects. The
Packet Page 32 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 9
fleet cost center varies due to vehicle purchases and fuel costs. He also provided a pie chart comparing
Public Works Department expenditure by cost center.
He reviewed staffing, projects to be undertaken and decision packages by cost center:
Public Works Administration
• 2011 will include Noel Miller separation payouts
• No other changes in 2011
Engineering
• 2011 capital program approximately $12.5 million ($5.3 million in 2010)
• Filling Senior Utilities Engineer position authorized in 2010 budget
• Begin a 100-year flood study for Edmonds Marsh and surrounding properties
• Complete a stormwater project addressing property flooding and stream restoration along
Perrinville Creek off Talbot Road
• Begin engineering design on four sewer main replacement
• Complete design and begin construction on the 2011 water main replacement project
• Complete construction on the 226th walkway project
• Decision package: Stormwater Technician ($92,0880) funded by increased stormwater rates
Facilities
• City owned or maintained facilities include:
o Police, Courts, Council Chambers
o Fire Station #17
o Frances Anderson Center
o Public Works O&M Center
o Fire Station #16
o Meadowdale Club House
o Historical Museum
o Wade James Theater
o Boys & Girls Club
o City Hall
o Library
o Senior Center
o Fire Station #20
o Parks Maintenance Building
o Log Cabin
o Old Public Works
o Grandstand
o Cemetery
o Fishing Pier/Ranger’s Station
o Yost Pool
• Decision Package: Energy Plan ($25,000) funded 50% Utilities and 50% General Fund
Streets/Stormwater
Streets
• Primary issue is paving preservation
• Depending on the outcome of the TBD proposal, begin either a robust paving and pavement
preservation program or look to expand future crack sealing efforts and pothole repair
• Continue sidewalk inspection program with targeted 25 repair projects
• Start early in 2011 with striping
• Begin replacement of signal cabinets when funding allows
Packet Page 33 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 10
• Decision package: Road rating survey ($25,000) funded via Street Revenue Fund
Stormwater
• Continue efforts to implement NPDES Phase II
• 2011 will be the first year for inspections of 465 privately owned and operated
detention/treatment facilities and 106 public facilities
• Continued catch basin maintenance program by pumping 6,000 structures
• Develop alternatives to Public Works shop for decanting of pumped wastes
• Rates increased 8%
• Decision package: Stormwater Maintenance Worker I ($62,000) funded by increases stormwater
rates
Wastewater Treatment Facility
• Convert burner for incinerator from diesel to natural gas to reduce expense for auxiliary fuel
• Work with PUD and BPA to identify, design and install or modify equipment to reduce electrical
usage
• Modify the disinfection system to make it more robust
• Rehabilitate (sandblast and coast) steel in settling tanks so that the steel doesn’t need to be
replaced
• Install a new Automatic Transfer Switch that controls whether PUD or a backup generator
supplies power to the plant
• Install a fiber optic cable network in the plant to replace an existing, overloaded wire cable
• Replace or install a number of variable frequency drives to motors to improve energy efficiency
Water/Sewer
Sewer (collection/conveyance)
• No rate increase in 2011
• With debt reduction from 2008, resources available to rebuild 9 wastewater pump stations –
construction in 2011
• Coordinate with Engineering and a contractor to dig and replace 4 runs of high-maintenance
sewer lines
• New work for 2011 includes GIS integration for manholes, lift stations and sewer line video
Water
• New work for 2011 includes GIS integration for PRVs valves, hydrants, meter boxes, blow-offs
• Approximately $4 million in new water mains for 2011
• Rate increase of $7.5% for 2011
• Decision package: new Capital Facility Charges ($22,000) funded 1/3 Water, 1/3 Wastewater
and 1/3 Storm
Equipment Rental (Fleet)
• Maintain 158 pieces of rolling stock
• 2011 purchase of 9 patrol vehicle in a pre-purchase for both 2011 and 2012 due to Ford
eliminating the Crown Victoria in 2012
• Total replacement budget approximately $345,500 in 2011
• Current direction is to restart contributions to the “B” Fund for replacements of General Fund
vehicle as part of 2011 budget
• Purchase of four gas/electric hybrids in 2011
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were funds in the Fleet budget for purchase and/or maintenance of
fire vehicles. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines advised there was approximately $200,000 for an aid car
and other vehicles and $500,000 for a new fire engine. The amendment currently before Council proposes
to move those funds out of the “B” fund back into the General Fund, the source of those contributions.
Packet Page 34 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 11
Councilmember Plunkett remarked further Council discussion may be warranted regarding the use of
those funds.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the amount of Public Works community event support. Mr.
Williams offered to provide the amount. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether consideration had been
given to charging the events for the service that Public Works provides. Mr. Williams answered most
groups are struggling to put on events and it would be impossible to collect the value of those services.
He noted many of the events are beneficial to the City.
Councilmember Plunkett observed capital expenditures are twice as much in 2011 compared to 2010. Mr.
Williams advised with the Council’s recent approval of the Water Comprehensive Plan and the rate
increase as well as the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and the rate increase, there are resources
available to complete the projects contained in those Plans.
Councilmember Peterson referred to the 1.6% for Public Works administration which was remarkably
low and the difference in Public Works & Utility FTE in Edmonds compared to Bremerton. He asked
whether other cities’ administrative percentage was as low as Edmonds. Mr. Williams answered he had
not done a comparison study. He anticipated it was lower than most, remarking there were many
remarkable employees in Public Works who do a very good job managing their divisions and do not
require a great deal of oversight.
Councilmember Peterson commented on the lack of middle management in Public Works, asking whether
that structure was unique to Edmonds. Mr. Williams agreed the department is structured in a lean manner.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the $700,000 for fire vehicle shown as an expenditure in the five
year forecast.
Mayor Cooper declared a brief recess.
Development Services Department
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained there is currently no Development Services Director. Most
Department operations are programs designed to meet the requirements of federal, state and locally
mandated laws and codes as well as some discretionary services. The Department is comprised of the
Building Division and the Planning Division. He reviewed the 2009 and 2010 budget and estimated year
end expenditures by division.
Division Year Budget Year End (Est)
Administration
(Dir, Reception & Code
Enforcement
2009 $398,070 $383,085
2010 $468,883 $251,498
Building 2009 $734,570 $639,958
2010 $786,904 $679,584
Planning 2009 $691,692 $667,243
2010 $747,985 $724,218
Total Department 2009 $1,824,332 $1,690,286
2010 $2,003,772 $1,655,300
Revenues
2009
$533,678
2010 $660,000
Packet Page 35 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 12
Building Official Leonard Yarberry and Mr. Chave reviewed mandated services:
• General Department Administration
o Maintain receipts and cash records
o Respond to formal public records requests
• Building Permit Administration
o Accept, review and issue bldg permit applications
o Coordinate interdepartmental reviews
o Monitor and implement state changes to building codes
• Building Plan Review and Inspections
o Review permit applications and plans for compliance with adopted codes and standards
o Conduct building inspections for life safety and minimum building code requirements
• Comprehensive Planning
o Comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) including coordination with other
agencies
o GMA mandated regional policies, growth targets, Buildable Lands (County, PSRC)
• GMA – Land Use Consistency
o Update codes to ensure consistency with Comprehensive Plan
• Land Use Permit Administration
o Accept, review and issue land use permit applications
o Coordinate interdepartmental reviews
o Staff support to Hearing Examiner, ADB, Planning Board, Historic Commission, Mayor’s
Climate Committee
Other services provided by the Department include:
• Code Enforcement
o Process code compliance complaints dealing with building, planning and engineering issues
o Inspect properties for violations
o Provide public information
• Public Information
o Provide public information via permit counter/phone/email/letters regarding building and
land use questions, code enforcement and permit inquiries
o Maintain public handouts
o Provide online permit information
• GIS Mapping
o Development Services is responsible for assigning and maintaining the addressing for the
City
o Providing mapping and geographic information to support operations, including required
GMA and zoning document and policy analysis
• Disaster Response
Mr. Chave described Department staffing:
• Administration: 3 FTE
• Planning: 6 FTE
• Building: 4 FTE
• Permitting: 3 FTE
The current level of 16 FTE is 2 employees less than in 2006. The current staffing level is the same
number of employees per 1,000 population as existed in 1985. Since 1985 permanent staffing levels have
tracked with population rather than permitting activity; temporary employees were used during the recent
peak permitting periods. Mr. Chave displayed a graph comparing Development Services employment
with building permits 1985-2010, concluding staffing levels have been consistent during that time.. He
also displayed a graph of building revenue history 1985-2010.
Packet Page 36 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 13
Mr. Yarberry reviewed a comparison of building permit revenues 2005-2010 (YTD and estimate) and a
comparison of single family permits 2006-2010 YTD. He reviewed proposed changes in the 2011
Development Services budget:
• Reductions
o Administration – reduced supplies: ($4,700)
o Building – reduced professional services, repairs/maintenance: ($67,800)
o Planning – reduced professional Services: ($20,000)
• One time addition
o Planning – Professional Services UW Study: $31,550
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the savings in the Administration line of the Development
Services 2010 budget. Mr. Chave advised the majority of the savings was the Development Services
Director salary and benefits; there were also savings in professional services. He advised the 2011 budget
includes the Development Services Director position. Mayor Cooper explained his plan was to discuss
advertising for that position with staff within the next month. The last recruitment effort did not result in a
candidate that was acceptable to the former Mayor. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mayor Cooper
first confer with the Council regarding whether they wanted to fund that position.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about contracting out permitting. Mr. Chave answered Planning
experimented with contracting with professional consultants during the period of high permit activity and
found it was more expensive. Hiring temporary planning assistance during the peak period cost less than
half the cost of contracting. Mr. Yarberry responded contracting out permitting was a model that some
cities utilized and many of the standard building code inspections could be done in that manner. The
difficulty in contracting for those services was obtaining the same level of service for review of items
specific to Edmonds such as setbacks, height, etc. If the Council chose to use that model, the fees likely
would need to be adjusted.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the graph illustrated the number of employees has tracked with
the population, relaying a question that is often asked, why the City has not laid off staff in the
Development Services Department during this recession. Mr. Chave answered staffing was never
increased during recent peaks in development activity. Staff worked very hard to keep up during that time
and it was very stressful. He concluded the department was now staffed appropriately.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Department was charging as much as it could. Mr. Chave
answered it was time to do a thorough analysis of the City’s fees. The City has done a good job
recovering building fees but there is a great deal of room left. Planning fees legislatively have been kept
somewhat lower. Councilmember Plunkett commented Seattle’s expenses are covered by fees. Mr. Chave
explained some services are not covered by fees such as public information, compliance with GMA, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the cost of a building permit should cover the cost. Mr. Chave agreed,
noting the policy has been to achieve close to 100% recovery. To maintain that recovery over time, the
fees may need to be increased especially for building permits, planning permits, etc. Councilmember
Plunkett asked whether an analysis of the fees could be completed in time for the upcoming budget. Mr.
Chave did not think so.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizens Levy Committee was reviewing the City’s overall use of
consultants. She inquired about the $350,000 for professional services for Development Services in the
budget book. Mr. Chave answered Planning’s professional services include Hearing Examiner and a
professional minute taker for several Boards and Commissions. The Administration professional services
budget is quite small.
Packet Page 37 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 14
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the code rewrite was primarily performed in-house. Mr. Chave
answered it was; the proposed $20,000 savings in professional services was for the code rewrite. He
advised City Attorney Scott Snyder’s review of the code rewrite was reflected in the City Attorney’s
budget. Mr. Yarberry noted the professional services budget for Building was proposed to be reduced by
approximately 65% over last year’s budget. That was due to a philosophical shift in performing many of
those functions in-house as well as due to reduced workloads.
Community Services and Economic Development Departments
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton thanked Mr. Chave and Mr.
Yarberry for their assistance in co-managing the Development Services Department since that position
was vacated in April 2009. He explained he also assists with managing the Development Services
Department as well as meets with the Building Office, City Engineer and Planning Manager weekly to
discuss issues of significance, potential code amendments, etc.
He explained both the Community Services and Economic Development Departments are funded via the
General Fund. In the ten years he has been employed by the city, he has secured grants to cover his salary
by at least 4 times. Mr. Clifton reviewed the Departments 2009 and 2010 budget:
Department Year Budget Actual
Economic Development 2009 $79,700 $46,700
2010 $79,700
Community Services 2009 $312,025
2010 $326,699
Combined 2009 $465,369 $391,725
2010 $406,399
He proposed combining the Community Services and Economic Development Departments which
eliminates the need to hire two directors. He would maintain his existing capacity as the Director of both
departments. This also reduces expenditures related to supplies, miscellaneous travel small equipment and
advertising. He reviewed responsibilities of the Community Services Department and specific projects
related to each:
• Support Mayor, City Council and Department Directors
• Develop long and short term policies and strategies
o City budget
o Annual Legislative Agenda
o Work with City Directors on Plans and Programs
• Plan, coordinate and implement major and special projects
o Edmonds Crossing
o Sound Transit Edmonds Station
o Sound Transit North Corridor Light Rail Policy Advisory Committee
o Edmonds Center for the Arts
o Fire Station 16
o Unocal Cleanup & Unocal Lower Yard Purchase and Sale Agreement
o 2009 Levy Workgroup and 2010 Levy Committee
o Community Outreach Committee
o Community Technology Advisory Committee
o Unocal Pier Removal
o Transportation Benefit District (1st year administration)
• Contract negotiations and administration
o Legal documents, Interlocal Agreement, Memorandums of Understanding
o Telecommunications and Franchise Agreements (renewal and administration)
Packet Page 38 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 15
o Government relations and environmental contracts
• Local and regional liaison
He reviewed responsibilities of the Economic Development Department and specific projects related to
each:
• Staff the Economic Development Commission
• Work with Chamber of Commerce, Port, business community and tourism entities
o Chamber of Commerce Economic Development and Marketing Committees
o Washington State Department of Commerce
o Snohomish County Economic Development Council
o Puget sound Regional Council Prosperity Partnership
o Promotion, Marketing, Tourism, Permitting
• Business retention, recruitment, expansion and education
o Work with Edmonds Community College and Chamber of Commerce to promote business
education which helps effect retention and expansion
• Highway 99 Task Force and Highway 99 Enhancement Project
• Policy development and implementation
Other services the Departments offer include:
• Local and regional liaison
o Work and communicate with local, county, state and federal representatives
o Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordination Committee
o Puget Sound Regional Council
o Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and Port
o Snohomish County
o Washington State
o Washington State Department of Transportation
o Sound Transit
o WSDOT Ferries
• State and federal appropriations and grants (examples)
o Edmonds Crossing ($6.5 million of $12.3 million as of April 2008)
o Edmonds Crossing (State $26 million - $58 million)
o Federal Stimulus Funding ($1 million)
o Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant ($160,200)
• Disaster Recovery Coordinator
o Plan development (first city in Snohomish County to adopt a recovery plan)
o Implementation
• Government channel 21 and website oversight and enhancement/updates
He reviewed Community Services Economic Development Department expenditures since 2000,
highlighting substantial savings in the Community Development Department in 2009 and 2010. He
proposed the following changes in the Community Services and Economic Development Departments’
2011 budgets:
Expenditure Community Services % change Economic
Development
% change
2010 2011 2011 20101
Supplies $2,000 $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,500
Small Equip $ 400 $ 800
Travel $2,000 $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 3,000
Advertising $1,060 $ 500 $25,000 $40,000
Miscellaneous $2,000 $1,500
Packet Page 39 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 16
Total $7,060 $4,000 -43% $27,400 $46,300 -37%
Strategic Plan $100,000
Mr. Clifton explained the Economic Development Commission (EDC) plans to submit a request to the
City Council for $100,000 to fund a Strategic Plan. Resolution 1224 adopted by the Council supports the
creation of a Strategic Plan as one of the six high priority recommendations from the EDC. An EDC
Strategic Planning Subgroup prepared a report highlighting the need for a Strategic Plan, its purpose and
providing a roadmap for the Council to better address issues in the future.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Economic Development Commission recommended a full-time
Economic Development Director. She asked if the resolution would need to be changed if the Community
Services and Economic Development Departments were combined. Mr. Clifton responded the proposal to
combine the departments was in recognition of the current economic situation and that the City cannot
afford two directors. If the City hires a Development Services Director, he has identified several tasks he
would like to transfer to that position to free up his time to focus on community services and economic
development.
City Clerk’s Office
City Clerk Sandy Chase provided the Clerk’s Office annual budget:
• 2009 - $540,437 ($474,000 actual)
• 2010 - $524,619
The Clerk’s office also generates approximately $200,000/year in revenue from business license fees. The
Clerk’s office collects parking permit fees and a portion of one employee’s salary is covered by those
fees.
Mandated services provided by the City Clerk’s Office include:
• City Council Meeting agenda/packet/minutes
o Coordinate weekly agenda and packets
o Preparation, approvals, delivery
o Special meeting and public hearing notification
o Coordinate preparation and distribution of official minutes
• Ordinances, resolutions, codification
o Assure accuracy of documents
o Coordinate codification of ordinances into the City Code books
• Records management
o Responsible for two off-site archive centers
o Arrange for annual destruction of records
o Provide citywide training
o Arrange for microfilming and protection of essential/permanent records annual
o Transfer records to State Archives`
• Public records requests
o City Clerk is public records officer of the City per City Code Chapter 1.20.010
o Track request, must respond within 5 working days
o Annual citywide training provided
• Business licenses
o Renew business licenses annually (approximately 2,000 in-City business, 1,700 out of City
businesses
o Issue new business licenses (approximately 350 annually)
• Claims for damages, litigation
Packet Page 40 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 17
o Receive claims and lawsuits on behalf of City
o Notification, track, assemble record
Other services the City Clerk’s office provides include:
• Monitor all City contracts
o All contracts/agreements on file in the City Clerk’s office
o Tracked for expiration dates and notify departments
• Parking permits
o Downtown residential, visitor, employee, recreational vehicle, ride share, and 4th Avenue lot
o Receipt, issue and track all permits
• City Hall reception services
o Answer main phone line for City departments
o Greet all visitors, provide directions
o Issue appropriate badges
• Department-wide mail services
o Sort incoming mail, post all outgoing mail
o Bulk mail permit, UPS, Fed-Ex services
• Notarize and Certify Documents; Attest to Mayor’s Signature
o Provide notary services related to city generated documents
o Attest to Mayor’s signature on legal documents
o Certified official City records
• Recording of all City documents
o Record documents for all departments at Snohomish County; maintain files of all recorded
documents
• Miscellaneous
o Research requests
o Elections
o Special event applications
o Citywide office supplies and equipment contract
o Dangerous dog registrations
o Population count
Ms. Chase described impacts of previous budget cuts on the City Clerk’s Office:
• In 2000, the City Clerk’s Office had 6 employees
• Due to budget concerns, in 2001 staff was reduced to 5
• Due to budget concerns, in 2009 staff was reduced to 4
Ms. Chase described the City Clerk’s Office preliminary proposed budget change:
• Reinstate the position in the City Clerk’s Office that has not been filled since 2009. The position
would be dedicated to requests for public records and records management
• This is a previously authorized position; the proposal is to fund the position. The amount to be
budgeted: $63,000
She relayed the City Attorney’s suggestion to have an additional staff person in the City Clerk’s Office
trained to do some of the things the City Attorney does with regard to public records requests. She noted
the biggest impact with regard to public records requests has been the all-encompassing nature of requests
for emails.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether all emails could be available to the public via a link from the
City’s website. Ms. Chase explained all emails would still need to be reviewed and any redaction done
before they were placed online. If that began now and was done on a daily basis, it would not be such an
Packet Page 41 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 18
overwhelming task when a request is submitted. That could not be accomplished without the proposed
staff person.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there were any fees that could be increased to cover the cost. Ms.
Chase answered the law related to public records requests is very specific with regard to fees. The ability
to make email available online would place the burden on the citizen to search. There will still be people
who do not have access to a computer or do not have the ability to conduct their own search.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained there has been a bill proposed that would allow the public to view
documents via a link on the City’s website rather than providing hardcopy documents. The long term cost
savings would be staff time and paper. With regard to emails on the City’s website, a staff member would
be trained to identify certain emails for review by the City Attorney. Mayor Cooper advised the City
cannot charge for electronic information or the time it takes to create the record. The Clerk’s Office must
also create a paper copy if requested.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether any consideration has been given to contracting out archiving.
Ms. Chase explained the Washington State Records Retention Schedule states how long documents must
be retained and how the documents are stored. The City has two offsite archive centers, at the old Public
Works building and at the new Public Works building; both are reaching capacity. Other storage options
particularly for storage of permanent records will need to be researched. She advised essential records are
microfilmed on an annual basis.
Administrative Services Department
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines reviewed the Department’s annual budget:
Cost Center Year
Finance 2009 $ 632,107 (actual)
2010 666,762
Information Services 2009 464,183 (actual)
2010 633,959
Fiber Optics Project 2009 169,883 (actual)
2010 113,600
Non-Departmental 2009 5,029,595 (actual)
2010 12,051,215
Total Administrative Services 2009 $ 6,295,768 (actual)
2010 $13,465,536 (includes Fire District 1 contract)
Mandated services provided by the Department include:
• Budgeting
o RCW 35A contains provisions for annual and biennial budgets, including review and
modification
• Financial reporting
o Pursuant to RCW 43.09.230 Annual Reports are to be certified and filed with the State
Auditor’s Office within 150 days after the close of each fiscal year
o Additionally the City prepares annual financial statements in conformation with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP)
o Cash reporting
o Payroll
o Utility billing
o Accounts payable
o Accounts receivable
Packet Page 42 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 19
o Special assessments
Other services provided by the Department include:
• Risk management
o Liaison for Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA)
• Internal audits
o Surprise cash counts, inventory, utility account monitoring
• Grant monitoring
• Departmental support
• Cash management
o Invest surplus funds
• Special projects
He described services provided by Information Services, 3 FTE for 210 users (employees and City
Councilmembers). He explained the Non-departmental cost center is used to segregate all costs not
directly identifiable to a department/division. Expenditure examples include election costs voter
registration, insurance, audit fees, SNOCOM, ESCA, debt service payments, and transfers to other funds.
He reviewed staffing changes due to reductions in staff:
Staffing as of January 1, 2008 – 8 FTE Staffing as of August 1, 2010 – 6 FTE
Administrative Services Director Finance Director
Assistant Administrative Services Director
Accountant – General Government Operations
Accountant – Enterprise Fund & Capital Accountant
Utility billing Utility Billing
Payroll technician Payroll technician
Accounting Assistant – Accounts Payable Accounting Assistant
Accounting Assistant – Treasury Executive Assistant
Mr. Hines advised consideration is being given to a 2011 decision package to hire a GIS analyst to assist
with Public Works projects and Planning. This service is currently provided by contract. There also may
be a reduction proposed in the budget for the Fiber Optics program.
Human Resources Department
Human Resources Director Debi Humann described the functions of Human Resources Department:
• Administration of all employee benefit programs including
o Health insurance/EAP
o Federal and State law compliance (FMLA, ADA, EEO, harassment, etc.)
o L&I/Workers’ Comp processing and claims handling
o MEBT
o Deferred Compensation/AFLAC
• LEOFF 1 policy development, claims approval, and fund distribution
• City Personnel Policy Development
• Policy and collective bargaining interpretation and application
• Legally complaint recruitment/selection processes including State of WA archival compliance
• Job description/classification maintenance
• Conflict resolution with supervisors and employees including performance improvement,
discipline issues, terminations, handing grievances, etc.
• Union contract negotiations
• All employee issues involving counseling, illness, divorce, death, etc.
• Compensation program development and administration
Packet Page 43 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 20
• Civil Service Commission – serve as Chief Examiner
• Disability Board – serve as staff liaison
Ms. Humann summarized Human Resources is involved in or supports employees from hire to retirement
or separation from service. She explained Human Resources is comprised of three parts, Human
Resources, Civil Service, and LEOFF 1. She reviewed preliminary proposed budget changes for the
Human Services Department and Civil Service:
Human Services 2010 Budget 2011 Budget Change
Supplies $ 2,756 $ 2,500 ($256)
Small Equip $ 100 $ 100 --
Professional Services $14,500 $14,000 ($500)
Communications -- $ 500 $500
Travel $ 500 $ 500 --
Advertising $10,000 $10,000 --
Miscellaneous $12,230 $12,230 --
Civil Service
Professional Services $10,000 $10,000 --
Miscellaneous $ 180 $ 180 --
She reviewed past HR staffing reductions:
• In 1999 HR had 3 full time staff members (Director, HR Analysis and HR Assistant)
• In 2004, staffing dropped to 2 FTEs
• Currently 2 FTEs support approximately 207 employees, 33 LEOFF 1 members, numerous
retirees and summer season employees and City Councilmembers
She provided a comparison of HR staffing to number of City FTEs in cities comparable to Edmonds by
population. Edmonds is second to last with a ratio of 1 HR staff member to 104 employees. She pointed
out this ratio does not include the 33 LEOFF 1 members, summer seasonal employees or retirees. She
summarized although this comparison illustrated the staffing in HR, it represents how the City staffs in
most departments; Edmonds is well known for lean staffing.
She described past City reduction:
• Cuts have been made to staffing and programs since 1999
• Cuts included layoffs in 2002
• In 2009, Teamsters, SEIU, and non-represented employees took 9 furlough days which resulted in
a savings of $428,000
• In 2009, non-represented employees’ merit increases (additional 3% savings) were frozen
Ms. Humann reviewed HR's decision package
• The Health Benefits Committee has been looking at new health insurance options as a result of
AWC’s announcement that the two medical plans will no longer be available after January 1,
2012.
• The process included hiring a broker/consultant to “go to market” and bring back alternatives.
Wells Fargo was selected as the broker. They plan to present alternatives the third week of
September.
• The cost to “go to market” was $21,500 which was approved by the Council at the August 3,
2010 meeting.
• If broker provided health plans are selected, the cost for 2011 will be $42,500.
Ms. Humann explained the LEOFF 1 pension system includes any firefighter or law enforcement officer
who worked in a full time capacity and whose membership transferred to the WA Law Enforcement
Packet Page 44 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 21
Officers and Firefighters retirement system on or after March 1, 1970. Edmonds currently has 33 LEOFF
1 members. The City is obligated under RCW 41.26 to pay all “medically necessary” costs. For 2010,
$376,566 was transferred from the General Fund to cover LEOFF 1 expenditures. An additional
augmentation of $124,000 will be transferred to this fund to pay estimated 2010 costs. Approximately
$500,000 annually is required to pay LEOFF 1 expenses per the requirements of RCW 41.26. These costs
are mandatory and paid from the General Fund.
Council President Bernheim recalled the presentation regarding healthcare options was scheduled for the
September 14 meeting. Ms. Humann relayed Wells Fargo indicated the information will not be available
until the second or third week of September.
Council President Bernheim asked the impact on Human Resources Department of the sale of the Fire
Department. Ms. Humann responded although one would think there would be a large impact with the
reduction of 54 personnel, Fire Department employees handle most of their own issues and would only
come to HR with large personnel problems that needed investigation or advice. Since the sale of the Fire
Department, staff has been involved in negotiations, healthcare insurance comparisons, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the City was responsible for healthcare of the 33 LEOFF 1 members.
He asked how much was budgeted per year for their healthcare expenses. Ms. Humann answered
approximately $500,000 is budgeted per year. Councilmember Plunkett observed one person could
expend $500,000 in a catastrophic situation. Ms. Humann explained all cities that hired LEOFF 1
individuals are now responsible for the costs associated with their medical care; none of the cites receive
any funding for those costs. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the LEOFF 1 members had any insurance,
noting when they reached age 65, they would be covered by Medicare. Ms. Humann explained the
LEOFF 1 individuals are covered under the City’s Regence A healthcare plan. The City is responsible for
the premiums, co-pays for medication and anything that is not covered by Regence that the Disability
Board, comprised of two Councilmembers, LEOFF 1 members, Human Resources Assistant MaryAnn
Hardie and herself, deems medically necessary. The City does not have long term care insurance for these
individuals as it is cost prohibitive. For example one individual’s long term care is approximately
$85,000/year.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how many members were close to age 65. Ms. Humann answered the
average age is 74, the oldest is 89 and the youngest is 63. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out once the
individuals reached age 65, they were covered by Medicare. Ms. Humann pointed out there were many
expenses that Medicare did not pay such as long term care.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled former Mayor Haakenson, Ms. Humann and she discussed this
previously; the City is unable to fund the entire liability. Ms. Humann agreed, noting it was a $10 million
liability. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized according to actuaries and what other cities do,
Edmonds is fully funded.
4. QUESTIONS
Questions were asked following each department’s presentation.
5. MAYOR’S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper suggested Councilmembers address priorities or other budget considerations that were not
addressed in tonight’s presentation. Mayor Cooper reviewed next steps:
• Councilmembers Wilson and Fraley-Monillas will be provided the presentation on Friday.
• His office is in the final stages of development of an online community survey that will allow
citizens to rank their priorities as well as rate the performance of the City in a variety of areas.
Packet Page 45 of 319
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 31, 2010
Page 22
• When the September economic forecast is released, a determination will be made regarding
whether further cuts are needed.
• Survey feedback will also assist with determining where cuts can be made.
• A streamlined version of this presentation will be provided to community stakeholder groups.
• The preliminary Mayor’s budget will be presented to the Council in early October.
6. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested posting the PowerPoint presentation on the City’s website. She
referred to a list of budget actions taken by other cities that she provided at the last Council meeting.
Councilmember Petso advised she would follow-up via email with any further comments/questions.
Councilmember Peterson thanked staff for the presentation, remarking it was very eye-opening. His
priorities included:
• Investment in IT staff and infrastructure as it would also benefit other departments.
• Requests for employees – although Edmonds has historically done more with less, at some point
less is done with less.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked the Directors and Mayor Cooper for the presentations.
Council President Bernheim also thanked staff for the presentations. He was generally favorably
impressed by the wisdom and restraint exhibited by each department’s proposals. He was in favor of most
of the proposals as long as there were sufficient funds available which may include higher taxes. He
pointed out it was up to the citizens of Edmonds to decide what they wanted; if they want deteriorated
services because they are fed up with government, that will be the result.
Mayor Cooper assured the Council would be provided a balanced budget in October; expenditures will be
balanced to revenue projections. It will be up to the Council to decide whether to ask voters for additional
revenue. Even with a levy, those funds will not be collected in 2011; therefore the 2011 budget must be
balanced with the revenue that is available. He was uncertain at this time whether the requested decision
packages could be funded.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Packet Page 46 of 319
AM-3352 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #120864 through #120962 dated August 26, 2010 for $431,895.06, and claim
checks #120963 through #121100 dated September 2, 2010 for $339,226.45. Approval of payroll direct
deposit and checks #49749 through #49806 for the period August 16, 2010 through August 31, 2010 for
$662,509.81.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,433,631.32
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $771,121.51
Payroll: $662,509.81
Attachments
claim check 8-26-10
claim checks 9-2-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 09/02/2010 08:58 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 47 of 319
Packet Page 48 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120864 8/26/2010 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 810108 SHIRTS
VOLLEYBALL AND SOFTBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 819.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 77.83
Total :897.13
120865 8/26/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 11590 PLAQUE
PLAQUE FOR BENCH @ HICKMAN PARK
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 159.40
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 6.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 15.76
Total :181.66
120866 8/26/2010 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC RH38 EDMONDS
NPDES SAMPLING
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 130.00
Total :130.00
120867 8/26/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0820 PLAZA ROOM MONITORING
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR FOR 8/20, 8/21 AND
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 295.00
Total :295.00
120868 8/26/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5075021 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.16
120869 8/26/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5075026 21580001
UNIFORM
1Page:
Packet Page 49 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120869 8/26/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.44
Total :74.22
120870 8/26/2010 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 77185 PETANQUE SIGNS REVISIONS
REVISING OF PETANQUE SIGNS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 350.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.25
Total :383.25
120871 8/26/2010 072044 AUTUMNS FRAMING & GALLERY LLC 7318 Lobby Mayoral Photo Frame
Lobby Mayoral Photo Frame
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 50.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 4.79
Total :55.25
120872 8/26/2010 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 74616 TROPHY PLAQUES
PLAQUES FOR SOFTBALL TROPHIES
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 279.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 26.51
TENNIS74644
TENNIS AWARDS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 29.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 2.76
Total :337.32
120873 8/26/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST September 2010 SEPTEMBER 2010 AWC PREMIUMS
09/10 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,197.55
09/10 Retirees AWC Premiums
2Page:
Packet Page 50 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120873 8/26/2010 (Continued)001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 27,322.73
09/10 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 261,122.77
Total :292,643.05
120874 8/26/2010 073375 BANK OF NEW YORK 4-07675 RE: #611001708 LMO UTILITY REFUND
RE: 611001708 LMO UB Ref 4-07675
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 68.61
Total :68.61
120875 8/26/2010 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP12322 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #12322
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 4,576.00
Total :4,576.00
120876 8/26/2010 060502 BERG, COLIN BERG12400 TAI CHI CLASSES
TAI CHI #12400
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 343.70
Total :343.70
120877 8/26/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN12518 YOGA CLASSES
PILATES YOGA FUSION #12528
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 163.80
YOGA #12518
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 220.50
Total :384.30
120878 8/26/2010 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK12242 ART FOR KIDZ
ART FOR KIDZ - MINI MARKERS #12242
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 408.80
ART FOR KIDZ - MINI MARKERS #12244
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 459.90
Total :868.70
120879 8/26/2010 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL12719 SKAGIT BAY KAYAK TOUR
SKAGIT BAY KAYAK TOUR #12719
3Page:
Packet Page 51 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120879 8/26/2010 (Continued)071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 248.40
Total :248.40
120880 8/26/2010 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 10226873 INV# 10226873 CUST# 572105 EDMONDS PD
copier rental
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 55.25
Total :636.85
120881 8/26/2010 068484 CEMEX 9419530677 REPLACES LOST CK 119817 7/1/10
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 40.71
REPLACES LOST CK 119817 7/1/109419530680
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 245.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.28
REPLACES LOST CK 119817 7/1/109419571417
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 164.00
REPLACES LOST CK 119817 7/1/109419571418
Street - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 717.82
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 68.19
REPLACES LOST CK 119817 7/1/109419579507
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 76.62
REPLACES LOST CK 119817 7/1/109419579508
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 464.10
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 42.70
4Page:
Packet Page 52 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,842.421208818/26/2010 068484 068484 CEMEX
120882 8/26/2010 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E0LA E0LA.ROW CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
E0LA.ROW Construction Permit
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 260.00
Total :260.00
120883 8/26/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8076 INV# 8076 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD - JUNE R&B
PRISONER R&B JUNE 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 1,382.83
INV# 8082 CUST#47 EDMONDS JULY 2010 R&B8082
PRISONER R&B JULY 2010
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 466.25
INV 8086 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD8086
NARC NEXTEL PHONES - JULY 2010
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.37
INV #8087 CUST # 1430 EDMONDS PD8087
VERIZON PHONES FOR NARCS
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 51.23
Total :1,956.68
120884 8/26/2010 073292 COBURN, KAI COBURN0816 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 8/2 -
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00
Total :144.00
120885 8/26/2010 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC Aug-10 C/A CITYOED00001
Aug-10 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 913.50
Total :913.50
120886 8/26/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2011-BA0024058 BIOSOLIDS PERMIT
BIOSOLIDS PERMIT
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 800.42
Total :800.42
120887 8/26/2010 006635 DEPT OF LICENSING 1033 W STORAGE TANK/LICENSE RENEWAL
5Page:
Packet Page 53 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120887 8/26/2010 (Continued)006635 DEPT OF LICENSING
STORAGE TANK/LICENSE RENEWAL
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 169.00
Total :169.00
120888 8/26/2010 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 00806256 J Westfall Employers portion of
J Westfall Employers portion of
001.000.510.522.300.230.00 9,151.50
Total :9,151.50
120889 8/26/2010 073368 DICK, CHRISTY DICK0818 REFUND
POOL RENTAL REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 160.00
Total :160.00
120890 8/26/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3125 MINUTE TAKING
8/16 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 195.00
Total :195.00
120891 8/26/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001210/1 PARKS & RECREATION
WATCH BATTERY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.46
Total :5.25
120892 8/26/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 25928 OIL
10/30 OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 35.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.41
ADHESIVE25970
ADHESIVE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.65
6Page:
Packet Page 54 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :46.821208928/26/2010 007675 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
120893 8/26/2010 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER0820 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR TASTE OF
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
120894 8/26/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-05125 SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.91
Total :62.91
120895 8/26/2010 069924 EIMCO WATER TECHNOLOGIES 8452010 17156
GEAR MOTOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,359.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 129.11
Total :1,488.11
120896 8/26/2010 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG12304 TAEKWON-DO CLASSES
TAEKWON-DO BEGINNING #12304
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 44.80
Total :44.80
120897 8/26/2010 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 455979 SUPPLIES
TUBES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 151.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.43
Total :166.33
120898 8/26/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU20791 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 95.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.10
SUPPLIESWAMOU20826
7Page:
Packet Page 55 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120898 8/26/2010 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 144.01
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.91
SUPPLIESWAMOU20827
BRUSHES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 26.40
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.74
Total :296.76
120899 8/26/2010 065704 FOLSOM, ROB OMB082310 SUMMER CONCERT MANAGER
CONCERT MANAGER
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 725.00
CONCERT MANAGER
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 575.00
Total :1,300.00
120900 8/26/2010 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH12606 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #12606
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.90
IRISH DANCE 13+ #12564
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 146.25
IRISH DANCE 13+ #12568
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 339.63
Total :567.78
120901 8/26/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.60
YOST POOL425-775-2645
8Page:
Packet Page 56 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120901 8/26/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 114.30
Total :168.90
120902 8/26/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 712 0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.34
Total :56.34
120903 8/26/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9316165035 PAINTBRUSHES
CHIP PAINTBRUSHES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 96.30
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.97
SUPPORT FOOT PAD9316165043
SUPPORT FOOT PAD
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 26.60
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.35
Total :153.50
120904 8/26/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9319909355 837944131
THERMOSTAT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 80.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.64
Total :88.15
120905 8/26/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6859990 112830
ORP SENSOR/BUFFER/SPRAY WASHER
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 1,403.75
9Page:
Packet Page 57 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120905 8/26/2010 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 59.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 139.07
1128306861673
PIPET TIPS/BUFFER/STD SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 214.41
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 26.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 22.93
Total :1,867.06
120906 8/26/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1571145 0205
HOSE, MAT, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.73
02053202041
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 49.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 4.74
02056282823
LAFARGE PORT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.74
02058037121
CLAMPS, ROPE, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.39
02059047764
SAKRETE
10Page:
Packet Page 58 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120906 8/26/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.13
Total :216.01
120907 8/26/2010 063419 INTOXIMETERS INC 310599 INV 310599 CUST # WAEDM0 EDMONDS PD
DRYGAS CANISTER FOR PBTS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 128.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.96
Total :183.96
120908 8/26/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 479610 54278825
HYPOCHLORIT SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,159.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 300.15
Total :3,459.63
120909 8/26/2010 063265 KAST, CAROLYNNE KAST0819 REFUND
REFUND FOR DANCE CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 9.60
Total :9.60
120910 8/26/2010 073350 KAUSAL, ALAN G ENG2010-0196 Refund to Kausal permit was not
Refund to Kausal permit was not
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 110.00
Total :110.00
120911 8/26/2010 073372 KUECKER, ERIKA KUECKER0823 REFUND
REFUND FOR CLASS #12581
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 122.00
Total :122.00
11Page:
Packet Page 59 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120912 8/26/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 27170 TASK ORDER 10-08.NYLANDER
Task Order 10-08.Nylander
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 2,078.38
Total :2,078.38
120913 8/26/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104843 Letterhead
Letterhead
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 140.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 13.33
Total :153.63
120914 8/26/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104836 PARKS & REC LETTERHEAD
PARKS & RECREATION LETTERHEAD
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 140.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 13.33
SISTER CITY LETTERHEAD104837
LETTERHEAD
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 140.30
9.5% Sales Tax
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 13.33
CEMETERY BOARD LETTERHEAD104838
CEMETERY BOARD LETTERHEAD
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 140.30
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 13.33
Total :460.89
120915 8/26/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104845 Letterhead Stationary
Letterhead Stationary
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 140.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 13.33
Total :153.63
12Page:
Packet Page 60 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120916 8/26/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104863I EDMCTY
CALCULATOR/LAMINATING POUCHES
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 65.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 6.22
Total :71.68
120917 8/26/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104888 BUSINESS CARDS ORDER FOR PD & DEV SER.
Business Cards Jeff Jones (double sides)250-00247
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 41.00
J P Robinson250-00247
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 16.00
Ross Sutton250-00247
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 16.00
Lynn K. Mandeville250-00247
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 16.00
Linda Thornquist250-00247
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.00
Patrick Lawler250-00247
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 16.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.04
Total :132.50
120918 8/26/2010 073322 LUTES, LEONARD ENG2010.0233 Refund to Lutes - permit not necessary.
Refund to Lutes - permit not necessary.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
120919 8/26/2010 061900 MARC 0422982-IN 00-0902224
INDUSTRIAL SOLVENT
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 1,003.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 95.35
13Page:
Packet Page 61 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,099.101209198/26/2010 061900 061900 MARC
120920 8/26/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 62281620 123106800
AIR FILTERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 309.20
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.04
Total :327.24
120921 8/26/2010 070381 MICHEL CONSTRUCTION INC ENG2008.0464 Refund for Michel Const. Original water
Refund for Michel Const. Original water
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 6,356.00
Refund: Michel Construction. OriginalENG20080463
Refund: Michel Construction. Original
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 2,927.30
Total :9,283.30
120922 8/26/2010 073252 MILNER, STUART MILNER0823 GRASS VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE
GRASS VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
120923 8/26/2010 073373 MULLEN, ANDALYN MULLEN0824 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR PLAZA ROOM
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
120924 8/26/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0278671-IN EDM110
GAS MONITOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 621.77
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 11.24
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 60.15
Total :693.16
120925 8/26/2010 065999 NATIONAL TESTING NETWORK 472 Annual FF Testing License
14Page:
Packet Page 62 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120925 8/26/2010 (Continued)065999 NATIONAL TESTING NETWORK
Annual FF Testing License
001.000.510.522.300.410.00 3,960.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.300.410.00 376.20
Total :4,336.20
120926 8/26/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-167880 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
STANDARD & HANDICAPPED RENTAL OF
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,121.59
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-170308
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-171910
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: EDMONDS ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-172517
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
Total :1,602.53
120927 8/26/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 685412 Legislative Legal Fees for July 2010
Legislative Legal Fees for July 2010
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 3,728.90
Total :3,728.90
120928 8/26/2010 072876 OPENSHAW, DOUG OPENSHAW0819 REFUND
REFUND - CLASS CANCELLED
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 39.00
Total :39.00
120929 8/26/2010 070266 OSBORNE APPLIANCE 0000010862 RECYCLE REFRIGERATOR
RECYCLE REFRIGERATOR
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 3.80
15Page:
Packet Page 63 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :43.801209298/26/2010 070266 070266 OSBORNE APPLIANCE
120930 8/26/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.956010 PAINT
BLACK PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.80
Total :20.70
120931 8/26/2010 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0825 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 301.37
DAYCAMP TRAVEL
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 72.15
DAYCAMP MISC.
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 33.21
Total :406.73
120932 8/26/2010 007800 PETTY CASH 6/30-8/24/10 Refreshments Mayor's Meeting
Refreshments Mayor's Meeting
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 51.48
Supplies for Mayor's Farewell Reception
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 16.35
May-10 Mayor's Mileage Reimb
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 26.50
Batteries - Engineering
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 14.22
Mileage & Parking R English ICC Mtg
001.000.620.532.200.430.00 21.50
Refreshments & supplies for Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 47.68
Pop for Economic Devlpmnt Commission Mtg
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 31.70
Plaster of Paris for Jr Naturalist Camp
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 15.31
Pop for Economich Devlpmnt Commission
16Page:
Packet Page 64 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120932 8/26/2010 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 14.87
Mileage-Lora Petso WRIA Mtg
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 22.92
Total :262.53
120933 8/26/2010 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH0825 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
GENERIC SISTER CITY BUSINESS CARDS
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 20.00
AVERY BUSINESS CARDS
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 18.39
CEMETERY BOARD SUPPLIES
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 21.47
BATTERIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.65
PRESCHOOL FILING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 7.64
TALLY COUNTER
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 12.03
SUPPLIES FOR MEETING
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 3.15
WEIGHT ROOM CLEANING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.540.310.00 9.30
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 9.29
SHRIMP FOR TOUCH TANK
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 7.01
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 17.54
MILEAGE REIMURSEMENT
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 14.00
SISTER CITY SUPPLIES
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 68.44
BATTERIES/DISCOVERY PROGRAM
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 12.00
PARKING
17Page:
Packet Page 65 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120933 8/26/2010 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 11.00
Total :246.91
120934 8/26/2010 073231 POLYDYNE INC 552675 101859
POLYMER
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 7,436.00
Total :7,436.00
120935 8/26/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 186317 2000
UPS/LABOR & INDUSTRIES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 8.97
Total :8.97
120936 8/26/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 110690 MARKER
MARKER: HANKS
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00
INSCRIPTION110691
INSCRIPTION: CHRISTENSEN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION110692
INSCRIPTION: BROWN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION110693
INSCRIPTION: TAYLOR
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION110694
INSCRIPTION: SCHOPPERT
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
FOUNDATION110695
CEMENT FOUNDATION: CASARI
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 105.00
Total :741.00
120937 8/26/2010 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 63428 INV# 63428 EDMONDS PD CASE 10-3093
TOW TOYOTA 55192X CASE 10-3093
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
18Page:
Packet Page 66 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120937 8/26/2010 (Continued)070955 R&R STAR TOWING
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
120938 8/26/2010 066948 RAY ALLEN MFG CO INC 258211 INV# 258211 WA0200 EDMONDS PD
GRIP-IT 25' LINES
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 53.90
Freight
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 10.00
Total :63.90
120939 8/26/2010 073367 RESCUE ROOTER ENG2010.0309 Refund for side sewer permit -
Refund for side sewer permit -
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 170.00
Total :170.00
120940 8/26/2010 073369 ROBINSON, KIMBERLY ROBINSON0819 REFUND
REFUND FOR WOTS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 106.00
Total :106.00
120941 8/26/2010 065708 SCCIT 8851 MEMBERSHIP DUES - SCCIT
Membership Dues - SCCIT
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 350.00
Total :350.00
120942 8/26/2010 073330 SCHMOLL, MELISSA (ARTHUR)ARTHUR0713 REPLACES LOST CK 120183 7/22/10
RETURN OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
120943 8/26/2010 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC 1101766 UB Return Envelopes
UB Return Envelopes
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 117.50
UB Return Envelopes
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 153.41
19Page:
Packet Page 67 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120943 8/26/2010 (Continued)036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
UB Return Envelopes
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 55.49
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.06
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.67
Freight
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 7.11
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.59
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 16.44
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 5.95
Total :403.22
120944 8/26/2010 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS12342 SPORTS CAMPS
SPORTS CAMP #12342
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 234.00
SPORTS CAMP #12346
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 504.00
SPORTS CAMP #12352
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 696.00
SPORTS CAMPSKYHAWKS12351
SPORTS CAMP #12351
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 480.00
SKYHAWKS SUMMER CAMPSSKYHAWKS12361
SKYHAWKS CAMP #12361
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 603.00
SKYHAWKS CAMP #12356
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 368.00
Total :2,885.00
120945 8/26/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-6027-1 UTILITIES
9537 BOWDOIN WAY
20Page:
Packet Page 68 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120945 8/26/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,310.08
Total :2,310.08
120946 8/26/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 116903134 2030-9778-7
SNO PUD
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 21,522.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,291.36
Total :22,813.93
120947 8/26/2010 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE JULY 2010 - MEDS JULY 2010 INMATE MEDS - EDMONDS
INMATE MEDS - JULY 2010
001.000.410.523.600.310.00 829.35
Total :829.35
120948 8/26/2010 065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU Edm0710 SNO CO VISITOR BUREAU TOURISM PROMOTION
Tourism Promotion Agreement from
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 3,000.00
Total :3,000.00
120949 8/26/2010 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000252858 SOLID WASTE CHARGES #56503
SOLID WASTE CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,481.00
Total :1,481.00
120950 8/26/2010 073374 SOUL PURPOSE SOULPURPOSE0829 CITY PARK CONCERT
CITY PARK CONCERT: 8/29/10
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 700.00
Total :700.00
120951 8/26/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO September 2010 SEPTEMBER 2010 PREMIUMS
September 2010 Premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,590.86
Total :13,590.86
120952 8/26/2010 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360003463012 C/A 360000657091
21Page:
Packet Page 69 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120952 8/26/2010 (Continued)070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC
Basic e-commerce hosting Aug-10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 360000764828360003467185
Aug-10 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 430001405909440010565694
Dec-10 P&R Directory Listing
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 130.25
Total :200.15
120953 8/26/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1703803 Legal Notice - Soros -PLN2010-0040
Legal Notice - Soros -PLN2010-0040
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 57.40
Total :57.40
120954 8/26/2010 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE 08182010 MONITOR FOR ECONOMIC DEV MEETING 8/18/10
Monitor for Economic Dev Commission
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
120955 8/26/2010 073370 UNDERDOG CONSULTING Bus Lic Ref Not in City Limits Bus Lic Refund
Not in City Limits Bus Lic Refund
001.000.000.257.310.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
120956 8/26/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8541405 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
VALVE, EXTENSION
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 271.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.79
Total :297.28
120957 8/26/2010 062693 US BANK 3330 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
SIGNS
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 1,609.00
JUICE & WATER FOR SISTER CITY
22Page:
Packet Page 70 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120957 8/26/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 10.55
CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS8669
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES: PLAYCHUTE
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 89.99
INK CARTRIDGE FOR POOL
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 107.30
GAS CAN
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 137.90
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES: TATTOOS, NECKLACES,
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 70.88
DAYCAMP - BUS TRANSPORTATION
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 105.00
ARTS BULLETIN
117.200.640.573.100.490.00 266.10
LADYBUGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.89
VALUE ADDED TO ORCA BUS PASS
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 100.00
ICE SKATING FOR SENIOR CAMPERS
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 110.00
GYMNASTICS SUMMER CAMP CRAFT SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 101.86
GLUE FOR CAMP GOODTIME
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 13.70
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 111.20
POPSICLES FOR JR. COUNSELOR RECOGNITION
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 17.00
VALUE ADDED TO ORCA BUS PASS
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 180.00
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: HARDWARE
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 50.64
Total :3,139.01
120958 8/26/2010 062693 US BANK 2462 SaberLogic - Eden Report Scheduler for
23Page:
Packet Page 71 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120958 8/26/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
SaberLogic - Eden Report Scheduler for
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 45.00
CDW-G Laptop Cases Water/Sewer
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 43.00
CDW-G Laptop Cases Water/Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 43.00
CDW-G 2-Ram Memory 1 GB
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 72.43
Domain Name Registration
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 12.95
AutomatioDirect.com-Touch screen
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 262.00
AutomatioDirect.com-Touch screen
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 262.00
Buy-com - Laptop replacement batteries
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 50.98
PrinterTechs - Supplies
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 208.00
CDW-G Supplies
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 165.53
CDW-G HP Inkjet printer combo back
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 72.96
Ace Hardware - Smart Straw
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 4.37
Craigs List Ad-Acct Assistant3280
Craigs List Ad-Acct Assistant
001.000.310.514.230.440.00 25.00
Business & Legal Reports-Family/Medical
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 140.40
Craigs List Ad Asst to the Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 25.00
AWC D Humann Budgeting 101
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 100.00
GFOA D Sharp Webinar Performance Mgmnt3470
24Page:
Packet Page 72 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120958 8/26/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
GFOA D Sharp Webinar Performance Mgmnt
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 85.00
GFOA D Sharp Webinar Government
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 35.00
WFOA D Sharp Revenue Forecasting 7/14/10
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 35.00
Shoplet - Laptop Tags/Tape Dispenser/
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 50.47
Shoplet - Monitor Stand/Stapler &
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 84.63
AWC D Sharp Budget Workshop 8/18/10
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 175.00
Total :1,997.72
120959 8/26/2010 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS T0298897H INV T0298897H ACCT 0298897-0 EDMONDS PD
PAGERS
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 190.39
Total :190.39
120960 8/26/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0896390331 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg 7/13-8/12/10
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 120.20
Cell Service-Eng 7/13-8/12/10
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 144.24
Cell Service Fac-Maint 7/13-8/12/10
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 115.74
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 15.52
Cell Service Parks Maint 7/13-8/12/10
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 59.31
Cell Service-PD 7/13-8/12/10
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 567.98
Cell Service-Planning 7/13-8/12/10
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Street 7/13-8/12/10
25Page:
Packet Page 73 of 319
08/27/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
10:57:54AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120960 8/26/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Storm 7/13-8/12/10
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Water 7/13-8/12/10
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 41.86
Cell Service-PW Water 7/13-8/12/10
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 41.86
Cell Service-PW Fleet 7/13-8/12/10
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.61
Cell Service-WWTP 7/13-8/12/10
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.89
Total :1,239.95
120961 8/26/2010 070717 WSU URBAN & PESTICIDE SAFETY WSU082310 PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING
PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION TRAINING FOR:
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 300.00
Total :300.00
120962 8/26/2010 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 920 August, 2010 Retainer
August, 2010 Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00
Total :11,330.00
Bank total :431,895.0699 Vouchers for bank code :front
431,895.06Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report99
26Page:
Packet Page 74 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120963 8/30/2010 071184 PROCOM 2010-1335 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ 5/1-6/30/10
Prepare response from CM Buckshnis
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 187.50
Total :187.50
120964 9/2/2010 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND SEPT 2010 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 8/10 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 9/2010
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66
Total :2,032.66
120965 9/2/2010 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 10-400 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
FLOORING MAINTENANCE10-401
FLOORING MAINTENANCE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33
Total :607.33
120966 9/2/2010 065568 ALLWATER INC 082610036 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 30.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 2.93
Total :33.73
120967 9/2/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 11620 BRONZE PLAQUES
CRAM & SUTHERLAND PLAQUES FOR HAINES
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 318.80
Freight
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 8.50
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.640.575.500.310.00 31.09
Total :358.39
120968 9/2/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0829 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
1Page:
Packet Page 75 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120968 9/2/2010 (Continued)066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/29/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 165.00
Total :165.00
120969 9/2/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5086920 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.16
120970 9/2/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5086925 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.38
Total :73.51
120971 9/2/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5043980 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
PW MATS655-5055680
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
9.5% Sales Tax
2Page:
Packet Page 76 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120971 9/2/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5055681
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5055683
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5063201
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
3Page:
Packet Page 77 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120971 9/2/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW MATS655-5067644
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5067645
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
4Page:
Packet Page 78 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120971 9/2/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5067647
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5075022
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW MATS655-5079389
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
5Page:
Packet Page 79 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120971 9/2/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5086921
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW MATS655-5091411
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
Total :222.53
6Page:
Packet Page 80 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120972 9/2/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0099057-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,436.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 231.49
Total :2,668.16
120973 9/2/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 56727 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 115.18
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 115.18
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 118.66
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 370.23
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 370.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.28
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS56759
UB Outsourcing area #100
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.79
UB Outsourcing area #100
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.79
UB Outsourcing area #100
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 92.50
UB Outsourcing area #
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 288.38
UB Outsourcing area #
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 288.38
9.5% Sales Tax
7Page:
Packet Page 81 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120973 9/2/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.79
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS56816
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 123.47
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 123.47
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 127.20
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 397.80
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 397.79
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 12.08
Total :3,202.59
120974 9/2/2010 072276 BADGER METER INC 88492301 Meter Inventory - M-METER-01.5-010
Meter Inventory - M-METER-01.5-010
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,480.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 81.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 243.32
Total :2,804.52
120975 9/2/2010 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY12454 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
TKO CLASS #12454
8Page:
Packet Page 82 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120975 9/2/2010 (Continued)061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 932.40
TKO CLASS #12458
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 283.50
TOT TAEKWON DO CLASSESBAILEYS12462
TOT TKO #12462
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 163.80
TOT TKO #12466
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 54.60
Total :1,434.30
120976 9/2/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011607773 Canon 5870 Copier Lease (10/1 -
Canon 5870 Copier Lease (10/1 -
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35
Canon 5870 Copier Lease (10/1 -
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32
Canon 5870 Copier Lease (10/1 -
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33
Supply charge
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.00
Supply charge
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00
Supply charge
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 12.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.99
Total :415.00
120977 9/2/2010 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP12323 WATER SPORTS CAMP AT SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP #12323
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,076.00
9Page:
Packet Page 83 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,076.00120977 9/2/2010 072319 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC
120978 9/2/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 817707 INV#817707 - EDMONDS PD - MCINTYRE
OUTER SHELL FOR BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 149.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 14.25
INV#823121 - EDMONDS PD - SMITH, RT823121
REPLACE PANELS TO BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.410.521.310.240.00 40.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.310.240.00 3.80
INV#827427 - EDMONDS PD - MILLER827427
S/S SHIRTS - NO ZIPPER
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 131.32
CORP CHEVRONS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 217.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 33.57
INV#829597 - EDMONDS PD - STRONG829597
T-SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.00
APPLY LETTERS TO GARMENTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.90
SWEATSHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.00
APPLY LETTERS TO GARMENTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.00
SWEATPANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 17.72
SHORT JERSEY KNIT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.10
511 TDU P/C RIP PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 79.98
10Page:
Packet Page 84 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120978 9/2/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
L/S LOOSE GEAR SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 59.98
SS ACADEMY SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 29.60
TACLITE NAVY PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 27.86
Total :916.02
120979 9/2/2010 072356 BRINSCHWITZ, JANICE BRINSCHWITZ0826 REFUND
REFUND FOR POOL
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 4.50
Total :4.50
120980 9/2/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN12515 YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #12515
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 408.80
PILATES RELAXED MAT #12407
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 182.00
YOGA #12507
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 168.00
YOGA #12510
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 465.50
YOGA #12512
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 539.00
Total :1,763.30
120981 9/2/2010 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL12669 INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING @ MARINA BEACH
KAYAKING @ MARINA BEACH #12669
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 321.44
Total :321.44
120982 9/2/2010 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON12300 ART FOR KIDZ
ART FOR KIDZ #12300
11Page:
Packet Page 85 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
120982 9/2/2010 (Continued)071816 CARLSON, JESSICA
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 168.00
Total :168.00
120983 9/2/2010 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 26214466 INV#26214466 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 266.48
Total :266.48
120984 9/2/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8100 INV#8100 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD
2010 ANNUAL TRANSPORT SERVICES
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 14,739.00
Total :14,739.00
120985 9/2/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8058 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS
JOINT MAINTENANCE & OPERATION COSTS FOR
001.000.640.576.800.510.00 32,698.17
Total :32,698.17
120986 9/2/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2224154 005302
PAPER TOWELS/SOAP/Z FOLD TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 316.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 30.06
Total :346.45
120987 9/2/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2224490 Fac Maint - Towels, Cleaners, Hand
Fac Maint - Towels, Cleaners, Hand
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 508.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.35
Total :557.27
120988 9/2/2010 073292 COBURN, KAI COBURN0830 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT FOR 8/30/10
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 36.00
12Page:
Packet Page 86 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :36.00120988 9/2/2010 073292 073292 COBURN, KAI
120989 9/2/2010 073387 COLELLA, CAROL COLELLA0810 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 440.00
Total :440.00
120990 9/2/2010 073383 COPPLE, DOUGLAS COPPLE0830 REFUND FOR DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
120991 9/2/2010 073251 DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN TARPLEY0823 REIMBURSEMENT
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR DISCOVERY
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 35.25
Total :35.25
120992 9/2/2010 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC 00193760 INV#00193760 WAEDMO EDMONDS PD
GVP-DIRECTIONAL RADAR
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 899.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 85.41
Total :984.41
120993 9/2/2010 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS August 2010 drs AUGUST 2010 DRS
August 2010 DRS
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 135,783.31
Total :135,783.31
120994 9/2/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3127 COUNCIL MINUTES
08-24 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 348.00
Total :348.00
120995 9/2/2010 073382 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES INC 45400 INV#45400 - EDMONDS PD
40 S&W 180GR BRASS ENC.
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 2,080.00
13Page:
Packet Page 87 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,080.00120995 9/2/2010 073382 073382 DOOLEY ENTERPRISES INC
120996 9/2/2010 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 08312010 STATE LOBBYIST FOR AUGUST 2010
State lobbyist charges for August 2010
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,585.00
Total :2,585.00
120997 9/2/2010 007253 DUNN LUMBER 30555 SUPPLIES FOR PETANQUE COURT
LUMBER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 741.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.46
Total :812.16
120998 9/2/2010 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 247801 INV#247801 - EDMONDS PD
KOREAN INTERPRETING #10-2940
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 52.50
Total :52.50
120999 9/2/2010 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL12482 ART CLUB
ART CLUB #12482
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 254.80
ART CLUB #12485
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 233.10
Total :487.90
121000 9/2/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001215/1 PARKS & RECREATION
STAPLE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.41
PARKS & RECREATION001219/1
BOLTS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.14
14Page:
Packet Page 88 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :17.80121000 9/2/2010 073037 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
121001 9/2/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 26209 SPARK PLUG
SPARK PLUG
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.31
Total :3.56
121002 9/2/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 25923 Sewer - Lock Grip
Sewer - Lock Grip
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 21.98
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.09
Total :24.07
121003 9/2/2010 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 062010 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT CHAMBER
Tourism promotion agreement with
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 1,250.00
Total :1,250.00
121004 9/2/2010 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E810904 Testing services
Testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 11.00
Testing servicesE810960
Testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 190.00
Testing servicesE811503
Testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 23.00
Total :224.00
121005 9/2/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.28
LIFT STATION #144-34080
LIFT STATION #14
15Page:
Packet Page 89 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121005 9/2/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58
Total :79.86
121006 9/2/2010 073381 FACTOR, DOUGLAS & KRISTIN 4-25889 RE: #601516 UTILITY REFUND
RE: #601516 UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 48.66
Total :48.66
121007 9/2/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU20779 Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.28
Sewer -PartsWAMOU20943
Sewer -Parts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 24.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.35
Total :41.88
121008 9/2/2010 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 081310 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 11,010.00
Total :11,010.00
121009 9/2/2010 063181 FITTINGS INC 00075362 Unit 18 - Hose Supplies
Unit 18 - Hose Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 189.93
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.12
Total :220.42
121010 9/2/2010 071562 FORMA 44478 4TH AVE CULTURAL CORRIDOR SIGN
PAYMENT #1 4TH AVE CULTURAL CORRIDOR
16Page:
Packet Page 90 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121010 9/2/2010 (Continued)071562 FORMA
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 1,250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 118.75
Total :1,368.75
121011 9/2/2010 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 958177 LEGAL FEES FIBER OPTICS UTILITY SYS
Legal fees for Fiber Optics Utility
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 97.50
Total :97.50
121012 9/2/2010 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 67 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 208.42
Total :208.42
121013 9/2/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
17Page:
Packet Page 91 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121013 9/2/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.55
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.55
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.25
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.26
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 59.86
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 59.86
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 79.82
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 54.47
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.92
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 109.61
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.81
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.93
Total :1,221.86
121014 9/2/2010 011910 GEOLINE BELLEVUE 306095 Water Dept GIS System
Water Dept GIS System
411.000.654.534.800.640.00 7,177.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.640.00 681.82
18Page:
Packet Page 92 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :7,858.82121014 9/2/2010 011910 011910 GEOLINE BELLEVUE
121015 9/2/2010 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER12398 TAI CHI & QIGONG CLASSES
TAI CHI #12398
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 182.00
TAI CHI #12394
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 477.40
TAI CHI #12396
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 280.00
QIGONG #12580
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 294.00
QIGONG #12578
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 245.00
Total :1,478.40
121016 9/2/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9332193318 837944131
VAC/BLOWER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 500.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 47.56
Total :548.17
121017 9/2/2010 073388 GRYPHON TRAINING GROUP 8-31-10 WITHOUT MERCY SEMINAR - SUTTON
WITHOUT MERCY 9/27-8 SUTTON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 145.00
Total :145.00
121018 9/2/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6872710 112830
FILTER/GLASS FBR.
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 205.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 19.55
Total :225.35
121019 9/2/2010 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 68 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 146.00
19Page:
Packet Page 93 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :146.00121019 9/2/2010 068011 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD
121020 9/2/2010 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 109668 Unit 648 - Parts Kits (2)
Unit 648 - Parts Kits (2)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.50
Unit 55 - Resevior110261
Unit 55 - Resevior
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 151.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.44
Unit 649 - Parts Kits (4)110274
Unit 649 - Parts Kits (4)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.00
Unit K93 - Window Switch111096
Unit K93 - Window Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.14
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.05
Total :345.63
121021 9/2/2010 072184 HAUSS, BERTRAND Hauss.PE License HAUSS.PE LICENSE RENEWAL
Hauss.PE License Renewal
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 116.00
Total :116.00
121022 9/2/2010 073256 HEARTHSIDE & HOME BLD20100574 Refund for BLD 20100574 - address not
Refund for BLD 20100574 - address not
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
121023 9/2/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 66 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 22.52
20Page:
Packet Page 94 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :22.52121023 9/2/2010 013500 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT
121024 9/2/2010 070042 IKON 83071539 INV#83071539 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 08/13-09/12/10
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 130.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 44.73
Total :515.54
121025 9/2/2010 070042 IKON 83083602 COPIER LEASE
PARKS & RECREATION COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 498.29
Total :498.29
121026 9/2/2010 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 912628 Unit 24 - Limit Switch Spring Rod
Unit 24 - Limit Switch Spring Rod
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.99
Total :69.09
121027 9/2/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 019886 Fac Maint - Battery
Fac Maint - Battery
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.08
Total :23.98
121028 9/2/2010 069264 J & K ASSOCIATES 1317 Unit 130 - Brake Shoe Supplies
Unit 130 - Brake Shoe Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 304.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 112.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.52
21Page:
Packet Page 95 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :455.52121028 9/2/2010 069264 069264 J & K ASSOCIATES
121029 9/2/2010 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW JOHNSON0828 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/28/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
121030 9/2/2010 065056 JOHNSON, TROY Johnson, Troy City Hall Lobby Monitor for 8/26/2010
City Hall Lobby Monitor for 8/26/2010
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
121031 9/2/2010 062477 KEEP POSTED 14260 DISTRIBUTION OF BIRD FEST POSTERS
Distribution of Bird Fest Posters
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 226.00
Total :226.00
121032 9/2/2010 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KLS12381 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES
CLASS #12381
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 966.00
CLASS #12382
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 386.40
CLASS #12383
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 627.90
CLASS #12384
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 289.80
CLASS #12385
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 289.80
CLASS #12386
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,110.90
CLASS #12387
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,110.90
CLASS #12388
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,207.50
CLASS #12389
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,014.30
22Page:
Packet Page 96 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121032 9/2/2010 (Continued)071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
CLASS #12390
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 48.30
Total :7,051.80
121033 9/2/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0710-108246 E8GC.SERVICES THRU 06/30/10
E8GC.Services thru 6/30/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,286.91
E8GC.Services thru 6/30/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,286.91
E8GC.Services thru 6/30/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,286.92
E2DB.SERVICES THRU 1/31/10E2DB.46
E2DB.Services thru 1/31/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 20,278.48
E2DB.SERVICES THRU 2/28/10E2DB.47
E2DB.Services thru 2/28/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 6,785.84
E2DB.SERVICES THRU 03/31/10E2DB.48
E2DB.Services thru 3/31/10
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 6,880.29
Total :37,805.35
121034 9/2/2010 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN KRUCKEBERG12655 BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR
GARDEN TOUR #12655
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
121035 9/2/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 08052010-01 INV#08052010-01 EDMONDS PD
54 CAR WASHES @$5.03 FOR 07/10
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 271.62
Total :271.62
121036 9/2/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 08052010-03 City Car Washes (3)
City Car Washes (3)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.09
23Page:
Packet Page 97 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :15.09121036 9/2/2010 017050 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
121037 9/2/2010 073378 KYONG, SON S E2DB.TempConstEase2 E2DB.TEMP CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.KYONG
E2DB.Temp Construction Easement.Kyong
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 750.00
Total :750.00
121038 9/2/2010 073377 LANE, MELINDA S E2DB.TempConstEase1 E2DB.TEMP CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.LANE
E2DB.Temp Constrution Easement.Lane
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 250.00
Total :250.00
121039 9/2/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0827 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/27/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
121040 9/2/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 8010-386 THROTTLE CABLE
REDMAX THROTTLE CABLE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.58
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.49
Total :17.18
121041 9/2/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104851 Copy paper
Copy paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 12.33
Copy paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 12.33
Copy paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 12.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.17
24Page:
Packet Page 98 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121041 9/2/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.18
Letterhead - HR104889
Letterhead - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 248.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 23.58
Total :312.36
121042 9/2/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104933 ENVELOPES
WINDOW & REGULAR ENVELOPES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 191.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.24
Total :210.21
121043 9/2/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104916 CHAIR - LORENZO
Chair - Lorenzo
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 498.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 47.31
Total :545.31
121044 9/2/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104886 DSD office supplies
DSD office supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 352.68
DSD Chair Mat for receptionist 2nd floor104909
DSD Chair Mat for receptionist 2nd floor
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 197.10
DSD Office Supplies104928
DSD Office Supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 415.15
Total :964.93
121045 9/2/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104893 C/A 5165 ADDRESS LABELS
25Page:
Packet Page 99 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121045 9/2/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 79.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 7.60
Total :87.58
121046 9/2/2010 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 319053-00 Fac Maint - Chalk Supplies
Fac Maint - Chalk Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.72
Total :19.87
121047 9/2/2010 019583 MANPOWER INC 20760396 Temp for Ross week end 8/15/2010
Temp for Ross week end 8/15/2010
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 81.15
Total :81.15
121048 9/2/2010 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 55558 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL: ACID
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.56
Total :87.16
121049 9/2/2010 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 65 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 5,818.50
Total :5,818.50
121050 9/2/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 63018573 123106800
STAINLESS STEEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 463.44
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 32.69
12310680063526716
26Page:
Packet Page 100 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121050 9/2/2010 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
BRASS PIPE/COUPLING/CHECK VALVE/PIPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 232.31
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.50
12310680063647812
TUBE FITTING/CHECK VALVE/PIPE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 186.01
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.14
Total :926.09
121051 9/2/2010 072492 MOLINA, NILDA MOLINA12470 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #12470
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 736.05
Total :736.05
121052 9/2/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0279214-IN Sewer - Hvy Dty Ntrle Gloves ( 100 -
Sewer - Hvy Dty Ntrle Gloves ( 100 -
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 556.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 52.87
Total :609.37
121053 9/2/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0435143-IN Unit 31 - Filters
Unit 31 - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 70.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.65
Fleet - Filter Inventory0435167-IN
Fleet - Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 76.38
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 7.25
Total :160.29
27Page:
Packet Page 101 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121054 9/2/2010 062204 NELSON TRUCK EQUIP CO INC 515064 Unit EQ66WR(sewer) - Alum Wedge Chest
Unit EQ66WR(sewer) - Alum Wedge Chest
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 347.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 32.97
Total :379.98
121055 9/2/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 36694 Unit 124 - 3/4" x 50" 300 PSI Red
Unit 124 - 3/4" x 50" 300 PSI Red
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 144.00
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.25
Total :157.25
121056 9/2/2010 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1024037 Unit 37 - Latches for slide out drawer
Unit 37 - Latches for slide out drawer
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.67
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.95
Total :57.02
121057 9/2/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 14237 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 893.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 84.85
Total :978.05
121058 9/2/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 153 ADB Minutetaker 8/18/2010
ADB Minutetaker 8/18/2010
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 208.00
HPC Minutetaker 8/12/10000 00 155
HPC Minutetaker 8/12/10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 165.00
28Page:
Packet Page 102 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :373.00121058 9/2/2010 025690 025690 NOYES, KARIN
121059 9/2/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 544804 Street - Supplies
Street - Supplies
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 65.70
PW - Office Supplies - Sharpies
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 35.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 6.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.37
Fac Maint - Pencil Sharpener585551
Fac Maint - Pencil Sharpener
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.22
Water/Sewer Manager - Printer605664
Water/Sewer Manager - Printer
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 91.50
Water/Sewer Manager - Printer
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 91.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.69
Water/Sewer Mgr - Ink & Supplies for640076
Water/Sewer Mgr - Ink & Supplies for
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 97.86
Water/Sewer Mgr - Ink & Supplies for
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 97.85
PW - Wall Clock
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 35.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.30
29Page:
Packet Page 103 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121059 9/2/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 3.36
PW Pen Supplies674229
PW Pen Supplies
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 19.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.87
Total :600.00
121060 9/2/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 652871 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 177.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.90
C/A 520437678846
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 128.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.23
OFFICE SUPPLIES771471
OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 24.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 2.35
Total :362.92
121061 9/2/2010 068709 OFFICETEAM 31615443 TEMP HELP IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
TEMP HELP IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 535.19
TEMP HELP IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE31652025
TEMP HELP IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 679.60
Total :1,214.79
121062 9/2/2010 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 045607 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
30Page:
Packet Page 104 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121062 9/2/2010 (Continued)063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 126.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.99
Total :138.19
121063 9/2/2010 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011607770 COPIER CONTRACT
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.45
Total :158.67
121064 9/2/2010 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL PAXTON12230 ACTING CAMP
ACTING CAMP #12230
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 2,091.60
Total :2,091.60
121065 9/2/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK12409 PILATES CLASSES
PILATES ENERGY MAT #12409
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 259.00
PILATES RELAXED MAT #12404
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 322.93
Total :581.93
121066 9/2/2010 073384 PROSTHETICS OUTREACH POF0830 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO RENTAL CANCELLATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 150.00
Total :150.00
121067 9/2/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 MCC
24 hour Alarm Monitoring MCC
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.00
Total :102.00
121068 9/2/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
31Page:
Packet Page 105 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121068 9/2/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 38.74
Total :38.74
121069 9/2/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 49.41
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 33.96
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 258.86
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 3.54
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 13.44
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 13.44
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13.44
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 13.44
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 13.41
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 36.17
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 32.85
32Page:
Packet Page 106 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121069 9/2/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Fire Station # 165322323139
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 93.18
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.85
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 62.90
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 129.98
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 683.77
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 58.73
Total :1,632.12
121070 9/2/2010 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 259905 Lic # 303940 LPG Aux Power Generator
Lic # 303940 LPG Aux Power Generator
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 366.03
Total :366.03
121071 9/2/2010 067226 RESOURCE RECYCLING 490759 Recycle Dept - Annual Subscription 2010
Recycle Dept - Annual Subscription 2010
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 52.00
Total :52.00
121072 9/2/2010 073385 SANGREY, ANNA M SANGREY0830 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
33Page:
Packet Page 107 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121072 9/2/2010 (Continued)073385 SANGREY, ANNA M
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 300.00
Total :300.00
121073 9/2/2010 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 10-3030 Sewer - Grit Catcher with Rope
Sewer - Grit Catcher with Rope
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 345.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 35.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 36.17
Total :416.88
121074 9/2/2010 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 194990 INV#194990 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING MAZDA B2000-B06502D
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
121075 9/2/2010 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS12344 SPORTS CAMPS
SKYHAWKS #12344
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00
SKYHAWKS #12350
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 272.00
SKYHAWKS #12353
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 339.20
Total :755.20
121076 9/2/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W
SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95th AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
SCHOOL LIGHT 20829 76TH W200202562
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
SIGNAL LIGHT 84TH & 220TH200348233
34Page:
Packet Page 108 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121076 9/2/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Signal Light at 84th & 220th
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 62.63
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN200865202
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 107.29
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW201151412
School Flashing Light 8400 219th St SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
SIGNAL LIGHT 20408 76TH201192226
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.59
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,168.61
STREET LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W201582152
STREET LIGHT 19600 80th Ave W
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 41.16
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH W201611951
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 40.74
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220TH ST SW201751476
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220th ST SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 89.49
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH SW201907862
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.68
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 67.85
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 257.82
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 257.82
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 257.82
35Page:
Packet Page 109 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121076 9/2/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 257.82
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 257.82
FIRE STATION #20202077194
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 918.47
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St202087870
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 192.09
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99202289120
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 93.42
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,506.56
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW202427803
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,574.89
Fire station #16 Light202807632
Fire station #16 Light
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 31.32
Total :12,385.97
121077 9/2/2010 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES Fraley Monillas Councilwoman Fraley-Monillas - dinner
Councilwoman Fraley-Monillas - dinner
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 28.00
Total :28.00
121078 9/2/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 45832 Stamps and pads for DSD
Stamps and pads for DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 106.04
36Page:
Packet Page 110 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :106.04121078 9/2/2010 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
121079 9/2/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4170412-01 Water - (5) Jeans - S Leonard
Water - (5) Jeans - S Leonard
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 142.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 13.54
Total :156.04
121080 9/2/2010 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 29320 FS 17 - Door Repairs
FS 17 - Door Repairs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 489.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 46.49
FS 17 - Door Repairs29338
FS 17 - Door Repairs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 157.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.96
Total :708.33
121081 9/2/2010 061782 STATE TREASURER 312 000 093 001 0005 MASTER LICENSE RENEWAL 2010 - ~
MASTER LICENSE RENEWAL 2010 - ~
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 489.00
Total :489.00
121082 9/2/2010 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2951241 Water - Pick Handles (2)
Water - Pick Handles (2)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.00
Water - Pruning Saws (5)2955315
Water - Pruning Saws (5)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 75.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.15
37Page:
Packet Page 111 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :105.55121082 9/2/2010 009400 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
121083 9/2/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2274519 Yost Park - Elect Supplies
Yost Park - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 188.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.88
Yost Park - Elect Supplies2276881
Yost Park - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 94.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.94
City Hall - Elect Supplies2279269
City Hall - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 86.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.19
Total :403.66
121084 9/2/2010 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIO312554 KINDERMUSIK CLASSES
KINDERMUSIK #12554
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 331.80
KINDERMUSIK #12560
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 415.80
KINDERMUSIK #12556
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 141.96
Total :889.56
121085 9/2/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01703213-07142010 E2DB.NOTICE OF DEV APP ADVERTISING
E2DB.Notice of Dev App Advertising
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 141.40
Total :141.40
121086 9/2/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1708024 C/A 101416
Ordinance 3805
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 43.96
C/A 1014161708025
38Page:
Packet Page 112 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121086 9/2/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
Ordinance 3806
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 43.96
C/A 1014161708031
09-07 Hearing (Hwy 99)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 70.84
C/A 1014161708032
09-07 Hearing (Medical)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 70.84
Total :229.60
121087 9/2/2010 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 615651 MONITORING-PS
MONITORING-PS 9/1-9/30/10
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 41.90
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE623585
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 154.98
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.71
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING623586
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 12.61
Total :224.20
121088 9/2/2010 070774 ULINE INC 33903018 INV#33903018 CUST#2634605 EDMONDS PD
SCRUBS IN A BUCKET
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 84.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 10.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 8.97
Total :103.44
121089 9/2/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8549934 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
REPAIR KIT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 185.72
39Page:
Packet Page 113 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121089 9/2/2010 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.64
Total :212.34
121090 9/2/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8551588 Water Meter Inventory - M-Meter-01-010
Water Meter Inventory - M-Meter-01-010
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 2,294.40
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 197.32
Total :2,491.72
121091 9/2/2010 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 35689 E8GA.SERVICES PERFORMED JULY 2010
E8GA.Services Performed July 2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 629.81
Total :629.81
121092 9/2/2010 062693 US BANK 3363 Home Depot - Unit 91 - Supplies
Home Depot - Unit 91 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.25
Wesco -Unit 91 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.18
Wesco - Unit 91 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.14
Total :100.57
121093 9/2/2010 073380 US BANK NA 4-08525 RE: #7729-000079 UTILITY REFUND
RE: #7229-000079 UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 127.45
Total :127.45
121094 9/2/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 216835 391128
MODULAR ODOR ADSORBER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 679.95
Freight
40Page:
Packet Page 114 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121094 9/2/2010 (Continued)064423 USA BLUE BOOK
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 339.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 96.86
Total :1,116.45
121095 9/2/2010 073386 VAN SICKEL, CLIFF VAN SICKEL0830 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
121096 9/2/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0899873795 C/A 571242650-0001
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 99.86
Blackberry Cell Phone Service City
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 113.70
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 57.12
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 324.24
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 118.69
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 56.85
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 352.61
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor's
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 255.57
41Page:
Packet Page 115 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121096 9/2/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 59.76
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,096.14
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 530.02
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 77.81
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 61.22
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 51.63
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 51.63
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 103.96
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 153.29
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 58.92
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 142.88
Total :3,993.30
121097 9/2/2010 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 23363586 Temp for Building Div. 8-1 to 8/15/2010
Temp for Building Div. 8-1 to 8/15/2010
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 373.60
Total :373.60
121098 9/2/2010 069582 WAGNER CONSTRUCTION 062010 LOG CABIN - WASH/STAIN OUTSIDE OF BLDG
LOG CABIN - WASH/STAIN OUTSIDE OF BLDG
120.000.310.575.420.410.50 3,302.28
9.5% Sales Tax
120.000.310.575.420.410.50 313.72
42Page:
Packet Page 116 of 319
09/02/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
8:52:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,616.00121098 9/2/2010 069582 069582 WAGNER CONSTRUCTION
121099 9/2/2010 069969 WILLIAMS, PAMELA WILLIAMS0825 REIMBURSEMENT
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
001.000.640.574.350.430.00 137.50
Total :137.50
121100 9/2/2010 065179 WSAPT TREAS / WIN SLOTA Harrison, Marie PO 10001 WSAPT 2010 FALL CONF M HARRISON
Reg Fee for WSAPT 2010 for Marie
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 65.00
Total :65.00
Bank total :339,226.45138 Vouchers for bank code :front
339,226.45Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report138
43Page:
Packet Page 117 of 319
AM-3348 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Lisa Hanlon ($557.45) and from Terry
Canfield ($663.79).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by
minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Claims for Damages were submitted by:
Lisa Hanlon
8848B Midvale Avenue N.
Seattle, WA 98103
($557.45)
Terry Canfield
1050 5th Avenue
#304
Edmonds, WA 98020
($663.79)
Attachments
Hanlon Claim for Damages
Canfield Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 08/31/2010 02:44 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 118 of 319
Packet Page 119 of 319
Packet Page 120 of 319
Packet Page 121 of 319
Packet Page 122 of 319
Packet Page 123 of 319
Packet Page 124 of 319
Packet Page 125 of 319
Packet Page 126 of 319
Packet Page 127 of 319
Packet Page 128 of 319
Packet Page 129 of 319
Packet Page 130 of 319
Packet Page 131 of 319
Packet Page 132 of 319
Packet Page 133 of 319
Packet Page 134 of 319
AM-3347 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement and authorize up to $2,400 towards the
administrative costs of operating the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum over the life of the
agreement.
Previous Council Action
On July 1, 2008, Council approved a similar Interlocal Agreement and appointed a City representative to
the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Narrative
Due to the ongoing flooding and water quality issues with Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek, the cities
of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park, along with Snohomish
County, joined together in 2008 to form the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum (Forum).
This watershed Forum was created in the public's best interest to create an area-wide body to develop a
strategic action plan to address the water resource issues. An Interlocal Agreement (ILA) was signed by
all parties in the summer of 2008 with the primary intent of completing a strategic action plan for the
basin with funding provided by the grant received from the Department of Ecology. This ILA had an
expiration date of June 30, 2010.
The Strategic Action Plan was completed in the summer of 2009. On August 17, 2009, City Council
approved a resolution adopting this Strategic Action Plan from the Forum. A Capital Improvement Plan
was developed by Forum staff from the Strategic Action Plan and approved by the Forum in January
2010. The CIP listed thirteen separate projects with lead agencies for each project.
This new ILA replaces the previous one that expired on June 30, 2010 and has the primary task of
implementing the adopted CIP plan (attached as Exhibit 3 to the ILA). The ILA was drafted by Staff and
approved to form by attorneys representing the various jurisdictions. It was drafted assuming all six
jurisdictions would participate. This version of the ILA has been approved by the City Councils of
Mountlake Terrace and Lake Forest Park. The Cities of Shoreline and Lynnwood have chosen not to
participate in this ILA (see attached correspondences). Snohomish County is in the process of evaluating
its participation in the ILA.
Fiscal Impact
As written, this ILA commits the City of Edmonds to $1,200 for administrative cost to the Forum over its
12 month period (One-sixth of the total amount). This amount, however, assumes all six jurisdictions
Packet Page 135 of 319
12 month period (One-sixth of the total amount). This amount, however, assumes all six jurisdictions
would participate. If only Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lake Forest Park participate in the ILA, and
the amount for administrative support is divided up 3 ways, it would be $2,400 per jurisdiction. If
Snohomish County participates, the amount per jurisdiction would be $1,800 each. Once all jurisdictions
have decided whether they are going to participate or not, the ILA would be amended to reflect the actual
allocation of funding, as approved by the Forum members, to pay the administrative support costs. Staff
has budgeted $100,000 for Lake Ballinger Associated projects in 2011 in accordance with the recently
approved Stormwater Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments
Attachment 1-ILA Lake Ballinger
Attachment 2-Letter form City of Shoreline
Attachment 3-Email from City of Lynnwood
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/01/2010 03:44 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/02/2010 04:57 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 05:00 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/03/2010 09:15 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/03/2010 09:45 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 08/31/2010 11:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/03/2010
Packet Page 136 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 1
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
For the Governmental Jurisdictions within the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek
Watershed Including the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood,
Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County
PREAMBLE
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and
among Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, and the cities of
Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline, all municipal
corporations of the state of Washington. The parties executing this Agreement are located in King
and Snohomish Counties, lying wholly or partially within the Watershed Area defined in Section
1.1 below (individually for those executing this Agreement “Member Jurisdiction” and collectively
“Member Jurisdictions”). The Member Jurisdictions share interests in and responsibility for
addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation and wish to provide for development
of various activities and projects therein.
MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS
1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning
provided for below:
1.1 WATERSHED AREA: The Watershed Area is defined as those waters draining to Lake
Washington through surface and subsurface natural or constructed water conveyance
systems consisting of Hall Lake, Hall Creek, Chase Lake, Echo Lake, Lake Ballinger,
McAleer Creek and all other known surface and subsurface tributary drainages along with
the associated pipe conveyance systems connected to existing surface conveyance as
further delineated on the watershed map attached as Exhibit A and collectively known as
the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed. Additional tributary drainage areas
identified in the future that are not currently listed on Exhibit A may be added to the
Exhibit A by amendment of this Agreement.
1.2 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement
as Member Jurisdictions are Snohomish County, and the Cities of Edmonds, Lake
Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline.
1.3 MEMBER JURISDICTION: A Member Jurisdiction as referred to herein is a
government eligible for participation in this Agreement that has also executed this
Agreement.
1.4 LAKE BALLINGER/McALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM: The Lake Ballinger/
McAleer Creek Watershed Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum) created herein
is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of
Packet Page 137 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 2
designated representatives of Eligible Jurisdictions who have authorized the execution
of and become Member Juisdictions of this Agreement.
1.5 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN: The Strategic Action Plan, as referred to herein, is the
plan developed by the Forum and adopted by all Member Jurisdictions to address water
resource issues within the Watershed Area as provided in this Agreement. The plan
identifies specific actions and projects to address the identified water resource issues and
is attached as Exhibit B.
1.6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The Capital Improvement Plan, as referred to
herein, is the set of projects developed in the Strategic Action Plan to address the
identified water resource issues. The Capital Improvement Plan lists specific projects,
estimated costs, proposed funding mechanisms and project lead agency and is attached
as Exhibit C.
1.7 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent is the entity designated to perform all accounting
and contract management services for the Forum, as it may require, in accordance with
the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW.
1.8 SERVICE PROVIDER(S): The Service Provider(s), as used herein, means that
individual consultant or other entity which provides a service to and for the Forum and
who is directed to carry out actions as determined or assigned by the Forum, including
but not limited to, preparation of meeting agendas and minutes, maintaining documents
and records, researching federal and state appropriation opportunities, and researching
and applying for local, state and federal grants in support of the Strategic Action Plan
and the Capital Improvement Plan.
1.8.1 Service Provider Operating Fund: The Service Provider Operating Fund is
the fund established for activities of the Service Provider(s) in the
implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement
Plan. The fund budget is set each year by action of the Forum and authorized by
budget allocation from each Member Jurisdiction.
1.9 STEERING COMMITTEE and PROJECT SUBCOMMITTEES: The Steering
Committee is composed of executive level staff members of each Member Jurisdiction
who will provide specific guidance to technical level staff on the Project Subcommittees
for each of the projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan based on policy
direction from the Forum.
2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following:
2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the implementation of the
Strategic Action Plan and to share the cost of Service Provider(s) to coordinate and
Packet Page 138 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 3
provide the services necessary for the successful implementation of the Strategic Action
Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan.
2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from
state agencies, federal agencies or other sources to implement the Strategic Action
Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan in support of the Strategic Action Plan.
2.3 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the member jurisdictions
on issues relating to the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital
Improvement Plan.
2.4 To develop and articulate to state and federal legislators, watershed based positions on
stormwater management issues, conservation issues, funding or any other issues jointly
identified by the Member Jurisdictions.
2.5 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts
and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current
and future watershed conservation efforts.
It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the
authority or role of any individual Member Jurisdiction or water quality policy body.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by
Eligible Jurisdictions, as authorized by each jurisdiction’s legislative body, and further provided
that after such execution, this Agreement shall be posted on the web site of each Member
Jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of RCW 39.34.040 and .200. Once effective, this
Agreement shall remain in effect, unless terminated as provided in Section 9, until December 31,
2011; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the
Member Jurisdictions may agree to in writing.
4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF THE FORUM. The Member Jurisdictions hereby
establish the Forum to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of
this Agreement. Each Member Jurisdiction shall appoint one (1) elected official or designee
and an alternate (elected official or designee and alternate hereinafter referred to as designee) to
serve as its representative on the Forum along with a Steering Committee representative to
carry out the policy direction of the Forum.
4.1 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the appointment of designees from
each Member Jurisdiction to the Forum, the Forum designees shall meet and choose,
according to the voting provisions of Section 5, representatives to serve as Forum Chair
and Vice Chair to oversee and direct the activities associated with Forum meetings
including the development of the agendas, running the meeting and providing leadership
to the Forum.
Packet Page 139 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 4
4.2 The Forum shall have the authority and mandate to do the following:
4.2.1 Review and evaluate at least annually the duties to be assigned to the Steering
Committee to this Agreement and provide for whatever actions it deems
necessary to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and
responsibly delivered in the performance of this Agreement.
4.2.2 Review Steering Committee progress on implementation of the Strategic
Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan on a quarterly basis and
provide for whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure that such
development is efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the
performance of this Agreement.
4.2.3 On or before September 1 of each year, establish and approve a Service
Provider Operating Fund budget for the following calendar year for the activities
of the Service Provider(s), proposing the level of funding and total resource
obligations of the Member Jurisdictions to support the activities of the Service
Provider(s) which are to be allocated in accordance with the formula set forth in
Exhibit D.
4.2.4 Review and evaluate at least annually the duties to be assigned to the Service
Provider(s) to this Agreement and provide for whatever actions it deems
necessary to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and
responsibly delivered in the performance of this Agreement.
4.2.5 Oversee and administer the allocation of resources available to the Forum to
implement the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan in
support of the Strategic Action Plan.
4.3 The Forum designees may adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its
purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation according to the voting
provisions of Section 5.
5. VOTING. The Forum designees shall make decisions, approve goals and objectives, specify
work priorities and perform any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this
Agreement as follows:
5.1 No action or binding decision will be taken by the Forum without the presence of a
quorum of active Member Jurisdiction designees. A quorum exists if a majority of the
Member Jurisdiction designees are present at the Forum meeting. The voting
procedures provided for in 5.2 and 5.3 are conditioned upon there being a quorum of the
active Member Jurisdiction designees present for any action or decision to be effective
and binding.
Packet Page 140 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 5
5.2 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each designee
agrees to use their best effort and exercise good faith in consensus decision-making.
Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the Member Jurisdiction
designees at the meeting or by a majority recommendation agreed upon by the Member
Jurisdiction designees.
5.3 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures
adopted by the Forum, the Forum shall take action on a majority basis, as follows:
5.3.1 Each Member Jurisdiction, through its appointed designee, may cast its vote in
connection with a proposed Forum action.
5.3.2 For any action subject to voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must
be cast by a majority of the Member Jurisdiction designees. No action shall be
valid and binding on the Member Jurisdiction until it shall receive majority of
votes of the total number of Member Jurisdiction designees. A vote of
abstention shall be recorded as a “no” vote.
6. OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER JURISDICTIONS; BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES.
6.1 Each Member Jurisdiction shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations
hereunder as described in Section 2.1 and established by the operating fund adopted by
the Forum under this Agreement and described in Section 4.2.3.
6.2 On or before September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the Forum shall adopt a
Service Provider budget for the following calendar year. The Service Provider budget
shall propose the level of funding responsibilities of the individual Member Jurisdictions
for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding to be allocated to
the Service Provider budget for implementation activities related to the Strategic Action
Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan within the Watershed Area. The Member
Jurisdictions shall thereafter take separate legislative or other actions that may be
necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed operating
fund, and shall have done so no later than December 31st of each such year, provided
that the financial obligations of each Member Jurisdiction to fund this Agreement after
December 31, 2010 are contingent upon local legislative appropriation of necessary
funds in future fiscal years; and provided that financial obligations imposed herein shall
not be for the purpose of funding the design or construction of specific Capital
Improvement Plan projects.
6.3 Funds collected from any source on behalf of the Forum shall be maintained in a special
fund by the Fiscal Agent as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the Forum pursuant to rules
and procedures established and agreed to by the Forum. The Fiscal Agent shall also
serve as the contractual agent for the Member Jurisdictions in acquiring any services
Packet Page 141 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 6
needed, including those provided by the Service Provider(s), in the implementation of
the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan as directed by the
Forum. The Fiscal Agent shall establish billing practices and collection procedures in
the format established by the Washington State Auditor, and utilize its established
purchasing authority and procedures, and any other procedures as may be necessary to
provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any Member Jurisdiction may
inspect and review all records maintained in connection with the special fund maintained
by the Fiscal Agent at any reasonable time.
6.4 The Fiscal Agent, in the performance of its duties, shall not exceed the budgeted
amounts authorized by the Forum and/or the total funds as appropriated by the individual
Member Jurisdictions.
7. LATECOMERS. An Eligible Jurisdiction listed in Section 1.2 which has not become a Member
Jurisdiction within six (6) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a Member
Jurisdiction only with the written consent of all the Member Jurisdiction. The provisions of
Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the Forum shall not apply to this Section 7. The
Member Jurisdictions and the county or city seeking to become a Member Jurisdiction shall
jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a Member
Jurisdiction. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the
Member Jurisdictions of the amount determined jointly by the Member Jurisdictions and the
county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs
associated with activities undertaken by the Forum and the Member Jurisdictions on its behalf
as of the date the county or city becomes a Member Jurisdiction. Any county or city that
becomes a Member Jurisdiction pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general
rights and responsibilities of all other Member Jurisdictions.
8. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any Member Jurisdiction, as to that
Member Jurisdiction only, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other Member
Jurisdictions. The terminating Member Jurisdiction shall remain fully responsible for meeting
all of its funding obligations for expenditures authorized by the jurisdiction, but only for costs
incurred prior to the date of the notice. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the
written agreement of all Member Jurisdictions.
9. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the
limited purposes set forth in this Agreement, each Member Jurisdiction shall protect, defend,
hold harmless and indemnify the other Member Jurisdictions to include the officers, employees,
agents and contractors of the Member Jurisdiction, while acting within the scope of their
Packet Page 142 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 7
employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties,
liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or
in any way resulting from such Member Jurisdiction’s own negligent acts or omissions, torts
and wrongful or illegal acts related to such Member Jurisdiction’s participation and obligations
under this Agreement. Each Member Jurisdiction agrees that its obligations under this
subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of
its employees or agents. For this purpose, each Member Jurisdiction, by mutual negotiation,
hereby waives, with respect to the other Member Jurisdictions only, any immunity that would
otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title
51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to
Member Jurisdictions exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9.
10. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the Member Jurisdictions intend to assume
any responsibility, risk or liability of any other Member Jurisdiction or otherwise with regard to
any Member Jurisdiction’s duties or any act, statute or regulation of any local municipality or
government, the State of Washington or the United States.
11. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed
that, in entering into this Agreement, no Member Jurisdiction is committing to adopt or
implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in the Strategic Action Plan
and the Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to this Agreement.
13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or
more of the Member Jurisdiction from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work,
activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or
action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation
or other obligation of any kind on any Member Jurisdiction that is not a party to such decision or
agreement.
14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be
construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation NMFS, USFWS, any
agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for
any liability on the part of the Forum or any of the Member Jurisdictions, or their officers,
elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party.
Packet Page 143 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 8
15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous
consent of the Member Jurisdictions, represented by affirmative action by their legislative
bodies.
16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
17. APPROVAL BY MEMBER JURISDICTION’S GOVERNING BODIES. The governing body of
each Member Jurisdiction must approve this Agreement before any representative of such
Member Jurisdiction may execute this Agreement.
18. FILING OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be posted on the web site of each Member
Jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.34.040 and .200 and with the terms of
Section 3 herein.
19. ATTORNEY FEES. In the event a Member Jurisdiction brings suit to enforce this Agreement,
or for breach of this Agreement, the prevailing Member Jurisdiction shall be entitled to its costs,
expenses, and attorney fees for bringing or defending the action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member Jurisdictions hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates
indicated below:
Approved as to form: CITY OF EDMONDS
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:___________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:___________________________ Date:____________________________
Approved as to form: CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:___________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:___________________________ Date:____________________________
Packet Page 144 of 319
Interlocal Agreement Page 9
Approved as to form: CITY OF LYNNWOOD
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:___________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:___________________________ Date:____________________________
Approved as to form: CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:___________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:___________________________ Date:____________________________
Approved as to form: CITY OF SHORELINE
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:___________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:___________________________ Date:____________________________
Approved as to form: SNOHOMISH COUNTY
By:____________________________ By:_____________________________
Title:___________________________ Title:____________________________
Date:___________________________ Date:____________________________
Packet Page 145 of 319
Packet Page 146 of 319
Exhibit B
Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek
Watershed Study
Strategic Action Plan
Packet Page 147 of 319
Packet Page 148 of 319
Exhibit C
Capital Improvement Plan
Packet Page 149 of 319
Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Capital Improvement Plan - Exhibit CPriorityDescriptionGoalIssuesProjected OutcomeWatershed Issue AWatershed Issue BWatershed Issue CWatershed Issue DProjected Planning Level CostPotential Funding Options3Project Lead Agency41 2 other(2009 dollars)Forum Project Model the McAleer Creek flood plain in Lake Forest Park and Shoreline to update FEMA flood plain mapping information A1Accurately model flow and determine flood plain elevations for McAleer Creek from Lake Ballinger to Lake Washington - develop modeling and flood plain management guidelines to assist the Cities of Shoreline and Lake Forest Park with future development or redevelopment and to leverage FEMA funds for flood proofing program. This portion of the FEMA flood plain mapping project will assume flows from Lyon Creek have been redirected or minimized.X$750,000 to $1,000,000 GrantLake Forest Park, ShorelineXRevise existing flood plain maps to accurately reflect existing conditions and to develop modeling and flood plain management guidelines Joint project in Shoreline and Lake Forest Park Give accurate guidance to cities with development and redevelopment in the affected flood plain Private Project Develop and implement flood proofing program A2 Leverage FEMA funds for flood proofing programX$2,000,000 to $3,000,000 GrantLake Forest ParkXDevelop flood proofing program to prevent structure floodingPrivately initiated flood proofing program with possible City assistanceDeveloping an effective flood proofing program Lyon Creek Bypass/Lyon Creek Channel ModificationsBForum to provide encouragement to Lake Forest Park to seek funds to eliminate the Lyon Creek overflow to McAleer Creek during storm eventsX$3,100,000 Lake Forest ParkLake Forest ParkX XMinimize the impact of Lyon Creek on McAleer Creek during storm eventsNo financial commitment on the part of upstream Forum jurisdictionsReduce overflow from Lyon Creek during storm events to minimize flooding at Sheridan BeachMcAleer Creek Bypass Intake RetrofitCRetrofit McAleer Creek Bypass Intake to optimize facility functionX$213,000 GrantLake Forest ParkX XReduce the occurrence and severity of flooding in the Sheridan Beach Neighborhood of Lake Forest Park along McAleer CreekProject benefits residents in Lake Forest Park only.Would remove 30 cfs from McAleer Creek through the Sheridan Beach Neighborhood during the 100-yr eventUpgrade/Replace Culverts on McAleer CreekDEnhance and replace four culverts on McAleer Creek in Lake Forest ParkX $1,000,000 GrantLake Forest ParkX XReduce localized flooding in Lake Forest Park.Project benefits residents in Lake Forest Park only.Up to 10 residences in Lake Forest Park would be protected from localized flooding.McAleer Creek Flood Berms EInstall berms or other flood proofing along McAleer Creek in Lake Forest ParkX $830,000 GrantLake Forest ParkXKeep structures from flooding during 100 year eventsPermitting, work on private propertyMinimize flooding during 100 year eventsBasin Wide LID Retrofits FRetrofit existing city parcels and right of way with Low Impact Development BMP'sX X X X$5,000,000 to $10,000,000 over 20 yearsAppropriations or grantLake Forest Park, ShorelineX X Reduce flooding and improve water quality Long term - 20 year planEliminate 100 year flooding events, improve on fecal, temperature and chemical issues in McAleer CreekForum Project Model the Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger flood plain in Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace to update FEMA flood plain mapping information A1Accurately model flow and determine flood plain elevations for Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger - develop modeling and flood plain management guidelines to determine the most advantageous elevation of Lake Ballinger weir X$750,000 to $1,000,000 Grant Mountlake Terrace, EdmondsXRevise existing flood plain maps to accurately reflect existing conditions and to develop modeling and flood plain management guidelines Joint project in Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds Give accurate guidance to cities with development and redevelopment in the affected flood plain while managing the level of Lake Ballinger and developing a flood proofing program Private Project Develop and implement flood proofing program A2 Leverage FEMA funds for flood proofing program X$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 Grant EdmondsXDevelop flood proofing program to prevent structure floodingPrivately initiated flood proofing program with possible City assistanceDeveloping an effective flood proofing program McAleer Creek WeirAction IB2Install new weir gateXX$25,000 Mountlake TerraceMountlake TerraceN/A N/A N/A Restore weir to 1995 maintenance status MLT maintenance issue Meet existing maintenance requirementsAction IIB1Lower weir structure to first Nile culvert - 1.5 feet lower - install new weir foundation and dredge creek channel to lakeX$500,000 GrantMountlake Terrace, EdmondsXKeep lake level below 279.3Would require readjudication of the Superior Court Order regarding lake levelWould reduce by 59% the length of time that the lake would be above 279.3 Action IIB1Lower weir structure to first Nile culvert - 1.5 feet lower - install new weir foundation and dredge creek channel to lakeX$500,000 GrantMountlake Terrace, EdmondsXKeep lake level below 277.4Would require readjudication of the Superior Court Order regarding lake levelWould reduce by 74% the length of time the lake would be above 277.4 Action IIIB2Lower weir structure by 3.75 feet - install new weir foundation and dredge creek channel to I-5X$1,000,000 GrantMountlake Terrace, EdmondsXKeep lake level below 279.3Would require readjudication of the Superior Court Order regarding lake levelWould reduce by 93% the length of time the lake would be above 279.3 Action IIIB2Lower weir structure by 3.75 feet - install new weir foundation and dredge creek channel to I-5X$1,000,000 GrantMountlake Terrace, EdmondsXKeep lake level below 277.4Would require readjudication of the Superior Court Order regarding lake levelWould reduce by 99% the length of time the lake would be above 277.4Hall Creek Detention CInstall detention or infiltration system upstream of Lake BallingerX$12,000,000 not including land acquisitionGrant, appropriations, city CIP fundsMountlake TerraceXKeep lake level below 279.3Large site footprint of 2.7 acres - cost of land acquisition not includedWould reduce by 64% the length of time the lake would be above 279.3Basin Wide LID Retrofits DRetrofit existing city parcels and right of way with Low Impact Development BMP'sXXX X$5,000,000 to $10,000,000 over 20 years Grant, appropriations, city CIP fundsEach city in upper basinX XReduce flooding and improve water quality Long term - 20 year planEliminate 100 year flooding events, meet Lake Ballinger TMDL limits and improve on fecal, temperature and chemical issues in McAleer Creek1 Service levels are listed in Section 3 of the Strategic Action Plan, page 15 - 202 Weir gate replacement is contingent on decisions made about the ultimate level of the lake 3 Future governance agreement will incorporate and identify potential funding sources 4 A member agency representing the interests of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum McAleer CreekProject InformationPhase IIService Criteria1Phase IIPhase IAction or ProjectLower McAleer CreekLake Ballinger/Hall CreekUpper McAleer Creek/Lake Ballinger/Hall CreekPhase IPacket Page 150 of 319
Exhibit D
Operating Fund Allocations
Packet Page 151 of 319
Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum
Administrative Support Service Provider Needs Listing
Duties Hours/Month Year
1. Attend and take notes at monthly Forum Meeting 2.5 30
2. Arrange for room reservations, provide materials for meetings 2.5 30
3. Compile and produce minutes from the Forum meetings 5 60
4. Generate draft agenda for the Forum Meeting - 1.5 18
coordinate with the chair and co-chair on meeting agenda
5. Coordinate e-mail contacts through the Forum distribution list 0.5 6
6. Assists with cities web site maintenance 3 36
7. Maintains documents record for Forum activities 3 36
8. Prepares News Releases on Forum updates 2 24
Total 20 240
Additional Duties may be added as needs develop
Provider Support through the City of Mountlake Terrace
Administrative Support for 2011 $7,200
This listing assumes services are provided at $30.00 per hour
and that 20 hours a month are allocated for a total of 240
hours for the 2011 calendar year.
Packet Page 152 of 319
Packet Page 153 of 319
Packet Page 154 of 319
From: Jared Bond [mailto:jbond@ci.lynnwood.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:30 AM
To: Williams, Gene; Brian Landau; Mike Shaw; Aaron Halverson; Shuster, Jerry
Subject: RE: ILA Status
To clarify, there has not been any change in the decision by our Council. At this time, Lynnwood is not
planning to sign on to the ILA.
I will continue to participate on a staff level.
Jared S. Bond
Environmental and Surface Water Manager
Packet Page 155 of 319
AM-3324 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation declaring September "National Alcohol and Substance Abuse Recovery Month."
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the proclamation.
Attachments
Recovery Month Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/01/2010 10:48 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 08/24/2010 02:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 156 of 319
Packet Page 157 of 319
AM-3349 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on proposed updates to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA). The update is being conducted as part of the City’s
comprehensive review of its development regulations. The update is being done to ensure
ECDC 20.15A is consistent with WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, and the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. This update includes proposed
increases to categorical exemption flexible threshold levels for the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center as defined by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The ECDC 20.15A update was discussed with the CS/DS Committee on May 12, 2009 (Exhibit
1). An introduction to the proposed updates recommended by the Planning Board was presented
to the Council on July 27, 2010 (Exhibit 2). Council voted to split the Planning Board's
recommendation in two parts and hold two separate public hearings. Both proposals for the
public hearings will consider the updates to ensure consistency with WAC 197-11, WAC
173-806, and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. One
proposal will include increasing the categorical exemption flexible threshold levels for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, while the second will includes increasing the flexible
thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in ECDC 20.15A. The City’s original SEPA
regulations were adopted under Ordinance 1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance
No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with the new (at that
time) SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 and model SEPA ordinance in WAC 173-806. The ECDC
20.15A the City uses today is essentially the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago
having under gone only five minor amendments in that time.
ECDC 20.15A is being reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its development
regulations. Due to changes in the RCW’s, WAC’s, and the City’s own code, ECDC 20.15A is
long over due for an update.
Potential updates to ECDC 20.15A were presented to the Planning Board on July 22, 2009
(Exhibit 3). The Planning Board directed staff to propose new flexible thresholds for categorical
Packet Page 158 of 319
exemptions under SEPA.
Proposed new flexible thresholds were presented at the February 24, 2010 Planning Board
meeting (Exhibit 4). The Planning Board agreed they would like to consider changes to the
flexible thresholds, but only for the Highway 99 Corridor and multi-family residential areas along
main arterials such as 212th St SW, 196th St SW, and State Route 104. Staff was directed to
update the flexible threshold proposal and bring it back for further Board review.
Four flexible threshold alternatives based on Board guidance were presented to the Planning
Board on April 14, 2010 (Exhibit 5). The Planning Board ultimately chose an alternative that
increased the flexible threshold for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99
Corridor. The Planning Board also reviewed proposed changes to the text of ECDC 20.15A
which largely follows the model code provided in WAC 173-806.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed changes to ECDC 20.15A on June 23,
2010 and voted to forward the proposed amendments to ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review to
the City Council with a recommendation of approval as proposed (Exhibit 6).
Exhibit 7 is a memorandum detailing the review of ECDC 20.15A, Exhibit 8 is a redline/strike
version of ECDC 20.15A with proposed changes to ECDC 20.15A including increasing the
flexible threshold for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, Exhibits 9 - 11 are maps of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, and Exhibit 12 is a case study of a hypothetical
development in the Activity Center assuming the new flexible thresholds for the Activity Center.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - 05-12-09 CSDS Committee Minutes
Exhibit 2 - 07-27-10 Council Minutes
Exhibit 3 - 07-22-09 Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 4 - 02-24-10 Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 5 - 04-14-10 Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 6 - 06-23-10 Planning Board Minutes
Exihibit 7 - Memorandum on ECDC 20.15A Update
Exhibit 8 - ECDC 20.15A redline version with increases to flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center
Exhibit 9 - Aerial Photo of Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Exhibit 10 - Map of Comprehensive Plan Designations for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Exhibit 11 - Zoning Map of Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Exhibit 12 - Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Case Study
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/01/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 159 of 319
CS/DS Committee Minutes / May 12, 2009
Page 2
2
B. Discussion on proposal to ban single use plastic checkout bags in Edmonds.
Bio Park from the City Attorney’s Office reviewed three draft ordinances that were prepared as
options for the City Council to consider, based on approaches taken in other cities – primarily in
California. The “Retail Draft” ordinance would apply to all retail establishments, requiring that a
merchant supply recyclable paper or reusable bags instead of single-use plastic bags. The
“Groceries Draft” would apply the ban to all food stores (i.e. not all retailers), while the “Hybrid
Draft” would apply the ban to large supermarkets with other retailers only needing to provide a
paper/recyclable option for customers. All three draft ordinances would have some common
features, such as an “operative date” when the ordinance went into effect (to allow inventory
reduction and adjustment by merchants to the ban) and a standard of enforcement via the City’s
code enforcement procedures. Each ordinance would also authorize the Mayor to grant
exemptions during the first year of the ban in order to allow the Council to consider permanent
exemptions, if merited.
ACTION: The Committee voted to forward the three draft ordinances to the full Council for
discussion as part of the May 19th agenda.
C. Legalization of hens.
Rob Chave noted the lengthy history related to changes in the city’s animal regulations (dating
primarily back to 1999), which was the source of the current ban on poultry in the city’s land use
code. He noted that the changes made at that time separated the land use regulations
(numbers and types of animals allowed) from the regulations addressing how various types of
animals are ‘kept’ or cared for (these are in the animal control portion of the code, Chapter 5.05
ECC). He referred the Committee to the memo from Councilmember Bernheim which
summarized the proposal, which was to allow up to “three domestic female fowl” in single family
zones.
ACTION: The Committee voted to forward the proposal to the Planning Board for consideration
and recommendation.
D. Potential updates to the City's SEPA rules as part of the code rewrite project.
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner, introduced this subject. As part of the code rewrite, the City is
updating the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) rules. The last update occurred 25 years
ago, and a number of changes to the State’s SEPA statutes and rules have occurred since that
time The current SEPA chapter was also adopted prior to the State enacting GMA, Regulatory
Reform, and Critical Areas statutes, which all impact on how SEPA is implemented locally. The
update will be focusing on updating the city’s regulations to be consistent with state law, and
with changes elsewhere in city codes and policies that have been made over the years. An
important issue the code update will address will be the state’s authorization of flexible
thresholds, which enables the City to adjust its SEPA thresholds for different areas of the city.
For example, the City could establish higher thresholds in areas – such as Highway 99 – where
smaller projects will have less of an impact and the city wishes to encourage more streamlined
permitting approvals consistent with its economic development goals.
Packet Page 160 of 319
CS/DS Committee Minutes / May 12, 2009
Page 3
3
Kernen also noted that one area of ongoing work in the SEPA area concerns climate change
and greenhouse gas impacts. This is an area still being studied by various agencies in the state,
and while policy support may be appropriate, it is probably too soon to establish clear standards
for mitigation under SEPA. City staff will be monitoring developments in this area for future
consideration.
ACTION: No action required.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:17 P.M.
Packet Page 161 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 5
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the USPS did not simply use the site they already own. Mr. Logan
answered the USPS leases the current site. The building has been purchased; the current owner intends to
redevelop the site and there is a possibility the post office could be part of that development.
Councilmember Petso asked if any of the services/facilities will be lost when the facility is downsized.
Mr. Logan answered nothing would be lost. The carriers in that facility were moved out because it was
not big enough for that function. All the retail services will remain and be provided in a nicer facility.
Councilmember Petso requested any future facility have comparable parking to the existing facility and
have a drop box. Mr. Logan assured they would do both.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Colin Southcote-Want, Edmonds, explained he just came from the Edmonds Conference Center where
the project at Pt. Wells is being presented by the developer. While talking with Richmond Beach
residents, he learned one of their concerns with the proposal was the estimated 2400 car trips per day on
Richmond Beach Road and the determination that this was not significant. He raised this issue because
later on the agenda the Council will be discussing potential changes to Edmonds’ SEPA regulations. He
urged the Council not to weaken the City’s environmental protections. He commented it often seems the
City treats this as proforma, someone completes forms, a determination of non-significance is made and
appealing that determination is very difficult.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated Mayor Cooper. With regard to his report at the July 6 meeting
that it took 11 minutes for Fire District 1 to respond to a car fire near Old Mill Town, he relayed the Fire
Chief determination that it took 7 minutes and 22 seconds. With regard to SEPA regulations, he expressed
concern that the proposal had gotten this far. He referred to staff’s indication that the SEPA regulations
had not been changed in a number of years and needed to be updated. He questioned why the SEPA
regulations needed to be changed when they seem to have done their job. He was opposed to any changes
that would eliminate environmental protections. Due to the proximity of the Highway 99 Corridor to Lake
Ballinger, he feared flexible SEPA regulations in that area would impact Lake Ballinger. He referred to
the SEPA flexible exemption level map in the packet, expressing concern that the Medical Activity
Center zone extended into single family neighborhoods. He recommended the Council consider amending
the boundary of the Medical Activity Center zone.
6. INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED UPDATES TO ECDC 20.15A SEPA REGULATIONS.
Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained Washington State’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first
adopted in 1971. Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to:
• “Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making
which may have impact on man’s environment,” and
• Ensure that “...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical considerations...” (RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a)
and (2)(b)
He explained any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA. The
environmental process in SEPA is designed to work with the other regulations to provide a
comprehensive review of a proposal. Where most regulations focus on a particular aspect of a proposal,
SEPA requires identification and evaluation of probable impacts of all elements of the environment.
Proposals can be project proposals such as fill and grade, new development, etc.; or they can be non-
project proposals such as Comprehensive Plan changes, rezones, adoption of regulations, etc.
Packet Page 162 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 6
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.15A. The City’s first SEPA regulations were adopted in 1976. In 1984 the City adopted
Ordinance No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with new SEPA rules
in WAC 197-11 and model SEPA ordinances in WAC 173-806. ECDC 20.15A the City uses today is
essentially the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having undergone only minor amendments
during that time. Due to changes in WACs, RCWs and the City’s own code since the SEPA ordinance
was adopted, it was appropriate to adjust the City’s SEPA regulations to be in compliance with the State’s
rules and regulations.
The City and the Planning Board reviewed a number of issues:
• ECDC 20.15A adopts by reference significant portions of WAC 197-11, the State’s SEPA rules.
Sections of 197-11 have been added or removed since the City adopted its SEPA regulations in
1984 particularly in regard to SEPA-GMA integration; GMA was not in place when the City
adopted the current SEPA regulations. This update reviewed the changes in WAC 197-11, the
adopted list in 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with the State’s regulations.
• ECDC 20.15A is largely based on the State’s model code in WAC 173-806. There have been
changes to the model code since 1984. This update reviewed the model code and made changes to
the City’s SEPA regulations where appropriate to ensure the City is up-to-date with the State’s
regulations.
• The City’s code has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. This update ensured the
SEPA regulations are consistent with the rest of the City’s development regulations.
• The State’s rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically exempt flexible threshold
levels for certain minor new development. Once the threshold is reached, a SEPA review is
required.
• The City’s Climate Action Team SEPA Implementation Working Group released a report in 2009
in an attempt to clarify how consideration of climate change should be incorporated into
environmental review and decision making. That report included strong consensus from the Work
Group but few recommendations other than the Department of Ecology should consider the
matter and develop guidelines. DOE released draft guidelines on addressing greenhouse gas
emissions in May 2010; the guidelines refer SEPA practitioners to studies and analyses conducted
across the United States and do not provide any clear standard of analysis.
The City has begun groundwork to develop SEPA regulations through the adoption of the
Sustainability Element in the Comprehensive Plan as well as development of a Climate Change
Action Plan. Within those Plans, the City is developing policies that establish the foundation for
the City to begin developing SEPA regulations to evaluate and mitigate impacts of climate
change. The City recently participated in a conference call with other jurisdictions around the
state regarding addressing climate change through the SEPA process. Staff will follow up with
other jurisdictions who participated in the call to see how they are addressing climate change
through their SEPA processes. Developing a program for Edmonds will be very technical and
data intensive and as a result will take a great deal of time to develop. It is not part of this update
and will be incorporated into 20.15A in the future.
Mr. Lien reviewed the Categorical Exemptions Thresholds in WAC 197-11-800(1) where the City could
adjust the thresholds:
• The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling unit – Can be modified
up to 20 dwelling units.
• The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or
packing structure, or similar agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used
Packet Page 163 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 7
only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming the property. The
exemption shall not apply to feed lots – Does not apply in Edmonds.
• The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with
4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and associated parking facilities designed for 20
automobiles – Can be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
• The construction of a parking lot designed for 20 automobiles – Can be modified up to 40
automobiles.
• Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards – Can be modified up to 500 cubic yards, and has
been at 500 cubic yards since 1984 when the City adopted the ordinance that established 20.15A.
Determining the environmental impact of a development involves context, intensity of the development
and does not lend itself to a quantifiable test. The context may vary by physical setting; intensity depends
on the magnitude and duration of the impact; the same proposal may have a significant impact in one
location and less in another. For instance a 12,000 square foot commercial development in a
neighborhood zone such as Five Corners or Westgate would likely have a greater impact on the
surrounding neighborhood than the same scale commercial development along Highway 99. With this in
mind the Planning Board reviewed the flexible threshold levels for categorical exemptions and discussed
a number of options:
• Leave the levels at the minimums established by WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)
• Increase all, or a portion of the levels, for the entire City
• Establish different threshold levels for different Comprehensive Plan designations
• Establish different threshold levels for different zones
• Establish different threshold levels considering zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation
After considering the above options, the Planning Board recommended the following:
• Increase flexible threshold in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City
The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and
transit oriented area focused on two Master Plan developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds-
Woodway High School, along with related high intensity development in the Highway 99 corridor. One
of the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is to
expand the economic and tax base of the City by providing incentives for business and commercial
redevelopment in the planned Activity Center. The Highway 99 corridor is a narrow strip of commercial
and retail uses with some multi family development on the fringes of the corridor. Like the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, in the Highway 99 Corridor area of the City is looking to
encourage economic development and raising the threshold levels that trigger SEPA review may be one
way to simplify the process for developers within these two areas.
When the Planning Board was considering these flexible thresholds, they raised several questions
including the effect of increasing the thresholds. He researched SEPA reviews the City conducted since
2004 and found there have been a total of 193 SEPA reviews since January 2004. Of those 113 would be
subject to the flexible thresholds. With the proposed increase in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center,
2 projects since 2004 would have been exempt from SEPA review under the proposed changes. He
Packet Page 164 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 8
pointed out there are other regulatory requirements; SEPA is only one part of the review. The City has
other processes and regulations to control issues that would be considered such as transportation impacts
and Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level of development of a property; it can only
condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the code. There are some
residential areas in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center; SEPA has very little impact on development
in single family zones. For example the subdivision of five or more units requires a public hearing process
and approval by the City Council. This requirement would not change as a result of changing the SEPA
flexible threshold. SEPA as well as many other processes have a public notice requirement and hearing
opportunities. He referred to the tables in Title 20, Type I-V uses, II-V require public notice.
Councilmember Petso offered to work with staff on some areas in the ordinance that do not appear to be
in the model ordinance, 1) the .025 provision, reliance on existing plans and regulations, and 2) the
provision that would allow a developer to request the City complete the SEPA checklist. With regard to
the .025 provision and reliance on other regulations, Mr. Lien explained that was in WAC 197-11 and
rather than adopt that WAC or insert a reference to WAC 197-11, he included a reference to the section
within Title 20 that is essentially the same as WAC 197-11. With regard to the ability for a developer to
request staff complete the SEPA checklist, Mr. Lien advised that is in the current SEPA regulations. He
explained often the City has more information than the person completing the checklist. One of the most
frequent triggers for SEPA review is fill and grade; 95 of the 193 SEPA reviews were fill and grade and
many of those are for single family residential development. Often they do not have all the information
and staff completes the blanks as a way to assist the citizen. There is also a provision that developers can
be charged for staff completing the SEPA checklist.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how it was determined whether a developer was charged. Mr. Lien
answered there is not a description of how a developer would be charged. Since he has been employed by
the City, no one has asked staff to complete the SEPA checklist. Typically if there is a N/A when he
reviews a SEPA checklist and information should be included, he will fill in the information such as the
zoning, Comprehensive Plan designation, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City was potentially liable if staff was filling out portions of
the SEPA checklist. He asked whether staff had been doing that and whether it was a common practice.
Mr. Lien responded in all the places he has worked, staff typically filled in missing information. The
SEPA checklist also includes a space for staff comment. With regard to liability, there is a SEPA appeal
process; if staff completed the checklist, the applicant could appeal the determination based on the way
the checklist was completed.
Councilmember Plunkett observed under the proposed changes there would have only been two instances
were neighbors surrounding the structure would not have had the benefit of SEPA review. He asked the
rationale of not allowing two groups of neighbors the benefit of a SEPA review. Mr. Lien explained one
of the primary reasons for selecting the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center is those are two areas where the City wants to promote economic development. The Planning
Board felt by removing one of the hurdles, SEPA review, it may be more attractive for development. He
reiterated SEPA was only one of the processes. He did not research what other public notice requirements
may have been required for those two developments.
Councilmember Plunkett concluded the rationale was the neighbors would not have the benefit of SEPA
because they lived in a neighborhood that was more industrial oriented. Mr. Lien explained impacts are
different in different areas; a 12,000 square foot commercial development in Five Corners would have the
potential for greater impacts than the same development on Highway 99. That was one of the reasons the
State allows jurisdictions the flexibility to adjust those thresholds. Denying anyone the SEPA process was
Packet Page 165 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 9
not discussed as a reason for adjusting the flexible thresholds, it was viewed as a way to promote
economic development in these two areas by removing one of the regulatory hurdles.
Council President Bernheim acknowledged since it had been 25 years since the SEPA regulations were
adopted and other things are changing, it may be necessary to ensure consistency. He was concerned with
changing policy as part of a statutory update. He asked the impetus for changing the SEPA requirement to
make it more developer friendly. Mr. Lien responded when he presented the update to the Planning
Board, the flexible threshold was the one area the City could change. The Planning Board requested he
provide proposals for the flexible thresholds. His first proposal was changing thresholds in zones
throughout the City. The Planning Board then directed him to look at the corridors. His next proposal was
for four corridors in the City. The proposed changes are what the Planning Board recommended.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether other jurisdictions have adopted these flexible thresholds. Mr.
Lien answered most jurisdictions have increased the thresholds. In his previous position, all the thresholds
were maxed out except for agricultural buildings. Seattle raised thresholds in different zones throughout
the city. He did not research other jurisdictions but found it unlikely that all were at the minimum
established by SEPA.
Councilmember Peterson acknowledged SEPA was not the be all and end all of public notification or
environmental regulation. He assumed any City code changes below this would trump SEPA regulations.
For example if the threshold was 40 parking spaces and the City only allowed 30 spaces in the zone, the
specific zoning would trump the SEPA threshold. Mr. Lien explained SEPA does not set the intensity of
zoning, if a zone only allows a parking lot for 30 automobiles, 30 would be the limit. If it was below the
40 space threshold, SEPA would not be done but the parking lot could not be larger than 30 parking
spaces if that was specified by the zone.
Councilmember Peterson commented he was a fan of SEPA regulations and review, finding it served the
City, citizens and State well. If the Council and City were more proactive in defining zones and
environmental regulations, SEPA may play a smaller role. Mr. Lien agreed SEPA played a smaller role
today than when it was first adopted in 1971. For example when SEPA was first adopted, there was no
GMA, no Critical Areas Ordinance, Traffic Impact Fees, etc. to address potential impact from
development. When an application is received, staff reviews it to ensure it is consistent with the City’s
development regulations. If all the impacts cannot be mitigated through existing development regulations,
conditions can be added via the SEPA process.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was not a limiting of SEPA regulations but an effort to remove
hurdles for economic development. To the question of who has given that policy direction, he answered
the Council has expressed support for incentivizing development on Highway 99 and development in the
area surrounding Stevens Hospital. If Council did not support the proposed thresholds, they should be
clear about what they want from the Planning Board to foster economic development in those areas or
change the Comprehensive Plan. He recognized there may be more concern with the proposed change in
the northern Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, recalling the Council declined a recent opportunity to
change the zoning in that area.
If the Council was sensitive to changes in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, Councilmember
Wilson suggested it may be appropriate to bring changes to the thresholds in that area to Council
separately from changes to the Highway 99 area. Mr. Lien answered one option would be to have three
proposals at the public hearing, 1) keep the flexible threshold levels as they are, and 2) the proposal
recommended by the Planning Board, 3) remove the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and only
increase the thresholds for the Highway 99 corridor.
Packet Page 166 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson pointed out if the Council did not support incentivizing development in the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, the definition of the Activity Center may need to be changed to
focus development around the commercial area and not impact the residential areas. He suggested having
separate public hearings for Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Mr. Lien
suggested it may be more appropriate to have the public hearings together because increasing the
thresholds was only part of the update.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the 40 parking spaces and 12,000 square feet were determined. Mr.
Lien answered WAC 197-11-800(1) is the section that contains the flexible thresholds; 40 parking spaces
and 12,000 square feet is the maximum.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether consideration had been given to a flexible threshold that could
be waived on a case-by-case basis based on the project. Mr. Lien answered that would be difficult to
implement for the City and the developer.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the red area on the SEPA Flexible Categorical Exemptions
Level Map, noting it increases the SEPA thresholds into residential neighborhoods 6-10 blocks off
Highway 99 and in the south section, up to 12 blocks off Highway 99. She asked how that area was
selected. Mr. Lien answered the red area is the Highway 99 corridor as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the impact to development and economic development if the
nothing was done. Mr. Lien answered the proposed changes would have only exempted 2 developments
out of 193 in the past 6 years. If nothing is done, only 2 proposals would have benefited from the change.
Councilmember Wilson commented the answer to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ question was
unknown because although two projects would have been exempt, it is unknown how many would have
been proposed although he anticipated the requirement for a SEPA review would typically not be a deal
breaker for a developer. Mr. Lien explained of the 193 proposals, 12 were within the CG or CG2 zone for
which 2 would not have required SEPA review under this proposal.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Plunkett supported the premise that the City needed to be consistent with WACs and
RCWs. With regard to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comment about doing nothing, he pointed out
the update was required to be consistent with those regulations. He did not support the concept of
lowering neighborhood standards.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE THAT ALL INCREASES IN SEPA THRESHOLD LEVELS BE
REMOVED, THEREBY LEAVING THE LEVELS AT THE MINIMUM ESTABLISHED BY THE
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
Councilmember Wilson asked what would be left for the public hearing if those change were removed.
Mr. Lien asked for clarification whether the motion removed the increase in the SEPA threshold that was
done 25 years ago. Councilmember Plunkett clarified only the increases in the Planning Board’s
recommendation.
Packet Page 167 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 11
Councilmember Wilson suggested if the Council did not want the policy to reflect what was in the
Comprehensive Plan, more research should be done with regard to the boarder policy question.
Councilmember Plunkett responded the Planning Board’s recommendation with regard to meeting
consistence complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendation also complies with reference
in the Comprehensive Plan to encouraging economic development in this area. He did not anticipate that
because a developer was required to complete a SEPA checklist, they would be prevented from seeking
an economic development project.
Councilmember Wilson advised he would oppose the amendment because he wanted to hear from the
public. If the amendment fails he would make a different amendment that would separate consideration of
the two areas in hopes it would better address the concerns with protecting residential rights in places
where there are more residences such as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Petso spoke in favor of the amendment, advising the public hearing could address the
necessary statutory updates as well as other issues such whether staff should be completing the SEPA
checklist for applicants. She was not satisfied with the solution suggested by Councilmember Wilson to
separate the Highway 99 corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center because under the
Comprehensive Plan, both areas include several residential neighborhoods. The Planning Board minutes
indicate the proposed change would have a minimal time and cost savings to a developer. However she
preferred that projects such as a 20 unit residential development in front of another resident’s solar
collection panels or a project that technically complies with drainage codes but will impact Lake
Ballinger have a SEPA review. She did not want to facilitate economic development at the expense of
these neighborhoods or at the expense of Lake Ballinger.
Council President Bernheim spoke against the amendment, commenting in the pursuit of economic
development consideration is being given to environmental regulations. Although he did not object to that
in principle as long as the right things were relaxed, he supported having a public hearing about the
Planning Board’s recommendation to relax the SEPA standards. The proposal could then be amended
after the public hearing if appropriate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the amendment, preferring to have a public hearing
regarding the Planning Board’s recommendation. She preferred to have one public hearing because there
are residential neighborhoods in both areas.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the amendment, commenting he did not view the Planning
Board’s recommendation as a relaxation of the environmental standards. He viewed it as an opportunity
to reduce the bureaucratic paperwork and number of steps developers are required to complete. He
commented on the importance of hearing from the public and having an open dialogue about
environmental standards.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Councilmember Petso understood the Planning Board’s recommended proposal could be amended after
the public hearing. She did not support the main motion because there was a good chance the public
would not support the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas spoke in support of the motion to hold a public hearing, commenting it
was important to hear from the public, particularly the residents along the Highway 99 corridor and the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Packet Page 168 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Wilson asked what it would take for this proposed change to be relevant in a single
family zone. He suggested first a developer would need to be interested in building a commercial
development in a residential which would require a zone change and a Comprehensive Plan designation
change. Mr. Lien answered if there were a proposal for a subdivision of more than 5 lots, although under
this proposal that development would be exempt from SEPA review, it has notice requirements, and it
requires view by the Planning Board and the City Council who ultimately approves/denies a 5-lot
subdivision. Depending on the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation, a Comprehensive Plan
change would require SEPA review. If a rezone was required, a rezone requires SEPA review. Once the
Comprehensive Plan designation change and rezone were accomplished, if the development was under
the thresholds, SEPA would not be required. If the development exceeded the thresholds, a third SEPA
may be required.
Councilmember Wilson supported protecting single family neighborhood, noting there would already be
two SEPA evaluations before a commercial development could occur in a single family zone. He
summarized neighborhoods are not under threat of having an environmentally damaging commercial
developments occur in their backyard as a result of the Council’s consideration of the Planning Board’s
recommendations.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PLANNING BOARD’S
RECOMMENDATION, ONE REGARDING THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER
AND THE OTHER REGARDING THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR.
Councilmember Wilson explained separating the neighborhoods would allow the public to indicate in
which areas they felt the Planning Board’s recommendations were appropriate.
Councilmember Peterson spoke in favor of the amendment, commenting a one-size-fits-all approach does
not work well for the City and it may be advantageous to separate the public hearings.
Councilmember Petso supported the amendment to hold two public hearing although she did not expect it
would have an impact due to the presence of single family neighborhoods in both areas. She pointed out
this was not applicable only to commercial buildings. She provided as an example a residential
neighborhood faced with development of perhaps 27 homes and under this proposal that would have
required SEPA review. However if the development only had 17 homes it would have been exempt from
SEPA review. In the 27 home development, staff required 6 SEPA conditions, 3 regarding preservation of
trees, 1 regarding a traffic impact fee and 1 that required onsite parking. She summarized the SEPA
process was what allowed those conditions to be placed on a residential development and that protection
should be available to neighbors surrounding Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not want to have neighborhoods on the Highway 99 corridor pitted
against each other. She wanted to maintain unity among the single family residences along the Highway
99 corridor of which she was one.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM,
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BUCKSHNIS, WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Plunkett understood the Council’s desire for a public hearing. However, he did not
support the motion because he did not support reducing neighborhood protections to allow major projects
in single family neighborhoods.
Packet Page 169 of 319
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 27, 2010
Page 13
Councilmember Petso anticipated the public hearing would result in a different proposal than the Planning
Board’s recommendation. For that reason she would not support the motion.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
PETSO VOTING NO.
As staff prepared for the public hearing, Councilmember Wilson said he would be interested in staff’s
response to the Councilmembers’ concerns. He suggested staff prepare a couple case studies such as the
Burnstead example cited by Councilmember Petso.
Mr. Lien clarified the intent was to have two public hearings at the same Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson explained his intent was for one public hearing applying the Planning Board’s
recommendations to the Highway 99 corridor and a second public hearing on the same night applying the
Planning Board’s recommendations to the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
7. FIRST READING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER
3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY-SEVEN (37) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF WALKWAYS, INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS, STREET UPGRADES, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION INSTALLATION AND
REBUILD, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A FORTY DOLLAR
($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS, AND SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING FOR AUGUST 3, 2010.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained if passed, the proposed ordinance would expand the
authorities of the existing Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD) which the Council created in
November 2008. The Charter of the TBD at that time was to engage itself in fundraising and provide
funds for preservation and maintenance of the transportation assets within the City’s rights-of-way. The
proposed ordinance would modify those authorities to add to what the TBD can do and specifically
authorize the TBD to seek voter approval of a $40 increase to the local transportation user fee that is now
established at $20. The additional $40 would be allocated toward the completion of a project list that
includes 37 projects of the type outlined in the agenda title. If the ordinances passes with second reading
next week, the TBD would be able to enact an ordinance to place the item on the November general
election ballot, establish voter pamphlet language and a ballot title, and provide voters an opportunity to
approve or reject the proposed additional fee.
Councilmember Plunkett commented this has been discussed by the TBD Board and was now at the City
Council. He asked whether the City Council must approve placing it on the ballot. Mr. Williams
explained because the City Council created the TBD via ordinance, only the Council can change their
charter and give them new authorities. The Edmonds TBD Board can then act as the new authorities
establish.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 3, 2010.
Councilmember Wilson asked if this allowed enough time to hold a public hearing. Mr. Clifton answered
City Clerk Sandy Chase has already issued a public notice for the August 3, 2010 public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 170 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2009 Page 13
CODE REWRITE: POTENTIAL UPDATES TO THE CITY’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
(SEPA) RULES (ECDC 20.15A)
Mr. Lien explained that the current SEPA (ECDC 20.15.A) regulations were initially adopted in 1984 in order to be in
compliance with the new State’s new SEPA rules. Since that time, only minor amendments have been made to the City’s
document. Staff believes it is appropriate for the City to update their code to incorporate the numerous changes that have
occurred at the State level, particularly those having to do with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and SEPA review.
Mr. Lien referred the Board to the table that was prepared by staff to identify the proposed changes. He noted that many of
the proposed amendments are related to SEPA thresholds. He explained that State SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to
modify the categorically exempt threshold levels for certain minor new construction activities. However, to date, the City has
only modified one threshold. The clearing and grading threshold was increased to the maximum 400 cubic yards allowed by
the State. He suggested the City should undertake a thorough review of the flexible thresholds and consider modifying the
threshold levels as follows:
• At this time, the City requires SEPA review for construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling
units or more. However, State law allows the City to increase the threshold up to 20 dwelling units.
• The City currently requires SEPA review for the construction of an office, school, commercial, etc. building with
4,000 square feet or more of gross floor area, with associated parking facilities designed for 20 automobiles. This
threshold could be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
• The City’s threshold of 20 automobiles for parking lots can be modified up to 40 vehicles.
Mr. Lien explained that the City may choose to adjust the threshold levels to apply city-wide, or apply different threshold
levels to different zones within the City. For example, perhaps it would be more appropriate to keep the thresholds lower in
residential zones, but allow a greater threshold in commercial zones. He announced that of the 164 SEPA reviews that have
occurred in the City since 2004, 59 were not subject to the threshold but were triggered for other reasons. Three multi-family
residential developments could have benefited from the flexible thresholds, and 35 projects triggered SEPA review because
they exceeded the threshold for fill.
Mr. Lien recalled that ECDC 20.04 was recently adopted as part of the amendments to Title 20 regarding permit process. He
noted that this section largely deals with SEPA review and planned actions. He suggested the Board consider moving ECDC
20.04 to ECDC 20.15A for ease of implementation and understanding of the development code.
Board Member Reed observed that many of the proposed amendments are administrative in nature to make Title 20 consistent
with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Mr. Lien answered affirmatively and noted that consistency is required.
Board Member Reed suggested it would be helpful to have a decision tree that identifies the areas where the Board will have
to provide direction and/or policy recommendations.
Vice Chair Lovell asked Mr. Lien to prepare a matrix that identifies how changing the current SEPA thresholds would impact
areas such as downtown, Highway 99, the waterfront, Five Corners, etc. He reminded the Board of their charge to come up
with plans and suggestions for the City Council as to how the City could enhance development and generate revenue. He
suggested the Board discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to relax the thresholds in order to enhance opportunities
for development without the extra burden of SEPA.
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the City is trying to encourage sustainability and alternative choices of
transportation. Reducing the amount of parking required would be one way to encourage this.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Bowman reported that he would meet with Mr. Chave over the next week to solidify the date for the Planning Board
Retreat. He said he would confirm the date via email as soon as possible.
Packet Page 171 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 9
establishing a monetary hurdle for religious organizations could be considered in opposition to their freedom of religious
exercise.
Section 17.20.110 – No Intent to Create Protected/Benefited Class.
Mr. Park explained that this section is intended to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. It further
states that nothing contained in the chapter should be construed to create or establish any particular class or group of
persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the provisions in this chapter.
Board Member Reed suggested the Board appoint a subcommittee to work with Mr. Park and staff to create draft code
language for the Board’s consideration at a future time. Mr. Park explained that his intent was to provide a basic template
for the Board to begin their discussion. His goal was to provide a rough idea of the legal parameters surrounding the issue
and solicit feedback from the Board about how restrictive the ordinance should be. He would also like feedback about the
ability of religious groups to petition the decision maker for possible exceptions to the standards, etc.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that Mr. Park would collect sample ordinances that have been adopted and used successfully
by other jurisdictions. This information could be used as a template to prepare draft code language for the Board’s
consideration in March. Once the code language has been presented to the Board again, they may decide to appoint a
subcommittee to review the document further and report back to the Board. Mr. Park agreed to work with City staff and the
Fire Marshal to address issues related to building and fire code requirements. Mr. Park also agreed to work with staff to
prepare additional information related to logistics, space, size, etc. Board Member Johnson reminded staff of her earlier
request that a drawing be provided to illustrate how the proposed language would be applied to a given site.
The Board discussed that it would be appropriate to forward a joint recommendation to the City Council regarding the
temporary homeless shelters and temporary homeless encampments at the same time. Mr. Park reminded the Board that the
interim ordinance related to temporary homeless shelters was adopted by the City Council on December 15, 2009 and would
expire on June 15, 2010.
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A SHORT BREAK AT 9:02 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE
MEETING AT 9:12 P.M.
CODE REWRITE: PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE CITY’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
(SEPA) RULES (ECDC 20.15A) (FILE NO. AMD-2009-6)
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City’s SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.15A, and the original regulations were adopted under Ordinance 1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance
2461, which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with the new SEPA rules in the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11 and the Model SEPA Ordinance in WAC 173-806. The SEPA regulations currently
used by the City are essentially the same that were adopted 25 years ago, with only some minor amendments. He reminded
the Board that the SEPA regulations (ECDC 20.15A) are being reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its
development regulations. Due to changes to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), WAC, and the City’s own code,
ECDC 20.15A is long overdue for an update. He reviewed the issues being considered as part of the review as follows:
Adoption by Reference. ECDC 20.15A adopts significant portions of WAC 197-11 (SEPA rules) by reference.
Sections of WAC 197-11 have been added and/or removed since the City adopted Ordinance 2461 in 1984, particularly
in regards to SEPA and Growth Management Act (GMA) integration. The proposed update would review changes in
WAC 197-11 and the adoption lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with the State
regulations.
Model Code. ECDC 20.15A is largely based off the model code in WAC 173-806. As with WAC 197-11, there have
been changes since 1984. The update will review WAC 173-806 and make updates to ECDC 20.15A where appropriate
to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with State regulations.
Packet Page 172 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 10
Consistency. As with the State rules, the ECDC has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. The update will
ensure ECDC 20.15A is consistent with the rest of the City’s development regulations.
Categorical Exemptions – Flexible Thresholds. State SEPA rules allow jurisdictions to modify the categorically
exempt threshold levels for certain minor new construction activities. The City has only modified one of these flexible
thresholds (landfill and excavation), and staff is proposing some changes.
Vice Chair Lovell said he read through the existing and proposed code language. He asked if it is correct that the City could
request concessions from developers, as part of the SEPA review process, to mitigate the environmental impacts associated
with proposed projects. Mr. Lien agreed that the City could place conditions on an application to mitigate the environmental
impacts. He explained that there are several types of projects that automatically require a SEPA review. In other situations,
a SEPA review would only be required if a proposed projects meets or exceeds the thresholds identified in the ordinance. If
a SEPA review is required, the City has the ability to issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), a Determination of
Significance (DS) or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS). An MDNS can be used to impose additional
conditions upon an applicant to mitigate impacts associated with the project. In addition, the development code gives the
City substantive authority to place conditions on permits that fall outside of the purview of the SEPA review. He noted that
the SEPA review is done upfront so mitigation measures can be in place at the time a project or proposal comes before the
Board for review.
Board Member Reed asked staff to identify the types of projects and permits that would not require a SEPA review if the
City were to make no changes to ECDC 20.15A except to make it consistent with the new State SEPA rules. Mr. Lien
answered that WAC 197-11-800 provides a list of exemptions, and there is also a list of statutory exemptions in the RCW.
He explained that the SEPA review requirement is not necessarily tied to property but to project proposals. No properties are
categorically exempt from SEPA review, but some projects are. For example, the current Edmonds code exempts residential
structures of four or fewer dwelling units. Mr. Chave added that this threshold exemption currently applies citywide, and
does not differentiate by location. Staff would like the Board to provide direction about whether it would be appropriate to
have the same threshold for the downtown, the neighborhood commercial centers, and Highway 99.
Mr. Lien advised that WAC 197-11-800 establishes thresholds for certain minor new construction that are categorically
exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements. It also allows cities to raise the exemption levels to a specified
amount. Again, he noted that the City has only raised threshold to the maximum amount allowed. He reviewed each of the
flexible threshold categories and how they could be modified as follows:
1. The construction or location of any residential structure of four dwelling units. WAC 197-11-800 allows this threshold
to be modified up to 20 dwelling units.
2. The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or packing structure, or
similar agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used only by the property owner or his or her agent
in the conduct of farming the property. This exemption shall not apply to feed lots. WAC 197-11-800 allows this
threshold to be modified up to 30,000 square feet.
3. The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 4,000 square feet of
gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for 20 automobiles. WAC 197-11-800 allows this
threshold to be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
4. The construction of a parking lot designed for twenty automobiles. WAC 197-11-800 allows this threshold to be
modified up to 40 automobiles.
5. Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards throughout the total lifetime of the fill or excavation; and any fill or
excavation classified as a Class I, II, or III forest practice under RCW 76-09-050 or regulations there under. The City
has already bumped this up to 500 cubic yards, which is the maximum allowed by WAC 197-11-800.
Board Member Reed asked if the 500 cubic yard threshold for fill and excavation would be a combined measurement or
would the regulation allow 500 cubic yards of fill and 500 cubic yards of excavation. Mr. Lien said the City has traditionally
measured the two separately. Any fill or excavation of less than 500 cubic yards has been exempt from SEPA.
When reviewing the flexible thresholds, Mr. Lien advised that the Board has the following options:
Packet Page 173 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 11
1. Leave the levels at the minimums established by WAC 197-11-800(1)(b).
2. Increase all or a portion of the levels for the entire City.
3. Establish different threshold levels for different Comprehensive Plan designations.
4. Establish different threshold levels for different zones.
5. Establish different threshold levels considering zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations.
Mr. Lien said staff is proposing the City adjust the flexible threshold levels by zone and consider the Comprehensive Plan
designations, as well. He referred to Table 1 of the Staff Report, which outlines the staff’s proposed threshold levels for the
different zones throughout the City. He also referred to the memorandum he prepared dated February 24th and explained that
determining the environmental impact of a development involves the context and intensity of the development and does not
lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may vary with the physical setting, and intensity depends on the
magnitude and duration of an impact. The same proposal may have a significant impact in one location, but not in another.
For instance a 3-story, 6-unit multi-family residential development in the bowl of Edmonds may impact the views of several
residences and have the potential for impact. However, the same development in a multi-family residential zone along
Highway 99 is less likely to have any impacts, particularly to views.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the varying zones throughout the City were established for different reasons. ECDC
16.00.010.B lists one of the purposes of establishing zones is as follows:
“To protect the character and the social and economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses within
the City, and to ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by:
1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of use;
2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible uses; and
3. By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses.”
Mr. Lien said each of the zone chapters of ECDC identifies the purpose for the specific zones. For instance, ECDC
16.20.000 describes the purpose of the Single-Family Residential Zones and ECDC 16.60.005 describes the purposes of the
General Commercial Zones.
Mr. Lien explained that the thresholds proposed would take into consideration the uses allowed in the zones, the intensity of
development allowed, the character of development intended for the zone by the Comprehensive Plan, and potential for
controversy of particular development activities. For example, he suggested multi-family development within the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center could maintain the current threshold of four dwelling units, but the threshold could be
raised in areas such as Highway 99 and other activity centers. He said staff is also recommending that the thresholds be
maximized across the board for the General Commercial (CG) zones along Highway 99. This would encourage development
by eliminating one of the permitting processes for commercial development.
Board Member Cloutier inquired if staff is proposing that the threshold for the Harbor Square Property be increased to
20,000 square feet. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that this property is currently zoned with a contract that does not even
allow residential development. It is considered a commercial site. Mr. Chave suggested that it would make the most sense to
determine the thresholds based on both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. For example, it could be problematic to
raise the threshold for multi-family residential zones on portions of Edmonds Way where there is very little separation
between the multi-family and single-family development. However, raising the threshold would make more sense on
Highway 99 where there is much more intense development.
Mr. Lien explained that many projects are triggered by more than one of the flexible thresholds or by other SEPA
requirements. He reported that since 2004 there have been 178 SEPA reviews conducted by the City, and 108 of them have
been subject to the flexible thresholds. The most common SEPA trigger since 2005 has been the landfill and excavation
levels, even though the level has already been maxed out by the City. Ninety of the projects exceeded the 500 cubic yards
threshold, and 48 SEPA reviews were triggered solely by landfill or excavation levels. With the proposed categorical
Packet Page 174 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 12
exemption levels identified in the table, 6 of the 178 projects requiring SEPA review since 2004 would have been exempt.
He briefly reviewed the details in the table.
Mr. Lien advised that raising the flexible thresholds may have a few different impacts on the review process. For example:
Projects that currently require SEPA review are forwarded to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for design review.
Staff conducts design review for projects that do not require SEPA. If the threshold levels are raised, fewer projects may
be going to the ADB.
SEPA also has a public notice requirement. Some projects that trigger SEPA also have public notice requirements so if
SEPA was not required, notice of the project would still be carried out. However, other projects (such as a 5-unit condo)
would not require a public notice on its own. With the current thresholds, a 5-unit condo would require SEPA review
and a public notice. If the threshold were raised, fewer projects may require public notice.
Raising the SEPA threshold level may provide one less hurdle for developers. One of the purposes of the General
Commercial Zone is to “Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high economic
benefit to the city. Mixed-use and transit-oriented developments are encouraged which provide significant commercial
uses as a component of an overall mixed development scheme.” Maxing out the flexible threshold level in the General
Commercial Zone is one way to help encourage development in the zone.
Board Member Reed asked the difference in the review process for SEPA and non-SEPA projects. Mr. Lien answered that
removing the requirement for ADB review would reduce the permit time. In addition, the public notice process adds time to
the permit. He suggested the permit review time could be reduced by approximately 30 days if no ADB review were
required. Board Member Reed asked how many times the City has issued a Determination of Significance. Mr. Lien
answered that there has only been one Determination of Significance since 2004. An EIS was required, and the applicant
withdrew the project.
Board Member Stewart said she would support the proposal to increase the flexible thresholds for properties along Highway
99 to encourage development. Transit-oriented development and density make sense in this area. However, she said she has
strong reservations about increasing the thresholds for other parts of the City, particularly within the Downtown/Waterfront
Activity Center. She noted that development of any land that has not already been degraded and any land near the waterfront
would have the potential of increasing stormwater runoff, erosion and other impacts to the environment. She agreed with
Ms. Petso’s earlier remarks that the City should not necessarily try to escape the SEPA process. She said she can understand
why this would be desirable for developers because the process can be lengthy. She read the following excerpt from Page 11
of the State Environmental Policy Act Handbook:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) may be the most powerful legal tool for protecting the environment of the
state. Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to:
"Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man's
environment;" and
Ensure that "...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along
with economic and technical considerations...."
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the City recently adopted the Community Sustainability Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Board should keep this element in mind as guidance as they go forward. She hopes the City
can attract developers who are sensitive to the environment \ and are willing to use sustainable building practices when
designing and developing projects, particularly along the waterfront. She observed that the purpose of SEPA is to protect the
environment, and they must rely on the environment to sustain the community for generations to come. Mr. Lien pointed out
that no threshold changes have been proposed for properties in the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL LEFT THE MEETING AT 9:48 P.M.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City must amend their SEPA regulations to be consistent with current state law. In
addition, staff felt it would be appropriate to review the threshold standards and recommend appropriate adjustments. A lot
Packet Page 175 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 13
has happened since the City adopted their original SEPA rules prior to GMA. There were no critical areas regulations and
other state laws that required SEPA to be coordinated with other development regulations. SEPA is not a tool for imposing
standards that are already covered by other City regulations. For example, when the Critical Areas Ordinance dictates how
natural features are to be handled, SEPA cannot be used to alter the standards. In earlier years, SEPA was used to address
wetlands and other environmental issues, but this is no longer possible. Now the Critical Areas Ordinance dictates these
standards, and it is much more restrictive than SEPA. He summarized that the issue is not as simple as saying if you change
SEPA or elevate the standards, you will be less protective of the environment, because the environmental standards have
changed significantly.
Mr. Chave recognized there are emerging issues related to sustainability and climate control, but they have not been
formulated at this point. While the SEPA program could ask local jurisdictions to analyze these issues, there are no
standards in place to conduct the analysis and it could become an expensive and subjective process. Also, until there are
mitigation standards in place, the City cannot really address issues related to climate change as part of SEPA. He noted that
both Seattle and King County talked about requiring this type of analysis, but no one has identified what the actual mitigation
would look like. The issue is more complicated in Edmonds because there is so little new development. If the City were to
use the SEPA process to analyze and mitigate climate changes and sustainability, it would only apply to new development.
SEPA does not apply to upgrades of existing facilities, which is more the type of development activity that occurs in
Edmonds.
Mr. Chave cautioned that SEPA is one aspect of sustainability, but not the largest. There are far more important things going
forward to address these issues. The Board should keep in mind the context of the purpose and limitations of SEPA. That
does not mean they should lift the thresholds, but when determining whether or not they change the thresholds, they should
keep in mind the overall purpose and impact.
Board Member Reed asked what review process is used to deal with projects that do not require SEPA review. Mr. Chave
answered that issues related to retrofitting and renovating buildings are addressed by the building codes and permit
requirements. It is possible to tweak the building codes to impose green building standards, but it would require a different
process that does not involve SEPA.
Board Member Reed asked if the ADB explores the environmental aspects of a project as part of their review. Mr. Chave
answered that the ADB’s review focuses on architectural design. The City’s Development Code address issues such as
critical areas, stormwater, etc.
Board Member Reed recalled Mr. Lien’s earlier comment that changing the SEPA thresholds could change the review
process and notice requirements, depending on the location of a project. This would be particularly true for Highway 99
because the ADB Standards are much higher than the SEPA Standards. SEPA requirements would not push a development
on Highway 99 into ADB review, where it would elsewhere. In the Neighborhood Business (BN) Activity Centers, the
change might be significant enough that it would warrant maintaining the existing thresholds.
Board Member Cloutier said it appears there would only be a 5% change in work load for staff if the thresholds were
adjusted as proposed. He questioned why they are going through the process of raising the thresholds for such a small
change in the workload. Mr. Lien said he was surprised that only a few projects would have been impacted by the proposed
changes. Mr. Chave explained that reducing the workload is not the goal of the proposed changes. It is more about getting
the most value possible out of the process. He reminded the Board of the City’s desire to focus on Highway 99 as a transit-
oriented growth area. Even though there has not been a lot of activity on Highway 99 that triggered SEPA review, there is
potential for large projects in the future. In general, developers look at the process and requirements when evaluating sites
within different jurisdictions. To the extent the City can coordinate and simplify the process, they should use this slow
period to set the stage for future development. This will place them in a good position when the economy recovers. He
expressed his belief that Highway 99 might be the City’s best opportunity for change.
Board Member Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for the additional analysis he provided in his recent memorandum. The
information will help the Board understand the context of the regulations and determine what the changes would mean. She
said she was surprised to learn that so few projects would have been impacted by the proposed changes.
Packet Page 176 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2010 Page 14
Board Member Johnson recalled that the City Council has identified a number of locations for economic development such
as Westgate, Five Corners, and Firdale Village. These are areas where economic development can be encouraged and the
process streamlined. She questioned how the flexible thresholds and SEPA could be used to encourage future development.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out on the zoning map that almost all of the neighborhood centers would be unaffected by
the proposed changes, which makes sense because they are adjacent to single-family development. The only places the
changes would really have an impact are Highway 99 and the multi-family residential corridors on 212th and 196th Streets.
He suggested that all reference to the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center be eliminated from the proposed threshold
change. Mr. Chave agreed that it might not make a lot of sense to change the thresholds in the BN zones in the downtown,
but they should consider possible changes for the areas identified by Board Member Cloutier, as well as the Westgate area
where there is a high concentration of multi-family residential that is separated from the single-family residential by
topography. In light of the Citizens Economic Development Commission’s work and the City Council’s recent discussion
about economic development, Board Member Reed suggested it might be premature to discuss significant changes for
Westgate, Five Corners, etc.
Mr. Chave reported that at the City Council’s retreat, he strongly encouraged them to hire a consultant to do the public
process for Westgate and Five Corners. These are two locations that would benefit from a public process that is controlled
by the City. He said he would like to give the City Council an opportunity to respond before the Board jumps in.
Board Member Reed suggested it would be wise to study how the proposed new thresholds would work in the Highway
99/Medical Activity Center. Mr. Chave agreed that it would be helpful to review the proposed changes in the context of the
General Commercial Zone requirements. Board Member Reed expressed his belief that raising the thresholds for Highway
99 would reduce the length of the review process.
Board Member Reed said he would be interested in seeing only the changes that are required to make the City’s Code
consistent with State regulations. Then he would like to see what the additional changes would be if the thresholds were
altered. Mr. Lien noted that the changes identified in red are those that are intended to make the document consistent with
the model ordinance, State law and the City’s code. The proposed changes related to thresholds are found on Page 6 of the
draft ordinance. All other changes are intended to make the various documents consistent.
The Board agreed they would like to consider changes to the flexible thresholds, but only for the Highway 99 corridor and
other multi-family residential areas along main arterials (212th, 196th and portions of SR-104). They directed staff to update
the document and bring it back for further Board review. They agreed that their work on the Westgate Corridor should be
postponed until a comprehensive review has been completed as referenced earlier by Mr. Chave. No changes should be
made to the thresholds as they apply to the Westgate area at this time.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave agreed to meet with Chair Bowman and Vice Chair Lovell to prepare an extended agenda prior to the Board’s
next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Neither the Chair nor the Vice Chair were present to comment during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart reported on her attendance at the Building Code Panel on February 23rd where the Washington
Building Code Council was present to talk about State Building Codes; how they must be reviewed every three years and
how difficult it is to impose change related to higher energy requirements and more low-impact development strategies. The
presenter said that while they are all important issues, they cost money for developers to implement. He acknowledged that
it is a struggle to create change, but there is a move adrift to create more sustainable development. He noted that city codes
Packet Page 177 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 3
asked if the participants would have an opportunity to suggest additional indicators that are not included on the Board’s
spreadsheet. Board Member Cloutier answered affirmatively.
Board Member Stewart recalled a discussion amongst Board members about the focus of the Community Sustainability
Element. The discussion picked up on key points such as community health, climate change, etc. Since the City has already
adopted a Community Sustainability Element, she suggested the next step is to identify indicators that are meaningful and
clear to the public.
Board Member Cloutier said the subcommittee is looking for ideas from the Board about how to organize the items on the
spreadsheet. He summarized there are now 15 goals and approximately 80 indicators, which he felt is an appropriate
balance. There should be approximately five indicators for each goal. He suggested one approach would be to pick a goal
and identify the indicators that are the most important for that goal and then move onto the next goal. Board Member
Stewart said another approach would be to bundle the indicators into categories. She referred to examples she provided
earlier about how the indicators could be sorted out.
The Board agreed it would be appropriate to hold a retreat discussion about sustainability indicators.
CODE REWRITE: PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE CITY’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
RULES (ECDC 20.15A) (FILE NUMBER AMD-2009-6)
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that potential updates to the SEPA rules (ECDC 20.15A) were presented to the Planning Board
on July 22, 2009, and the Board directed staff to propose new flexible thresholds for categorical exemptions under SEPA.
Staff’s proposed new flexible thresholds were presented to the Board on February 24, 2010, and the Board agreed they
would like to consider the changes, but only for the Highway 99 Corridor and multi-family residential areas along main
arterials such as 212th Street Southwest, 196th Street Southwest, and State Route 104 (Edmonds Way Corridor or SR-104).
They directed staff to update the proposal and bring it back for further Board review.
Mr. Lien explained that the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) establishes thresholds for certain minor new
construction projects that are categorically exempt from threshold determination and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
requirements. It allows cities to raise the exemption levels to specified amounts, and currently the City has only raised one
of the thresholds to the maximum amount allowed. He reviewed each of the flexible thresholds as follows:
The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling units. This threshold can be modified up
to 20 dwelling units.
The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or packing structure,
or similar agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used only by the property owner or his or
her agent in the conduct of farming the project. This threshold can be modified up to 30,000 square feet, but it is not
really applicable to the City of Edmonds.
The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 4,000 square feet
of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities designed for twenty automobiles. This threshold can be
modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
The construction of a parking lot designed for twenty automobiles. This threshold can be modified up to 40
automobiles.
Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards throughout the lifetime of the fill or excavation; and any fill or
excavation classified as a Class I, II, or III forest practice under RCW 76.09.050 or regulations hereunder. The
City has already bumped this threshold up to the maximum of 500 cubic yards.
Mr. Lien reported that, as per the Board’s direction, staff prepared four alternatives for raising the flexible threshold levels
for the Board’s consideration. He reviewed each of the alternatives as follows:
Alternative 1. This alternative would raise the flexible thresholds for areas within the Edmonds Way Corridor and the
Highway 99 Corridor as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It would also raise the thresholds along 212th Street
Southwest and 196th Street Southwest. This alternative would raise the threshold for residential units along the
Packet Page 178 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 4
Edmonds Way Corridor from 4 units to 20 units for residential structures, but it would keep the remaining thresholds as
they currently exist. He noted that the majority of the Edmonds Way Corridor is zoned RM-1.5, with a few pockets of
commercially zoned property. Given the potential traffic issues and critical areas along SR-104, only the residential
units are proposed for an increase in threshold levels.
Along the Highway 99 Corridor, the proposal is to raise the flexible threshold for all categories to the maximum. The
City is looking to encourage development in this area, and raising the thresholds that trigger SEPA review is one way to
simplify the process for developers.
The 212th Street Southwest and 196th Street Southwest Corridors do not have specific Comprehensive Plan corridor
designations, except those portions within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center). The 196th Street Southwest arterial
is lined with multi-family development and has a variety of multi-family zoning. There are no commercially zoned
properties along this strip, so the proposal is to only raise the residential structure threshold to the maximum 20 units. A
variety of zones exist west of the Five Corners area along the 212th Street Southwest arterial. Therefore, the proposal is
to increase all of the flexible threshold levels to the maximum.
Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would expand on the area identified in Alternative 1 by including the Medical/Highway 99
Comprehensive Plan overlay area and the multi-family area along 76th Avenue West. The Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center is intended to encourage development of a pedestrian and transit-oriented area focused on two master planned
developments: Stevens Hospital and the high school. There is also a related high-density development corridor along
Highway 99. The Comprehensive Plan calls for expanding the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by
providing incentives for business and commercial development in a planned activity center. Alternative 2 would
increase all the flexible thresholds within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center to their maximum levels. 76th
Avenue West is another main arterial that is lined with multi-family zones and multi-family development. Alternative 2
proposes to increase the flexible threshold for residential structures only from 4 units to 20 units while keeping the
remaining thresholds as they currently exist.
Alternatives 3 and 4. The Edmonds Way Corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, providing a link between
Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor, and an established pattern of
multi-family residential development lies along much of the corridor. There are small-scale businesses found primarily
at the intersections. A major concern is that the more intense development that occurs along the corridor should not
interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. Therefore, flexible
thresholds for the Edmonds Way Corridor were not included in Alternatives 3 and 4.
Along the 212th Street Southwest, 196th Street Southwest and 76th Avenue West arterials are thin strips of multi-family
zones that tight-line the arterials and have single-family neighborhoods behind them. Any dense multi-family
development within these multi-family zones would likely have some impact on the adjacent single-family neighbors.
Given the potential for impacts, these arterials were removed from Alternatives 3 and 4.
Alternative 3 would increase all flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center since these are two areas where the City wants to encourage and promote development. The Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center contains some single-family neighborhoods that could be impacted by projects so Alternative 4
would raise all the flexible thresholds for only the Highway 99 Corridor, which is mostly commercial in nature with
some multi-family development along the fringes.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that it appears Alternative 2 would be the most generous in terms of area allocated to
potential increases. He said he would support Alternative 2 because in the long-term, it is the City’s goal to have growth
occur in commercial and multi-family zoned areas that are closer to public transportation, main arterials, shopping and other
highly used public facilities as opposed to trying to accommodate too many people in the downtown and waterfront.
Creating flexibility on Highway 99 and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center would be to the benefit of the hospital in
the long-term as they plan for their future. In addition, properties near 212th Street Southwest and 196th Street Southwest
would continue to grow around the corridor. He expressed his belief that commercial and multi-family expansion should
occur on arterials that move east and west from Highway 99.
Packet Page 179 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 5
Board Member Guenther said he has filled out numerous SEPA Checklists and has never felt they were a deterrent to
development. He questioned how changing the flexible threshold levels would encourage development. Mr. Lien answered
that the change would remove one more step in the permit process. He noted that the majority of SEPA review in the City is
triggered by the landfill and excavation threshold, which has already been maxed out.
Board Member Stewart questioned the difference between the threshold related to the number of residential units and the
threshold related to the square footage of the gross floor area. Mr. Lien pointed out that the thresholds would be measured
separately for mixed-use projects.
Given the City’s new Community Sustainability Element, Board Member Stewart suggested the City should encourage
developers along the Highway 99 Corridor to utilize the transit opportunities that are currently available rather than
providing more pavement for people to park their cars. Instead of pavement, more open space and places for rainwater to
infiltrate could be accommodated. She suggested the threshold remain at 20 parking spaces in all areas. Mr. Lien clarified
that the City has separate parking requirements that may require more than 20 parking spaces for some projects.
Chair Bowman observed that transportation bottlenecks could occur on major arterials as a result of new development. For
example, if the ferry traffic on SR-104 continues to grow creating more traffic gridlock, additional development along SR-
104 could result in more impact. Mr. Lien emphasized that Alternatives 3 and 4 have eliminated changes to SR-104 for that
reason.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that the last time the Board discussed this item with staff, Mr. Lien pointed out that of all
the applications the City has reviewed since 2004, very few would have triggered the SEPA limit even if the flexible
thresholds were changed to the maximum allowed as per Alternative 1. Mr. Lien reiterated that of the 178 SEPA reviews
that have occurred since 2004, 108 were subject to the flexible thresholds. The most common trigger was the landfill and
excavation threshold. He recalled that at the Board’s last discussion, the recommendation was to raise the thresholds for all
zones through the City, which would only have impacted nine of the SEPA reviews that occurred since 2004.
Board Member Cloutier said that when putting the flexible thresholds in line with the City’s vision, changing the thresholds
would not alter the City’s Development Code. However, adjusting the thresholds would make the SEPA rules consistent
with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The changes would also be
consistent with the way the City wants to grow.
Board Member Guenther requested information about the types of SEPA determinations that have been made by the City
over the past several years. Mr. Lien answered that since 2004, the City has only issued one Determination of Significance.
The rest of the determinations have been Determinations of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determinations of Non-
Significance. Board Member Reed noted that the applicant who received a Determination of Significance withdrew the
application. Board Member Guenther pointed out that changing the thresholds would only have an impact on situations
where mitigation would be required.
Board Member Reed said that as development occurs on 196th Street Southwest, 212th Street Southwest and SR-104, he is
concerned about additional access to the major arterials. While he said he would support Alternative 3, he is still concerned
about how the arterials would accommodate additional access points. He said he would prefer to leave the thresholds as they
currently exist.
Board Member Johnson said she tends to favor Alternative 3 or Alternative 4, which both limit the changes to the Highway
99 Corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. She felt that Alternatives 3 and 4 would both be consistent with
direction provided by the CEDC to increase sales tax revenue. However, she suggested the Board seek input from the CEDC
and the Economic Development Director prior to conducting a public hearing on the proposed alternatives. She said she
does not see a compelling reason to change the flexible thresholds for the other arterials where multi-family development
currently exists in the SR-99 Corridor. She said she was relatively convinced by the staff’s explanation at the last meeting as
to why they should keep the
Packet Page 180 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 6
thresholds lower for the downtown zones. Using this same logic, she said she found it difficult to differentiate between one
area in the City and another. She said she would prefer to consider threshold changes for the various neighborhood activity
centers as part of the individual studies. However, she agreed there is clear direction for increasing commercial development
along the Highway 99 Corridor, and if changing the thresholds would help, she would support the changes proposed for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, as well.
Board Member Johnson invited Mr. Lien to share staff’s recommendation, based on their experience with and knowledge of
SEPA. Mr. Lien said he would recommend either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4. They would be easy to explain and
administer and refer to areas that are clearly defined in the Comprehensive Plan. When considering potential changes on
212th Street Southwest, 196th Street Southwest and 76th Avenue West, staff had a hard time drawing the actual lines on the
map for where the changes would be applicable. The Comprehensive Plan clearly states that Highway 99 is an area where
the City wants to encourage economic development. Staff believes that adjusting the thresholds would make the
development process a little easier.
Chair Bowman said he favors Alternative 3 for the reasons stated by staff. He said he is very concerned about the Edmonds
Way Corridor, but Highway 99 was built to accommodate a lot of through traffic. He reminded the Board of their previous
discussions about transition zones from high-density development to single-family residential neighborhoods. He said the
mindset of the City seems to be that the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor are both places
where economic development should be encouraged. He would support changing the thresholds in these areas. However, he
suggested the Board take a much more cautious approach when considering changes for other areas.
Board Member Guenther said he would support either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. He emphasized that Edmonds is a
built-out urban environment. He reminded the Board that significant impacts would be addressed through the SEPA review.
Raising the thresholds on Highway 99 and in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center would be appropriate, and he agreed
with Vice Chair Lovell that they could add other areas as shown in Alternative 2.
Board Member Stewart said she would prefer Alternative 3, which would allow the City to capture and utilize the transit
opportunities that are already present on Highway 99. In addition, the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is ripe for
redevelopment. She felt it would be appropriate to focus the changes on these two areas to send a strong message as a
starting point.
Board Member Cloutier said he would support either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, as long as both the Highway 99 Corridor
and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center are included. He felt that including the neighborhood centers would also be a
good idea. However, in the grand scheme, he did not believe the changes would alter the rate of development in the City.
The majority of the Board indicated support for Alternative 3. The majority further agreed that the flexible thresholds should
be bumped up across the board for both the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Board
Member Reed, however, expressed concern about increasing the threshold from 4 to 20 units in residential areas, particularly
near the high school and within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Mr. Lien advised that the City’s original SEPA regulations were adopted in 1976, and were based off the original model
ordinance in place at the time. Most of the proposed changes are intended to incorporate updates in the model ordinance, the
City’s code and the RCW. He referred to Attachment 2 of the Staff Report, which highlights the more significant changes
and reviewed each one as follows:
WAC 197-11-158 relates to the reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations, and ECDC 20.04 contains similar
language. Therefore, a new section was added (ECDC 20.15.A.025) that points to ECDC 20.04.002.
The model ordinance identifies adoption of WAC 197-11-238 as optional. It encourages Growth Management Act
(GMA) cities to establish a process for monitoring the cumulative impacts of permit decisions and conditions and to use
the data to update the information about existing conditions for built and natural environments. Staff believes that
establishing such a monitoring program would be a large undertaking. In addition, existing conditions are already
analyzed as part of updates to the Comprehensive Plan, the Shoreline Master Program, and the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Packet Page 181 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 7
Therefore, adoption of this section was not included in the proposed changes because it would just add an extra burden
on the City for something that is already required.
In ECDC 20.15A.040, the term “Responsible Official” was changed from the “Community Services Director or his/her
designee” to the “Planning Manager or his/her designee.” In addition, the designation would no longer have to occur in
writing. This is similar to how the City currently does business.
The optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) Process in WAC 197-11-355 is a newly adopted code that
provides GMA cities and counties the option of using a single, integrated comment period to obtain comments on the
notice of application and the likely threshold of determination for the proposal. The proposed changes to ECDC
20.15A.060 would provide the City with another tool and may help speed permitting times in some instances.
As proposed, ECDC 20.15A.070 would be deleted. The time estimates are not binding and Title 20 contains the binding
requirements for permitting.
ECDC 20.15A.120 would be changed to allow the City to modify the Environmental Checklist when a planned action,
as identified in ECDC 20.040.003, is used. A planned action is similar to contract rezone or development agreement. A
developer would complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that covers generally what they are planning to do.
If what they apply for is consistent with the planned action, no further SEPA would be required. The proposed language
would allow the environmental checklist to be modified in these situations.
ECDC 20.15A.170 was replaced with a pointer to a new section added to ECDC 20.03.002. The intent is for all notice
requirements to be located in the same chapter of the ECDC.
A new list of policies from the model ordinance was added to ECDC 20.15A.220. Substantive authority is what gives
the City the authority to attach conditions of approval to permits.
In addition to the changes identified in Attachment 2, Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 20.15A.210. As proposed, the DNS or
draft EIS for non-exempt proposals must accompany the City staff’s recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such
as the Planning Board. He explained that after further consideration, staff is not considering the option of requiring the final
EIS to be provided as part of the Planning Board’s information. He asked for feedback from the Board regarding this issue.
He noted that the final EIS must be completed before a permit can be forwarded to the City Council for final approval.
Vice Chair Lovell noted that preparation of a final EIS can be costly, and he questioned if requiring a final EIS could impact
a potential developer’s willingness to proceed to the final permitting stage without some indication from the City that the
permit would likely be approved. Mr. Lien said most of the EIS work would be done up front to address the issues raised by
the City. Moving from a draft EIS to a final EIS does not involve a lengthy process and includes responding to each of the
comments and perhaps making some minor adjustments. Typically, not a lot of changes are made between the draft and final
EIS documents. However, he recognized that a draft EIS can take a lot of time to develop, and it will take additional time to
complete the final EIS. Vice Chair Lovell expressed his belief that the sooner the Board is presented with information, the
better. He said he would be in favor of allowing an applicant to submit a draft EIS for Planning Board review. Board
Member Stewart concurred and noted that a draft EIS would propose various alternatives, and it would be helpful for the
Board to view the range of options for mitigation. The Board agreed that a draft EIS would be adequate for Planning Board
review.
Next, Mr. Lien advised that WAC 197-11-164 defines planned actions, and the definition is already in the City’s title 20.
Therefore, staff does not believe it is necessary to incorporate the definition into ECDC 20.15A.
Board Member Reed referred to the proposed changes for ECDC 20.15A.040, which replaces “Community Services
Director” with “Planning Manager.” He noted that throughout ECDC 20, the term “Development Services Director” is used.
He questioned if a change would be appropriate to make the two documents consistent. Mr. Clugston explained that, in
SEPA, the Planning Manager has always been the responsible party. However, he agreed this could be changed if the Board
desires. Mr. Lien suggested that the Planning Manager continue to be the responsible official, since that is consistent with
how the City current operates. The majority of the Board concurred.
Mr. Lien said the next step in the process is to prepare updated materials using Alternative 3 as directed by the Board, and
then schedule the item for a public hearing. Board Member Reed inquired if the other alternatives would also be reviewed at
the public hearing. Mr. Lien answered that is possible, but he would rather present just the Board’s preferred alternative.
Packet Page 182 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
April 14, 2010 Page 8
The Board concurred and Board Member Reed noted that the other alternatives would be available to the public as part of the
record.
UPDATE ON TITLE 20 PROCEDURES
Mr. Clugston reviewed that Title 20 was adopted by the City Council in June 2009. As staff has administered the new code
over the past several months, they have identified several areas that need further refinement. He advised that the proposed
amendments focus on the following:
The majority of the changes are intended to better organize and/or clarify the language in an attempt to make it easier to
use and administer.
While staff had originally felt it would be a good idea for applicant’s to be responsible for providing notice, they have
found it difficult to get applicants to do the notices correctly. Staff now believes it would be appropriate for the City to
reassume the public noticing requirement, and they believe the change would result in a more efficient use of staff time
and ensure that notice is handled consistently.
Staff found that a number of permit descriptions and types identified in the matrix in Section 20.01.003.A do not
actually exist in the City or they are called something else. They reviewed the chart and made changes to more
accurately describe the City’s current processes.
Mr. Clugston referred to Section 20.01.000, which is a new section outlining the purpose and intent of Title 20. Staff
believes it is important to identify the purpose of Title 20 upfront.
Board Member Reed referred to the proposed amendments to the decision matrix and noted that all Type III-A decisions
have been eliminated from the matrix. Mr. Clugston agreed and explained that the City Council recently made the decision
to change the permits that were identified as Type III-A decisions to Type III-B decisions, allowing the applications to come
before the City Council for closed record reviews. He said staff tried to identify all the relevant permit types on the matrix,
but they may have missed some that could fit into the Type III-A category.
Board Member Reed explained that the City Council enacted an ordinance on January 5th that placed the City Council back
into the decision-making process for certain items. These items were moved from Type III-A decisions to Type III-B
decisions. The procedures for Type III-B decisions were not changed; as currently written, there is a provision for closed
record reviews before the City Council.
Board Member Stewart referred to Section 20.07.005.H, which allows the City Council to determine whether a decision by a
hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record. After a closed record review, the City Council
could affirm, modify or reverse the decision accordingly. She asked if this process has always been the case in the City of
Edmonds. Mr. Clugston answered that this process was used previously by the City for many types of permits. When Title
20 was updated in June of 2009, a number of appeals were moved to the Hearing Examiner or Superior Court rather than to
the City Council. However, in a recent action, the City Council decided to once again assume this responsibility some types
of permits. Board Member Stewart asked if the City Council is in the position to do all of the necessary research to make an
informed decision. She observed that the Hearing Examiner puts a lot of time into the process, and it appears the new
process would allow his or her work to be undone too easily. Mr. Clugston advised that when amendments were presented
to the City Council in early 2009, the City Attorney advised that they should move away from having closed record appeals.
Instead, they should utilize the services of a Hearing Examiner (an independent body) to make these decisions. He recalled
that when Title 20 was approved in 2009, it was a very contentious issue. When the new City Council was put in place in
January 2010, this change was one of their first tasks.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to Section 20.07.006 and expressed his belief that the currently-approved process has the potential
of becoming quite a legal struggle. If the applicant or party of record does not like the City Council’s decision, they can take
an issue to Superior Court for adjunctive relief. In these cases, the City Council would no longer be in the loop. Mr.
Clugston agreed the current process offers an additional level of judicial appeal. Vice Chair Lovell noted that the process
could be costly for either the City or the applicant. Chair Bowman agreed and said that was one of the Board’s original
concerns when they forwarded their recommendation to the City Council in 2009.
Packet Page 183 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 3
Mr. Clugston recalled that the Board discussed the proposed amendment to the sign code at their April 14th and April 28th
meetings. He explained that the proposed amendments would change the total number of permitted signs allowed in
business and commercial zones to provide more flexibility for businesses on multi-tenant sites. He emphasized that all other
requirements related to height, area, location, etc. would remain the same. He reminded the Board, that at the end of their
last discussion, they directed staff to prepare code amendment language that would:
1. Increase the maximum number of signs allowed on multi-tenant business sites from one to three per subtenant business
while allowing one group directory sign per multi-tenant site.
2. Exempt window signs from the total number of permanent permitted signs.
Board Member Johnson recalled that at their April 28th meeting, Mr. Chave noted that some businesses use incidental
information signs, which would be inconsistent with Option 2. He suggested the language include a provision that while
incidental signs would count against the total sign area, they would not count against the number of signs allowed. Mr.
Clugston explained that the proposed amendments are intended to deal strictly with the number of permitted signs in business
and commercial zones. However, he suggested it would be entirely appropriate for the Board to address the issue of
incidental signs when they conduct a more comprehensive review of the sign code at some point in the future. Board
Member Johnson agreed that would be a good approach.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said that he has participated in many sign code changes over the years, and he has witnessed
that businesses tend to place as many signs as possible in their windows. He said he lives across the street from a deli that
had so many window signs it was unsightly. He complained to the City and the owner was required to comply with the sign
code. The situation is much better now. He cautioned against approving any amendment that would make it easier for
businesses to use window signs.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recommended the Board maintain the existing sign code, which only allows three signs per
commercial lot. This will require the person who owns the property to work with tenants to ensure that each business has
adequate opportunity for signage. He concluded that signage should be addressed as part of the lease agreement.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Chave explained that the proposed language would not change the current code provisions for window signs, which are
based on area and not number of signs. Mr. Clugston added that the current code limits the area of window signs to one
square foot per linear foot of window frontage, and this would not be changed by the proposed amendments. Board Member
Stewart said she can appreciate Mr. Hertrich’s concern about window signs. She felt the current code provision could result
in a lot of visual obstruction, particularly on large windows. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that the current formula works
well, and he recalled Mr. Hertrich’s earlier statement that when the code provisions were enforced, the situation at the deli
across from his home was improved. He emphasized that the linier length of a window does not take into account the height
of a window, so the amount of window sign area actually adds up to a fairly small percentage of total sign area on windows
with more vertical height.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THE COMMISSION FORWARD THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO
ECDC 20.60.025 (FILE NUMBER AMD20100014) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) (FILE NUMBER AMD20090006)
Mr. Lien advised that potential updates to ECDC 20.15A were presented to the Planning Board on July 22, 2009, and the
Board directed staff to propose new flexible thresholds for categorical exemptions under the State Environmental Protection
Act (SEPA). The proposed new flexible thresholds were presented to the Board on February 24th, and the Board agreed they
would like to consider changes to the thresholds, but only for limited areas. Four flexible thresholds alternatives were
Packet Page 184 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 4
presented to the Board on April 14th, and the Board chose an alternative that increased the flexible threshold for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor. He reviewed that the SEPA rules were adopted by the
City in 1984 (over 25 years ago), and only very minor changes have been made since that time. Due to changes in the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and the City’ s own Development Code,
staff believes it is appropriate to review and update Section 20.15A as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its
development regulations. He briefly reviewed the items and issues that have been considered under the review as follows:
1. Adoption by Reference. Sections of WAC 197-11 have been added and/or removed since the City adopted Ordinance
2461 in 1984, particularly in regards to SEPA and the Growth Management Act (GMA) integration. The update
reviewed changes in WAC 197-11 and the option lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date with State
regulations.
2. Model Code. As with WAC 197-11, there have been changes to WAC 173-806 since 1984. Staff reviewed WAC 173-
806 and made updates to ECDC 20.15A where appropriate to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with State
regulations. Many of the changes in the model code had to do with consistency between the GMA and zoning
regulations.
3. Consistency. As with the state rules, the ECDC has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. Staff reviewed
ECDC 20.15A to ensure it remains consistent with the rest of the City’s development regulations.
4. Categorical Exemptions – Flexible Thresholds. State SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically
exempt threshold levels for certain minor new construction activities. He reviewed the City’s current flexible thresholds
and what state law allows .
5. Climate Change. How to evaluate and mitigate climate change impacts through SEPA is a subject that is garnering a
lot of attention. The Climate Action Team’s SEPA Implementation Working Group released a report in 2009 in an
attempt to clarify how consideration of climate change should be incorporated into environmental review and decision
making under SEPA. However, the report was not definitive, and there was no strong consensus amongst the group and
no strong recommendations other than the Department of Ecology (DOE) should look into the issue and develop
guidelines. The DOE released draft guidelines in May, and the comment period expires in just a few days.
Recently, the City started laying the groundwork for addressing climate change impacts via the SEPA process through
the adoption of the Community Sustainability Element and the development of a Climate Change Action Plan. The
policies in these two plans establish a foundation for the City to begin developing SEPA regulations to evaluate and/or
mitigate impacts of climate change. The current phase of SEPA amendments focuses on technical updates to ensure the
City’s code is consistent with State regulations. Once these updates are in place, the City can start developing a program
for analyzing and mitigating climate change through the SEPA process. He cautioned that developing a program of this
type will take some time and can be incorporated into ECDC 20.15A at a future date.
Mr. Lien advised that determining the environmental impact of a development involves the context and intensity of the
development and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test. The context may vary with the physical setting.
Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. The same proposal may have a significant impact in one
location but not another. He recalled that, with this in mind, the Board reviewed the flexible threshold levels for categorical
exemptions and discussed a number of options:
1. Leave the levels at the minimums established by WAC 197-11-800(1)(b).
2. Increase all, or a portion of the levels, for the entire City.
3. Establish different threshold levels for different Comprehensive Plan designations.
4. Establish different threshold levels for different zones.
5. Establish different threshold levels considering zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations.
Packet Page 185 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 5
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board proposed to increase the categorical exemption thresholds for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor as defined by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
This would result in the following changes:
The flexible threshold for residential structures would be increased from 4 dwelling units to a maximum of 20 dwelling
units.
The flexible threshold for new construction would be increased from 4,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet.
The flexible threshold for parking lots would be increased from 20 automobiles to 40 automobiles.
The flexible threshold for excavation and grading would remain at 500 square feet, which is the maximum allowed by
State law.
Board Member Reed asked staff why they added the words “in all locations throughout the City of Edmonds” in Section
20.15A.090,B.1. Mr. Lien said the additional language makes it clear that while the flexible threshold for landfills and
excavation have been increased to the maximum throughout the City, the other flexible threshold increases would only apply
to the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor. Board Member Reed asked if the boundaries for
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor are clearly defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Lien answered affirmatively.
Jessie Byer, Edmonds, said she lives in the area designated as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and is opposed to
the proposal to increase the flexible thresholds. While the SEPA requirements do not present a barrier for development
within the activity center, they do help protect the neighborhood when development does occur. She expressed her belief
that the proposed changes would do no one any good. She emphasized that no one living near a proposed development of up
to 20 units and 12,000 square feet would consider the project minor, particularly given that the average size of the residential
homes located in the activity center is about 1,500 square feet. She said it is insulting that her neighborhood is of less
importance to the City than the neighborhoods in the bowl. It appears the City Council is trying to push development out
into other neighborhoods that do not have as much pull as the property owners in downtown Edmonds. She asked the Board
to consider all citizens who live in established neighborhoods throughout the City. She said she is opposed to the proposed
changes to the SEPA requirements and implored the Board to do the same and keep the neighborhood’s process in place.
Colleen McDonald said she lives 300 feet from the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and is concerned about the
proposed change to the flexible thresholds under SEPA that would only apply to the activity center and the Highway 99
Corridor. She pointed out there are a significant number of residential properties in established neighborhoods within this
area. People continue to move to the neighborhood because it is one of the few places in Edmonds where affordable housing
options are available. She said she is particularly concerned the proposed change would eliminate the citizens’ opportunity
to participate in the process and there would be no ability to appeal. She suggested this seems a bit harsh. She expressed her
belief that the existing thresholds are appropriate for a City the size of Edmonds, and it does not make sense to adjust them to
the maximum just because State Law allows them to do so. While the higher thresholds may be appropriate for large cities,
they are not appropriate for Edmonds. She agreed with Ms. Byer. If someone were putting 20 homes in her neighborhood,
she would consider it a massive development that could result in increased traffic and other problems. She also expressed
concern that because she lives downstream from the activity center, she could experience flooding from the stream that runs
past her back yard as a result of significant development in the activity center. If this were to occur, she would have no
ability to voice her concerns. She summarized that she is opposed to the proposal that would raise the flexible thresholds in
the activity center to the maximum allowed by State law, thus removing the public’s ability to participate in the process.
Joe St. Laurent, Edmonds, said he lives within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and agrees with the concerns
raised by the previous speakers that there would be no opportunity for public review or appeal if the proposed amendments
are approved. He suggested this would be contrary to due process and would be considered arbitrary and capricious. He
said it is important to remember that there is a residential neighborhood located right in the middle of the activity center. It is
not just developed for medical uses, the high school, etc. There are single-family homes. He said his client, James Plute, has
owned the majority of the land on the 220th block where Mr. Shapiro is proposing redevelopment for nearly 50 years. He has
contributed to the community and is opposed to any type of change in the SEPA law that would result in the citizens having
less or no opportunity to review or appeal future development applications.
Packet Page 186 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 6
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, said he lives in the Ballinger area near Highway 99. He pointed out that when there are events at
the cemetery, there are between 35 and 150 cars that end up backing up traffic. He recalled that the Comprehensive Plan
indicates the City’s goal of encouraging development on Highway 99, and there are several projects in the works. He
reminded the Board that this additional development would result in more traffic, which is an issue that needs to be
addressed in the Development Code.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for a number of years and happens to live on a State highway
(196th). He said it is difficult to understand how he would be impacted if the same thresholds were being proposed for the
properties along 196th. He expressed his belief that the Comprehensive Plan actually extends the boundaries of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center further than it should have, and it currently incorporates neighborhoods that have been
stable for many years. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the Board to review the boundaries again and
consider potential adjustments.
Mr. Hertrich suggested the Board ask staff to provide a clear explanation of the benefits that SEPA provides for the citizens
of Edmonds. He pointed out that there are other aspects associated with clearing and grading aside from the amount of earth
that is removed or added. The City must also address how the removal process would impact surrounding property owners.
He questioned why the City would want to eliminate the SEPA requirement if it provides additional protection to address
issues such as stormwater runoff, traffic impacts, environmental concerns, etc. He further questioned how staff would
resolve these issues if no SEPA is required. He observed that many times in the past, staff has indicated that they use the
SEPA process to mitigate impacts.
Mr. Hertrich summarized that he believes the proposed changes are too zealous, and the idea of eliminating the SEPA
requirement is not appropriate. He recalled that Board Member Guenther previously stated that he has filled out SEPA
Checklists on a number of occasions, and the process is not complicated, costly or time consuming. However, it does give
the City the ability to deal with impacts associated with a proposed development. He said he does not see a reason for the
proposed change; the City was getting along quite nicely before. He suggested that in some cases, there has not been enough
SEPA control because developments fall below the existing thresholds. Expanding the thresholds as proposed would
eliminate what little control the City does have to protect residential neighborhoods. He reminded the Board that the City
Council recently made a decision to provide additional protection to a neighborhood that is located within the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. He suggested they also consider providing more protection for the other
neighborhoods that are located in the same area. He urged the Board to ask more questions and carefully consider what
would be lost as a result of the proposed changes.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s question about what the City gains by SEPA, Mr. Lien explained that there are certain notice
requirements associated with SEPA, and notice would actually be required for most of the projects that require SEPA
anyway. SEPA is a trigger for certain projects to be sent to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) for review; if a project
requires SEPA review, it is automatically sent to the ADB.
Mr. Lien recalled the Board previously reviewed the potential impacts of adjusting the flexible thresholds as proposed. Of
the 178 SEPA reviews the City has conducted since 2004, 108 were subject to the flexible thresholds. The most common
SEPA trigger was for landfill and excavation, which is already set at the maximum allowed by State Law. Of the 108
projects that were subject to the flexible thresholds, 90 exceeded the 500 cubic yard threshold for landfill and excavation,
and 40 were triggered solely for that reason. Of all the projects proposed for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and
the Highway 99 Corridor, only two would not have required SEPA review based on the proposed amendments. If the
flexible thresholds were expanded for all multi-family and commercial zones in the City, five of the projects would not have
been required to go through SEPA review. He summarized that based on historical data, the impact of raising the thresholds
as proposed would be minimal.
Mr. Lien agreed with Ms. McDonald that if a project is exempt from SEPA, there would be no process to appeal the
determination. Mr. Chave said it is important for the Commission to consider the tradeoffs. Mr. Hertrich was right in his
explanation of what is gained by SEPA review and what would be lost if SEPA review is not required. He explained that
Packet Page 187 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 7
SEPA has very little affect on development in single-family zones because the City has other processes that have more sway.
For example, subdivisions of more than five units require a public hearing process, and this requirement would not change.
He noted that most SEPA reviews were related to landfill and grading, and had very little to do with the scale of the proposed
development. This raises the question of what the City would gain from SEPA review versus what it would lose. At this
time, many of the City’s processes and regulations already control issues that would be considered under SEPA such as
transportation impacts and critical areas. He reminded the Board that the City’s goal is to promote economic development in
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor, and the State recognized these situations when they
granted local jurisdictions the authority to adjust their flexible thresholds.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that climate change may have a large impact on development in the future. Until the City
adopts local regulations to address climate change, SEPA may be the best mechanism available. This issue must also be
taken into consideration when determining the right flexible threshold balance. He summarized that SEPA is only one piece
of the development puzzle, and there are many other process the City uses to provide public notice and hearing opportunities.
Particularly in single-family zones, there is a clear public process that comes into play outside of SEPA. SEPA cannot
control the level of development allowed on a property; it can only condition development based on impacts that are not
otherwise addressed in the code. Most issues associated with single-family developed are addressed by the Development
Code. That is one of the main reasons why SEPA is less important than it once was.
Board Member Cloutier emphasized that this is not the first time the Board has considered the proposed amendments, nor is
it the first public hearing on the matter. When the Board discussed the proposed amendments in February and April, they
raised many of the same concerns that have been raised by the public. He reassured the public that the Board is not ignoring
their concerns, but he is satisfied that the concerns can be addressed by the current provisions in the Development Code and
other City regulations.
Board Member Reed suggested that it would be appropriate to clarify elsewhere in Section 20.15A that the flexible threshold
for landfill and excavation has already been raised to the maximum level possible for all zones in the City. The language
should also clarify the threshold further.
Board Member Reed recalled that the Board previously determined there would be minimal time and cost savings associated
with the proposed amendments. They also discussed that environmental impacts associated with a proposed project would
be addressed by the Critical Areas Ordinance. The Board determined that Option 3 (increasing the flexible thresholds for
only the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor) was the best of the four options. However, he
said he would be in favor of adjusting all of the flexible thresholds to the minimum levels identified in State Law because
SEPA review is important in every project. Projects in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center will have an impact on
surrounding schools and residential neighborhoods. If the SEPA process was extremely costly and time consuming, he
might have a different position, but it is not. He referred to Section 20.15A.220.C.1, which lists the types of things staff
would consider as part of the SEPA review. He expressed his belief that this is a good edition to the language, and perhaps it
would also be appropriate to include this language in the opening statement of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lien noted that
this language came directly from the model ordinance.
Board Member Guenther said he has filled out several SEPA Checklists, which are used by the City to address all of the
different factors related to a proposed development. As Mr. Chave pointed out, there are also development requirements that
address specific issues on the checklist, such as the Critical Areas Ordinance. He summarized that the checklist is not
intended to be a safeguard, but is used by cities to see how a proposed project complies with the existing ordinances. If there
is something that is not addressed by the current ordinances, then some type of mitigation would be required as part of the
determination. He summarized that he does not see that changing the thresholds as proposed would change the code
requirements the City already has in placed. However, the proposed change could improve the process.
Board Member Stewart asked staff to identify what the City would gain from increasing the thresholds. She recognized that
the City is trying to encourage more density and transit-oriented development in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
and the Highway 99 Corridor to comply with GMA. She suggested that raising the threshold for parking appears to be
counterproductive in this regard. Mr. Lien agreed that the Comprehensive Plan encourages redevelopment in these areas.
Having one less hurdle could make the area more attractive to developers. In addition, when considering the impact the
Packet Page 188 of 319
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 8
proposed changes would have had on past SEPA reviews, there appears to be minimal difference even if the thresholds were
raised for all commercial and multi-family zones.
Board Member Stewart emphasized that changing the thresholds would not alter the zoning in the two areas. However, it
would allow for development to occur without SEPA review if the properties are rezoned at some point in the future. Mr.
Lien explained that the flexible thresholds would not apply to rezone applications. A rezone application would still be
required to go through the SEPA process. Development of properties within the two areas would still be required to meet the
zoning requirements, the critical areas provisions, traffic impact fees, etc., but no SEPA review would be required for
projects that fall below the threshold levels. Board Member Stewart asked if adjusting the thresholds would result in less
environmental protection, and Mr. Lien answered no.
Board Member Johnson observed that SEPA has given local jurisdictions the opportunity to adjust their thresholds if they
choose to do so. The City Council has given clear direction that they want to promote economic development in the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor. While the proposed amendments may be a small step in
this direction, it is something the Planning Board can do to further this goal. She recalled that she previously expressed her
belief that the flexible thresholds should not be changed for residential structures. There may be certain impacts that are not
covered by the existing regulations pertaining to noise, etc. This is one area where additional SEPA review may be
appropriate. However, she supports the proposed amendments to adjust the flexible thresholds for new construction and
parking lots.
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ECDC 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (FILE NUMBER AMD20090006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH
A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PROPOSED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE
MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 20.15A.090 FROM THE RECOMMENDATION. HE FURTHER
RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF CLARIFY THE FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD FOR LANDFILL AND
EXCAVATION ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE LANGUAGE. THE MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF
A SECOND.
Board Member Cloutier asked if the landfill and excavation threshold is applied cumulatively. Mr. Lien answered that fill
and excavation are considered separately. He emphasized that the only change proposed for this section is the addition of the
words “in all locations throughout the City of Edmonds.”
Board Member Reed said he would vote no on the motion; not because he is opposed to most of the changes, but because he
would like to remove the proposed adjustments to the flexible thresholds. He said he sees no need to eliminate the SEPA
requirement when it is not a costly or lengthy step in the development process yet it affords additional protection for
surrounding property owners. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the true impact of adjusting the flexible
thresholds would be minimal. On the other hand, a potential developer may find the area more attractive because there
would be a little less paperwork to fill out.
Vice Chair Lovell observed that the majority of the proposed amendments are intended to make the current SEPA
requirements consistent with the WAC and RCW, which is required by State Law. As the Board discussed, changing the
threshold levels would have had minimal impact on projects that have occurred since 2004. Given that the City is trying to
encourage economic development in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor, the Board agreed
earlier to consider adjustments to the flexible thresholds. He said he still supports this direction and would vote in favor of
the motion to move the amendments forward to the City Council with a recommendation of approval.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS LOVELL, GUENTHER, JOHNSON AND CLOUTIER
VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS REED AND STEWART VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Packet Page 189 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – September 7, 2010 Public Hearings – City Council Memorandum Page 1 of 6
Date:September 2, 2010
To:City Council
From:Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Subject:ECDC 20.15A Update: SEPA Rules
_____________________________________________________________________________
State Environmental Policy Act
Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first adopted in 1971. Among other
things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to:
“Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision
making which may have an impact on man’s environment;” and
Ensure that “…environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration
in decision making along with economic and technical considerations…” [RCW
43.21C.030.(2)(a) and (2)(b)]
The policies and goals in SEPA supplement those in existing authorizations of all branches of
government of Washington State, including state agencies, counties, cities, districts, and public
corporations. Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA [RCW
43.21C.060].
The environmental review process in SEPA is designed to work with other regulations to provide
a comprehensive review of a proposal. Most regulations focus on particular aspects of a
proposal, while SEPA requires the identification and evaluation of probable impacts for all
elements of the environment. Combining the review processes of SEPA and other laws reduces
duplication and delay by combining study needs, combining comment periods and public
notices, and allowing agencies, applicants, and the public to consider all aspects of a proposal at
the same time. Proposal can be either project proposals (new construction, fill and grade, etc.) or
non project proposals (Comprehensive plans, Zoning, Development regulations, etc.).
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 190 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – September 7, 2010 Public Hearings – City Council Memorandum Page 2 of 6
City of Edmonds SEPA Regulations: ECDC 20.15A
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 20.15A. The City’s original SEPA regulations were adopted under Ordinance No.
1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in
order to come into compliance with the new (at that time) SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 and
model SEPA ordinance in WAC 173-806. The ECDC 20.15A the City uses today is essentially
the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having under gone only four minor
amendments in that time.
ECDC 20.15A is being reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its development
regulations. Due to changes in the RCW’s, WAC’s, and the City’s own code, ECDC 20.15A is
long over due for an update. Below is an outline of items and issues that have been considered
under this review.
1. Adoption by reference.
ECDC 20.15A adopts significant portions of WAC 197-11 (SEPA rules) by reference.
Sections of WAC 197-11 have been added and/or removed since the City adopted Ordinance
No. 2461 in 1984, particularly in regards to SEPA and GMA integration. This update
reviewed changes in WAC 197-11 and the adoption lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City
is up-to-date and compliant with state regulations.
2. Model code.
ECDC 20.15A is largely based off the model code in WAC 173-806. As with WAC 197-11,
there have been changes to WAC 173-806 since 1984. This update reviewed WAC 173-806
and made updates to ECDC 20.15A where appropriate to ensure the City is up-to-date and
compliant with state regulations.
3. Consistency.
As with the state rules, Edmonds Community Development Code has under gone a number
of amendments since 1984. This update reviewed ECDC 20.15A to ensure it remains
consistent with the rest of the City’s development regulations.
4. Categorical exemptions - Flexible thresholds.
State SEPA rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically exempt threshold
levels for certain minor new construction activities. The City of Edmonds had previously
only modified one of these flexible thresholds. These activities and their thresholds are as
follows:
a. The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling units.Can be
modified up to 20 dwelling units.
b. The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce
storage or packing structure, or similar agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet,
and to be used only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming
the property. This exemption shall not apply to feed lots.Does not apply in Edmonds.
Packet Page 191 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – September 7, 2010 Public Hearings – City Council Memorandum Page 3 of 6
c. The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage
building with 4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and with associated parking facilities
designed for twenty automobiles.Can be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40
automobiles.
d. The construction of a parking lot designed for twenty automobiles. Can be modified up
to 40 automobiles.
e. Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards throughout the total lifetime of the fill or
excavation; and any fill or excavation classified as a Class I, II, or III forest practice
under RCW 76.09.050 or regulations thereunder. The City increased this threshold up to
500 cubic yards in 1984 under Ordinance No. 2461.
Why consider different threshold levels for different areas?
Most categorical exemptions use size criteria to determine if a proposal is exempt from SEPA
review. The SEPA Rules in WAC 197-11 allow cities to raise the exemption limit for certain
types of new development where the exempt level is “supported by local conditions, including
zoning or other land use plans or regulations.” The SEPA rules allows cities to adopt system of
several exempt levels, such as a system that provides for different levels for different geographic
areas.
Determining the environmental impact of a development involves the context and intensity of the
development and does not lend itself to a formula or quantifiable test (WAC 197-11-794). The
context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of
an impact. The same proposal may have a significant impact in one location but not in another
(WAC 197-11-330). For instance a 12,000 square foot commercial development in one of the
Neighbor Business zones such as Westgate or Five Corners is likely to have a greater impact on
the neighborhood than the same scale of commercial development along Highway 99.
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance on what type of
development should be encouraged in different areas. In particular, the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor are areas identified for more intensive
development and a location where the city is looking to expand the economic and tax base of the
City by providing incentives for businesses and commercial development. The Comprehensive
Plan describes the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor as
follows:
The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a
pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens
Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high-intensity development
corridor along Highway 99. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally
commercial development with less intense uses or deigned transitions serving as a buffer
between adjacent neighborhoods. In contrast, the overall character of the mixed use activity
center is intended to be an intensively development mixed use, pedestrian-friendly
environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by centralized parking, and
plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and park-like atmosphere. In
addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is
intended to achieve the following goals (two relevant ones are):
Packet Page 192 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – September 7, 2010 Public Hearings – City Council Memorandum Page 4 of 6
To expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives
for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center;
Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development
character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel access
patterns on local streets; (Comprehensive Plan Pg. 59)
Policy A.6 of this section also states the, “Uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should
provide more intensive levels of mixed use development.” (Comprehensive Plan Pg. 60)
Within the Commercial Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan the Highway 99 corridor is
recognized as a commercial district which adds to the community’s tax and employment base.
The Comprehensive Plan goes on to say that its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and
commercial development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential.
(Comprehensive Plan Pg. 71)
The Comprehensive Plan also discusses streamlining the permit process for applicants in regards
to infill development and economic development. For instance the follow excerpt from the
Comprehensive Plan talks about infill development;
The City’s principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill development consistent
with its neighborhoods and community character. The overall plan direction has been
termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s emphasis and continued work on
streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible standards, and improving its
deign guidelines. (Comprehensive Plan Pg. 150)
The Edmonds Economic Development Plan (which is an adopted element in the Comprehensive
Plan) provides the following policy:
Promote a results-oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review
timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach.
(Edmonds Economic Development Plan Pg. 14)
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the
Highway 99 Corridor as areas where more intensive development is appropriate. Increasing the
SEPA thresholds for these areas is one way to achieve Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
for encouraging development and streamlining the permitting process. With this in mind, the
Planning Board undertook a thorough review of the categorical exemption flexible threshold
levels.
Planning Board Flexible Threshold Recommendation
After considering a number of alternatives, the Planning Board proposed to increase the
categorical exemption thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway
99 Corridor as defined by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
The Planning Board’s recommendation for the flexible threshold levels as detailed in ECDC
20.15A.090.B is:
1. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) up to 500 cubic yards in all
locations throughout the City of Edmonds. (This same threshold level has been in place
since 1984. Clarifying language was added that it applies throughout the City.)
Packet Page 193 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – September 7, 2010 Public Hearings – City Council Memorandum Page 5 of 6
2. The table below establishes the City’s exempt level for minor new construction under
WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i) through WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) for all property located
within the Highway 99 Corridor and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center as defined
in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Residential
Structures
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i)
New construction
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iii)
Parking lot
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iv)
Landfill or
excavation
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(v)
20 units 12,000 square feet 40 spaces 500 cy
Proposal for City Council Public Hearings
At the July 27, 2010 City Council meeting, the Council voted to split the Planning Board’s
recommendation into two parts and hold two separate public hearings.
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
This proposal would update ECDC 20.15A to ensure that the City of Edmonds SEPA regulations
are consistent with RCW 43.21C (State Environmental Policy Act), WAC 197-11 (State SEPA
Rules), WAC 173-806 (Model SEPA Ordinance), the City of Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations. In addition to the consistency updates, this proposal would also
increase the categorical exemption flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center.
The flexible threshold levels in this proposal as detailed in ECDC 20.15A.090.B would be:
1. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) up to 500 cubic yards in all
locations throughout the City of Edmonds. (This same threshold level has been in place
since 1984. Clarifying language was added that it applies throughout the City.)
2. The table below establishes the City’s exempt level for minor new construction under
WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i) through WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) for all property located
within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center as defined in the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan.
Residential
Structures
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i)
New construction
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iii)
Parking lot
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iv)
Landfill or
excavation
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(v)
20 units 12,000 square feet 40 spaces 500 cy
Three maps of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center are attached as exhibits to Agenda
Item 3 for this Public Hearing, including an aerial photo, a map indicating the Comprehensive
Plan Designations, and a third map showing the existing zoning.
Highway 99 Corridor
This proposal would update ECDC 20.15A to ensure that the City of Edmonds SEPA regulations
are consistent with RCW 43.21C (State Environmental Policy Act), WAC 197-11 (State SEPA
Rules), WAC 173-806 (Model SEPA Ordinance), the City of Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 194 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – September 7, 2010 Public Hearings – City Council Memorandum Page 6 of 6
and development regulations. In addition to the consistency updates, this proposal would also
increase the categorical exemption flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor.
The flexible threshold levels in this proposal as detailed in ECDC 20.15A.090.B would be:
1. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) up to 500 cubic yards in all
locations throughout the City of Edmonds. (This same threshold level has been in place
since 1984. Clarifying language was added that it applies throughout the City.)
2. The table below establishes the City’s exempt level for minor new construction under
WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i) through WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) for all property located
within the Highway 99 Corridor as defined in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Residential
Structures
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i)
New construction
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iii)
Parking lot
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iv)
Landfill or
excavation
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(v)
20 units 12,000 square feet 40 spaces 500 cy
Three maps of the Highway 99 Corridor are attached as exhibits to Agenda Item 4 for this Public
Hearing, including an aerial photo, a map indicating the Comprehensive Plan Designations, and a
third map showing the existing zoning.
Packet Page 195 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 1 of 22
Chapter 20.15A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA)
Sections:
20.15A.010 Authority.
20.15A.020 General SEPA Requirements - Adoption by reference.
20.15A.025 Reliance on existing laws, plans and regulations
20.15A.030 Additional definitions.
20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official.
20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
20.15A.060 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations Rules for deciding
probable significant, adverse environmental impacts – Adoption by
reference.
20.15A.070 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations – Time estimates.
20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.
20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – DeterminationUse of exemptions.
20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage.
20.15A.120 Threshold determinations – Environmental checklist.
20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS.
20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.150 EIS – PreparationPreparation of EIS – Additional considerations.
20.15A.160 EIS – Commenting – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.170 Public notice.
20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities.
20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.195 Planned Actions
20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals.
20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.
20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies.
20.15A.240 Appeals.
20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations.
Packet Page 196 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 2 of 22
20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.280 Repealed.
20.15A.290 Fees.
20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.310 Severability.
20.15A.010 Authority.
The city of Edmonds adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197-11-
904. The city’s substantive polices for the enforcement of and procedures for SEPA are
contained in ECDC Title 15; its procedures are contained in this chapter. The SEPA rules
contained in Chapter 197-11 WAC must be used in conjunction with this chapter.
20.15A.020 General SEPA Requirements - Adoption by reference.
This part contains the basic requirements that apply to the SEPA process. The city adopts
the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended,
by reference:
197-11-040 Definitions.
197-11-050 Lead agency.
197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process.
197-11-060 Content of environmental review.
197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process.
197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.
197-11-090 Supporting documents.
197-11-100 Information required of applicants.
197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration.
197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions.
197-11-228 Overall SEPA/GMA integration procedures.
197-11-230 Timing of an integrated GMA/SEPA process.
197-11-232 SEPA/GMA integration procedures for preliminary planning,
environmental analysis, and expanded scoping.
197-11-235 Documents.
197-11-250 SEPA/Model Toxics Control Act integration.
197-11-253 SEPA lead agency for MTCA actions.
Packet Page 197 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 3 of 22
197-11-256 Preliminary evaluation.
197-11-259 Determination of nonsignificance for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-262 Determination of significance and EIS for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-265 Early scoping for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-268 MTCA interim actions.
20.15A.025 Reliance on existing plans, laws and regulations
In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold
determination, the City may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis,
protection, and mitigation measures in the City’s development regulations and
comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local,
state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all
of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project consistent with the initial
SEPA analysis identified in ECDC 20.04.002.
20.15A.030 Additional definitions.
In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799
and 197-11-220, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following
meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise:
A. “Department” means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city
established by ordinance, rule or order.
B. “SEPA Rules” means Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the Department of Ecology.
C. “Ordinance” means the ordinance, resolution, or other procedure used by the city to
adopt regulatory requirements.
D. “Early notice” means the city’s response to an applicant stating whether it considers
issuance of a determination of significance likely for the applicant’s proposal
(mitigated determination of nonsignificance (DNS) procedures).
20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official.
A. For those proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall
be the community services director or such other person as the director may designate
in writingplanning manager or his/her designee.
B. For all proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall
make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required
EIS and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible
official by those sections of the SEPA rule that have been adopted by reference.
C. The city shall retain all documents required by the SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11
WAC) and make them available in accordance with chapter 42.17 RCW.
Packet Page 198 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 4 of 22
20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
A. The responsible official or the department receiving an application for or initiating a
proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall determine the lead agency for that
proposal under WAC 197-11-050, WAC 197-11-253, and WAC 197-11-922 through
197-11-940, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the department
is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead
agency.
B. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal, the responsible official shall
supervise compliance with the threshold determination requirements, and if an EIS is
necessary, shall supervise preparation of the EIS.
B.C. When the city is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the city
shall use and consider as appropriate either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead
agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or
require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency
unless the city determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under
WAC 197-11-600.
C.D. If the city, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency determination made
by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-253 or
WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any
objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and
resolved within 15 days of receipt of the determination or the city must petition the
Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946
within the 15-day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated
by the responsible official or any department.
D.E. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status
or shared lead agency’s duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-
944:.provided, that the responsible official and any department that will incur
responsibilities as the result of such agreement approve that agreement.
E.F. The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the applicant to
identify which other agencies with have jurisdiction over the proposal.
G. When the city is lead agency for a MTCA remedial action, the Department of
Ecology shall be provided an opportunity under WAC 197-11-253(5) to review the
environmental documents prior to public notice being provided. If the SEPA and
MTCA documents are issued together with one public comment period under WAC
197-11-253(6), the city shall decide jointly with Ecology who receives the comment
letters and how copies of the comments letters will be distributed to the other agency.
20.15A.060 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations Rules for
deciding probable significant, adverse environmental impact – Adoption by
reference.
This part contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a “probable significant,
adverse environmental impact” requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be
prepared. This part also contains rules for evaluating impacts of proposals not requiring
Packet Page 199 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 5 of 22
an EIS. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing
or hereinafter amended by reference as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-300 Purpose of this part.
197-11-305 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-310 Threshold determination required.
197-11-315 Environmental checklist.
197-11-330 Threshold determination process.
197-11-335 Additional information.
197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-350 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-355 Optional DNS process.
197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of scoping.
197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination.
20.15A.070 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations – Time
estimates.
The time estimates contained in this section apply when the city processes licenses for all
private projects and those governmental proposals submitted to the city by other
agencies. The actual time may vary with the complexity of the project, availability of
staff, cooperation of agencies with jurisdiction or expertise, etc. The time estimates
contained herein shall not be construed to be mandatory. For the purpose of this section
the word “day” shall mean a day upon which the city’s administrative offices are open for
business.
A.Categorical Exemptions. The city will normally identify whether an action is
categorically exempt within 10 days of receiving a completed application.
B.Threshold Determinations.
1.The city will normally complete threshold determinations that can be based solely
upon review of the environmental checklist for the proposal within 15 days of the
date an applicant’s adequate application and completed checklist are submitted.
2.When the responsible official requires further information from the applicant or
consults with other agencies with jurisdiction:
a.The city will normally request such further information within 15 days of
receiving an adequate application and completed environmental checklist.
b.The city will normally wait no longer than 15 days for a consulted agency to
respond.
Packet Page 200 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 6 of 22
c.The responsible official will normally complete the threshold determination
within 15 days of receiving the requested information from the applicant or
the consulted agency.
3.When the city must initiate further studies, including field investigations, to obtain
the information to make the threshold determination, the city will normally
complete the studies within 30 days of receiving an adequate application and a
completed checklist.
4.The city will normally complete threshold determinations on actions where the
applicant recommends in writing that an EIS be prepared, because of the probable
significant adverse environmental impacts described in the application, within 15
days of receiving an adequate application and completed checklist.
5.The responsible official will normally respond to a request for early notice within
10 days. The threshold determination will normally be made within 15 days of
receipt of the changed or clarified proposal, environmental checklist and/or permit
application.
20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.
The city adopts the following rules for categorical exemption of Chapter 197-11, as now
existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-800 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-880 Emergencies.
197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions.
20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.
A. The proposed actions contained in this section are categorically exempt from
threshold determination and EIS requirements, subject to the rules and limitations on
categorical exemptions contained in ECDC 20.15A.100. The exemptions in this
section apply to all licenses required to undertake the construction in question, except
when undertaken wholly or partly on lands covered by water. To be exempt under
this section, the project must be equal to or smaller than the exempt level.
A.B. The city establishes the following exempt level for minor new construction based
on local conditions in addition to those standards adopted by reference.
1. For landfills and evacuations excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) up to 500
cubic yards in all locations throughout the City of Edmonds.
2. The table below establishes the City’s exempt level for minor new construction
under WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i) through WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) for all
property within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center as defined in the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 201 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 7 of 22
Residential
Structures
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i)
New construction
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iii)
Parking lot
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iv)
Landfill or
excavation
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(v)
20 units 12,000 square feet 40 spaces 500 cy
B.C. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the
Department of Ecology, Headquarters Office, Olympia, Washington.
20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – DeterminationUse of exemptions.
A. When the city receives an application for a license or, in the case of governmental
proposals a department initiates a proposal, the responsible official shall determine
whether the license and/or the proposal is exempt. The determination that a proposal
is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is
exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter shall apply to the
proposal. The city shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an
exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt the responsible official shall make
certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental license
required. If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the responsible
official shall determine the lead agency even if the license application that triggers the
consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the city may authorize
exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter,
except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse environmental impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
2. The city may withhold approval of any permit, application or proposal, the basis
of which is an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical
environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if the nonexempt
actions were not approved.
3. The city may withhold approval of any permit, application or proposal, the basis
of which is an exempt action that would lead to substantial financial expenditures
by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if the
nonexempt actions were not approved.
20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage.
A. If the city’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other
licenses that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may
Packet Page 202 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 8 of 22
request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of
the detailed plans and specifications.
B. In addition to the environmental documents an applicant shall submit the following
information for early environmental review:
1. A copy of any permit or license application;
2. Other information as the responsible official may determine.
20.15A.120 Threshold determinations – Environmental checklist.
A. Except as provided in subsection (E) of this section, Aa completed environmental
checklist, in the form provided in WAC 197-11-960, shall be filed at the same time as
an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not specifically
exempted by this chapter; except, a checklist is not needed if the city and applicant
agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance
has been initiated by another agency. The city shall use the environmental checklist
to determine the lead agency, and if the city is the lead agency, for making the
threshold determination. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197-11-960 with
such additions that may be required by the responsible official in accordance with
WAC 197-11-906(4).
B.A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA
compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another
agency.
C.B. For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental
checklist. The city may provide assistance as necessary. For city proposals the
department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that
proposal.
D.C. The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a
private proposal, if any of the following occurs:
1. The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to
the private applicant; or
2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on
proposals currently under consideration; or
3. On the request of the applicant.
E.D. The applicant shall pay to the city the actual costs of providing information under
paragraphs DC(2) and DC(3) of this section.
E. For projects submitted as planned actions under ECDC 20.04.003.B, the city shall use
its existing environmental checklist form or may modify the environmental checklist
form as provided in WAC 197-11-315. The modified environmental checklist form
may be prepared and adopted along with or as part of a planned action ordinance; or
developed after the ordinance is adopted. In either case, a proposed modified
environmental checklist form must be sent to the Department of Ecology to allow at
least a thirty-day review.
Packet Page 203 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 9 of 22
20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS.
A. The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based
on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or
clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.
B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a DS is likely. The
request must:
1. Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a
nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and
2. Precede the city’s actual threshold determination for the proposal.
C. The responsible official’s response to the request for early notice shall:
1. Be written;
1.2. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if
so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to
consider a DS; and
2.3. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the
indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and/or permit
application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.
D. As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant with identification of impacts
to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.
D.E. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised
environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed
or clarified proposal.
1. If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for
early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those
specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of
nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation
measures are required.
2. If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation
measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold
determination, issue a DNS or DS as appropriate.
3. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or
conditions must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals to
“control noise” or “prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals
to “muffle machinery to X decibel” or “construct 200-foot stormwater retention
pond at Y location” are adequate.
4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be
incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other
documents.
Packet Page 204 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 10 of 22
E.F. The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued
for 15 days after the date of issuanceA mitigated DNS is issued under either WAC
197-11-340(2), requiring a fourteen-day comment period and public notice, or WAC
197-11-355, which may require no additional comment period beyond the comment
period on the notice of application..
F.G. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed
conditions of approval of the licensing or permit decision and may be enforced in the
same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any matter
specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation
measures shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of any license or permit
issued.
G.H. If the city’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation
measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the city should
evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)
(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS.
H.I. The city’s written response under subsection C of this section shall not be
construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of
clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice,
shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold
determination.
20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) – Adoption by reference.
This section contains the rules for preparing environmental impact statements. The city
adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter
amended, by reference as supplemented by this chapter:
197-11-400 Purpose of EIS.
197-11-402 General requirements.
197-11-405 EIS types.
197-11-406 EIS timing.
197-11-408 Scoping.
197-11-410 Expanded scoping.
197-11-420 EIS preparation.
197-11-425 Style and size.
197-11-430 Format.
197-11-435 Cover letter or memo.
197-11-440 EIS contents.
197-11-442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals.
197-11-443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS.
Packet Page 205 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 11 of 22
197-11-444 Elements of the environment.
197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations.
197-11-450 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-455 Issuance of DEIS.
197-11-460 Issuance of FEIS.
20.15A.150 EIS – PreparationPreparation of EIS – Additional considerations..
A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and SEISs shall be under the direction of the
responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be
satisfied that it complies with this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC.
B. The draft and final EIS or SEIS shall be prepared at the city’s option by the city staff,
the applicant or by a consultant approved by the city. If the responsible official
requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the city will
prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant immediately after
completion of the threshold determination. The responsible official shall also notify
the applicant of the city’s procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the
draft and final EIS prior to distribution.
C. The city may require an applicant to provide additional information which the city
does not possess, including information which must be obtained by specific
investigations. This provision is not intended to expand or limit an applicant’s other
obligations under WAC 197-11-100, or other provisions of regulation, statute, or
ordinance. An applicant shall not be required to produce information under this
provision which is not specifically required by this chapter nor is the applicant
relieved of the duty to supply any other information required by statute, regulation or
ordinance.
20.15A.160 EIS – Commenting – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for consulting, commenting, and responding on all environmental
documents under SEPA, including rules for public notice and Thehearings. The city
adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing or hereinafter
amended, by reference as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-500 Purpose of this part.
197-11-502 Inviting comment.
197-11-504 Availability and cost of environmental documents.
197-11-508 SEPA register.
197-11-510 Public notice.
197-11-535 Public hearings and meetings.
197-11-545 Effect of no comment.
197-11-550 Specificity of comments.
Packet Page 206 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 12 of 22
197-11-560 FEIS response to comments.
197-11-570 Consulted agency costs to assist lead agency.
20.15A.170 Public notice.
Public notice for SEPA reviews shall be carried out as described in ECDC 20.03.002.H.
Whenever the city issues a threshold determination, or EIS requiring public notice, the
city shall give public notice of the determination or the availability of the environmental
documents and whether any public hearing will be held as follows:
A.Threshold Determination Notice. Public notice will be given on the following
situations:
1.DNS involving another agency with jurisdiction;
2.DNS involving demolition of any structure or facility not exempted by 197-11-
800(2)(f) or 197-11-880;
3.DNS involving issuance of clearing or grading permits not exempted under WAC
Part Nine – Categorical Exemptions;
4.DNS under WAC 197-11-350(2) Early Notice;
5.DNS under WAC 197-11-350(3) Mitigated DNS;
6.DNS under WAC 197-11-360(4) change from DS to DNS;
7.DS for scoping purposes;
8.Availability of a DEIS.
B.Type of Notice. Under subsection A of this section, notice will be given as follows:
1.Posting in accordance with ECC 1.03.010;
2.Publication in the SEPA register.
For project actions and other site specific development approvals:
3.Mailing to owners of property within 300 feet and to the residences, if the property
owner’s address as shown on the records of the Snohomish County assessor’s
office differs from the address of the property;
4.Other methods as deemed necessary and appropriate by the responsible official or
required by ordinance or statute.
C.Public Hearing. Whenever a public hearing is held notice shall be given. Such notice
shall precede the hearing by at least 10 days.
D.Type of Notice. Under subsection C of this section notice will be given as follows:
1.Posting of or near the property for site specific proposals;
2.Mailing to property owners within 300 feet for site specific proposals;
3.Posting in accordance with ECC 1.03.010;
Packet Page 207 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 13 of 22
4.1. Other methods as deemed necessary and appropriate by the responsible
official; provided that a public hearing on a non-project proposal must be
preceded by written, published notice in accordance with WAC 197-11-502(6)(b)
at least 10 days prior to the hearing. [Ord. 2950 § 2, 1993].
20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities.
A. The responsible official shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for
the city in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination,
participation in scoping and reviewing of a draft EIS.
B. The responsible official shall be responsible for the city’s compliance with WAC
197-11-550 whenever the city is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop
operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are
prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the
city.
20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for using and supplementing existing environmental documents
prepared under SEPA or national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the City’s own
environmental compliance. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-1l
WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating planned actions – Procedures for
adoption.
197-11-172 Planned actions – Project review.
197-11-600 When to use existing environmental documents.
197-11-610 Use of NEPA documents.
197-11-620 Supplemental environmental impact statements.
197-11-625 Addenda – Procedures.
197-11-630 Adoption – Procedures.
197-11-635 Incorporation by reference – Procedures.
197-11-640 Combining documents.
20.15A.195 Planned Actions
Definition and criteria for planned actions within the City are included in
ECDC 20.04.003.B.
20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules and policies for SEPA’s substantive authority, such as decisions
to mitigate or reject proposals as a result of SEPA. This part also contains procedures for
appealing SEPA determinations to agencies or the courts. The city adopts the following
sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
Packet Page 208 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 14 of 22
197-11-650 Purpose of this part.
197-11-655 Implementation.
197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation.
197-11-680 Appeals.
197-11-700 Definitions.
20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals.
For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or draft EIS for the proposal shall accompany the city
staff’s recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such as the planning
commissionboard. If a final EIS is or becomes available, it shall be substituted for the
draft.
20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.
A. The city may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as:
1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse
environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental documents prepared
pursuant to this chapter; and
2. Such conditions are in writing; and
3. Such The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and
capable of being accomplished; and
4. The city has considered whether other local, state or federal mitigation measures
applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and
5. Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsection C of this section
or ECDC 20.15A.230 and cited in the permit, approval, license or other decision
document.
B. The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long
as:
1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIS or final
supplemental EIS prepared pursuant to this chapter; and
2. A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measures sufficient to
mitigate the identified impact; and
3. The denial is based on one or more policies identified in subsection C of this
section or in ECDC 20.15A.230 and identified in writing in the decision
document.
C. The City designates and adopts by reference the following policies as the basis for the
City’s exercise of authority pursuant to this section:
Packet Page 209 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 15 of 22
1. The City shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions,
programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may:
a. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for
succeeding generations;
b. Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
c. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without
degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences;
d. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national
heritage;
e. Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and
variety of individual choice;
f. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit
high standards of living and wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
g. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
attainable recycling of depletable resources.
2. The City recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to
the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies.
A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the
existing authorization of the city.
B. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances,
resolutions and plans, as now existing or hereinafter amended, as a possible basis for
the exercise of substantive authority in the conditioning or denying of proposals.
1. Chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy Act;
2. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program;
3. Chapter 5.05 ECC, AnimalsAnimal Control;
4. ECC Title 6, Health and Sanitation;
5. ECC Title 108, Traffic;
6. ECC Title 9, Streets and Sidewalks;
7. ECDC Title 15, Comprehensive PlanLand Use Plans and Policies;
8. ECDC Title 16, Zone Districts, and Title 17, General Zoning Regulations;
9. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
Packet Page 210 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 16 of 22
10. ECDC Title 19, Building Codes;
11. ECDC Title 20, Review Criteria and Procedures;
12. ECDC Title 21, Definitions;
13. ECDC Title 22, Design Standards
14. ECDC Title 23, Natural Resources
13.The comprehensive plans of the city regarding street, sewer, sidewalk, parks,
water, and trails and bikeways, of Snohomish County, and of the Metropolitan
Sewer District.
15. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and adopted elements.
20.15A.240 Appeals.
A. Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS
and the conditions or denials of a requested action made by a non-elected city official
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. No other SEPA appeal shall be
allowed.
B. All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the director of
community services within 14 calendar days of the date of the decision; appealed
from.provided that when a 14 day DNS comment period is required pursuant to this
chapter, appeals may be filed no later than the 21 calendars from the date of decision.
C. On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the director of community services
shall advise the hearing examiner of the pendency of the appeal and request that a
date for considering the appeal be established. The decision of the hearing examiner
shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council.
D. Appeals shall be governed by the procedures specified in Chapter 20.105 06 ECDC.
E. All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal. The
procedural determination by the city’s responsible official shall carry substantial
weight in any appeal proceeding.
F. For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist
of the following:
1. Findings and conclusions;
2. Testimony under oath; and
3. A taped or written transcript.
G. The city may require the applicant to provide an electronic transcript.
H. The city shall give official notice under WAC 197-11-680(5) whenever it issues a
permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for
commencing judicial appeal. [Ord. 3112 § 7, 1996].
Packet Page 211 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 17 of 22
20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations.
A.D. The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action.
B.E. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-
11-990. The notice shall be published by the city clerk, applicant or proponent
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080.
20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference.
This part contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under SEPA. The city adopts
the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended,
by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-700 Definitions.
197-11-702 Act.
197-11-704 Action.
197-11-706 Addendum.
197-11-708 Adoption.
197-11-710 Affected tribe.
197-11-712 Affecting.
197-11-714 Agency.
197-11-716 Applicant.
197-11-718 Built environment.
197-11-720 Categorical exemption.
197-11-721 Closed record appeal.
197-11-722 Consolidated appeal.
197-11-724 Consulted agency.
197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-728 County/city.
197-11-730 Decision maker.
197-11-732 Department.
197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-736 Determination of significance (DS).
197-11-738 EIS.
197-11-740 Environment.
197-11-742 Environmental checklist.
Packet Page 212 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 18 of 22
197-11-744 Environmental document.
197-11-746 Environmental review.
197-11-748 Environmentally sensitive area.
197-11-750 Expanded scoping.
197-11-752 Impacts.
197-11-754 Incorporation by reference.
197-11-756 Lands covered by water.
197-11-758 Lead agency.
197-11-760 License.
197-11-762 Local agency.
197-11-764 Major action.
197-11-766 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-768 Mitigation.
197-11-770 Natural environment.
197-11-772 NEPA.
197-11-774 Nonproject.
197-11-775 Open record hearing.
197-11-776 Phased review.
197-11-778 Preparation.
197-11-780 Private project.
197-11-782 Probable.
197-11-784 Proposal.
197-11-786 Reasonable alternative.
197-11-788 Responsible official.
197-11-790 SEPA.
197-11-792 Scope.
197-11-793 Scoping.
197-11-794 Significant.
197-11-796 State agency.
197-11-797 Threshold determination.
197-11-799 Underlying governmental action.
Packet Page 213 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 19 of 22
20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for agency compliance with SEPA, including rules for charging
fees under the SEPA process, designating categorical exemptions that do not apply within
critical areas, listing agencies with environmental expertise, selecting lead agency, and
applying these rules to current agency activities. The city adopts the following sections
of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as
supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-900 Purpose of this part.
197-11-902 Agency SEPA policies.
197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions.
197-11-920 Agencies with environmental expertise.
197-11-922 Lead agency rules.
197-11-924 Determining the lead agency.
197-11-926 Lead agency for governmental proposals.
197-11-928 Lead agency for public and private proposals.
197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects with one agency with jurisdiction.
197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one
agency, when one of the agencies is a county/city.
197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency,
not a county/city, and one or more state agencies.
197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one
state agency.
197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific proposals.
197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency.
197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency status.
197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties.
197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes.
197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency status.
20.15A.280 Environmentally sensitive areas.
Repealed by Ord. 3345.
20.15A.290 Fees.
The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter:
Packet Page 214 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 20 of 22
A. Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the city reviews as lead
agency, the city shall collect a fee set by Chapter 15.00 ECDC from the proponent of
the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination. This fee may be waived
as provided therein. The time periods provided by this chapter from making a
threshold determination shall not begin to run until fee has been paid or waived in
writing by the responsible official. When the city assists the applicant or completes
the environmental checklist at the applicant’s request under ECDC 20.15A.120 (EC),
an additional fee equal to the estimated actual cost of providing the assistance shall be
collected.
B. Environmental Impact Statement.
1. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the
responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the
city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover
costs incurred, including overhead, by the city in preparing the EIS. The
responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs for the EIS
prior to actual preparation.
2. The responsible official may determine that the city will contract directly with a
consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated
by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses
directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement
of the city and applicant after a call for proposals.
3. The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the city prior to commencing
work. The city will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the
city’s cost exceeds the projected costs, the applicant shall immediately pay the
excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the
responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subsections (B)(1) or (2)
of this section which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid.
C. The city may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting
the public notice requirements of this chapter relating to the applicant’s proposal.
D. The city shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency.
D.E. The city may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this
chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW.
[Ord. 2829 § 1, 1991].
20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference.
The city adopts the following forms and sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now
existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-960 Environmental checklist.
197-11-965 Adoption notice.
197-11-970 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
Packet Page 215 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 21 of 22
197-11-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS).
197-11-985 Notice of assumption of lead agency status.
197-11-990 Notice of action.
12.15A.310 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, or the application of the provision to other
persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.
NEW SUBSECTION ADDED TO ECDC 20.03.002
H. SEPA Review Noticing.
1. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under this
subsection with existing notice procedures for the City’s nonexempt permits(s) or
approvals(s) required for the proposal.
2. Whenever the City issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a DS under
WAC 197-11-360(3) the City shall give public notice as follows:
a. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the notice shall state whether a DS
or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
b. If an environmental document is issued concurrently with the notice of application, the
public notice requiremnts for the notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) will suffice
to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in WAC 197-11-510(1).
c. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or approval, the City shall give
notice of the DNS or DS by:
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records fo the county assessor within 300
feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a
newspaper of general circlulation within the City).
d. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the City shall state the
scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408 and in the
public notice.
3. If a DNS is issued using the optional DNS process, the public notice requirments for a
notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the requirments in
WAC 197-11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in WAC
19711-510(1)(b).
Packet Page 216 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Public Hearing Draft Page 22 of 22
4. Whenever the City issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a SEIS under WAC
197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
a. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a nonexempt
license;
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
c. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within
300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
c. Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper (or if one has not been designated,
in a newspaper of general cirulation within the City).
5. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions shall be tied to underlying
permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a planned action. If notice is
not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
6. The City may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements for the
applicant’s proposal at his or her expense.
Packet Page 217 of 319
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210T H ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224th PL SW83RD A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W TR A C TI O N R /W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW75TH AVE W225TH ST80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W209T H ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W207TH PL
74TH AVE W2 2 7TH P L SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215T H S T SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W77TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL WHWY 99210TH ST SW
67TH AVE W214TH ST SW67TH AVE W216TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W228TH ST SW
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210T H ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224th PL SW83RD A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W TR A C TI O N R /W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW75TH AVE W225TH ST80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W209T H ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W207TH PL
74TH AVE W2 2 7TH P L SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215T H S T SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W77TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL WHWY 99210TH ST SW
67TH AVE W214TH ST SW67TH AVE W216TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W228TH ST SW
²
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Legend
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Packet Page 218 of 319
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210T H ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224th PL SW83RD A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW75TH AVE W225TH ST80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W209T H ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W207TH PL
74TH AVE W2 2 7TH P L SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215T H S T SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W83RD PL77TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL WHWY 99210TH ST SW
67TH AVE W214TH ST SW67TH AVE W216TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210T H ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224th PL SW83RD A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW75TH AVE W225TH ST80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W209T H ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W207TH PL
74TH AVE W2 2 7TH P L SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215T H S T SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W83RD PL77TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL WHWY 99210TH ST SW
67TH AVE W214TH ST SW67TH AVE W216TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
²
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Centerwith Comprehensive Plan Designations
Legend
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Public
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical
Highway 99 CorridorSingle Family Urban 1
Multi FamilyMedium Density
Packet Page 219 of 319
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210T H ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224th PL SW83RD A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW75TH AVE W225TH ST80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W209T H ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W207TH PL
74TH AVE W2 2 7TH P L SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215T H S T SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W77TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL WHWY 99210TH ST SW
67TH AVE W214TH ST SW67TH AVE W216TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W228TH ST SW
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210T H ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224th PL SW83RD A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW75TH AVE W225TH ST80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W209T H ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W207TH PL
74TH AVE W2 2 7TH P L SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215T H S T SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W77TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL WHWY 99210TH ST SW
67TH AVE W214TH ST SW67TH AVE W216TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W228TH ST SW
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Centerwith Zoning
Legend
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
P
BN
MU
RS-8
RM-2.4
CG2
CG
RM-1.5
BC
RS-8
Packet Page 220 of 319
Page 1 of 5
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Case Study
10-Lot Residential Development
7723 & 7807 220th Street SW
Introduction
This case study is for a residential development on the property located at 7723 and 7807 220th
Street SW. The property is located in the southwest corner of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center (Attachment 1). The subject site is made up of three contiguous parcels totaling
1.92 acres (83,635 square feet); the two addresses referenced above and a third parcel that is a
10-foot wide sliver of land. The site is zoned RS-8, which pursuant to ECDC 16.20.030 can be
developed at a density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre. So this site could potentially be developed
into a maximum of 10 residential lots (5.5 dwelling units/acre * 1.92 acres = 10.56 dwelling
units). Assuming the SEPA threshold for residential development within the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center has been increased to 20 residential units, this case study will outline the
process for reviewing a 10-lot subdivision and the City of Edmonds codes that would apply to
this development.
Formal Subdivision
A “formal subdivision” is the division of an existing lot into five or more parcels. All formal
subdivisions are subject to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75. Review
and approval of a subdivision is a multi-step process that includes preliminary approval
(Type III-B decision before Hearing Examiner), civil design review and approval, constructing
required improvements (or bonding for required improvements), and final approval (Type IV-A
decision before the City Council).
The Hearing Examiner reviews formal subdivisions as Type III-B decisions in accordance with
ECDC 20.06, while the Community Development director, or a designated planning staff
member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The Public
Works Department, Fire District No. 1, Building Division, Engineering Division, and other
departments/divisions if needed, participate in preliminary review and make recommendations
on subjects within their respective areas of expertise.
The following criteria are used to review proposed subdivisions pursuant to ECDC 20.75.085:
A. Environmental
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the
resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and
by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to
be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep slopes or
unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land shall be
denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with paragraphs
A(1) and (2) of this section.
Packet Page 221 of 319
Page 2 of 5
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views and
so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be
difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special
conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is developed
properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other
feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or
frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public
facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public
use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the
requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written
recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land
for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian
walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems,
drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements
of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed
subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the
land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
Packet Page 222 of 319
Page 3 of 5
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage
and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of
WAC 248-96-090 are met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth
in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
The above review criteria mention some specific code sections that are considered during a
subdivision review. Below is a more comprehensive list of City of Edmonds development
regulations that may apply to a subdivision at this location:
ECDC 16.20 Single Family Residential (Including minimum lot area, minimum lot
width, and maximum density requirements.)
ECDC 17.10 Bonds
ECDC 17.50 Off-Street Parking
ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
ECDC 18.10 Sewers
ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls
ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code
ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
ECDC 20.75 Subdivisions
ECDC 23.40 – ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
The City will review the subdivision proposal for consistency with the applicable development
regulations and Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to ECDC 20.04.001, during review of the formal
subdivision, the City will determine whether the development regulations applicable to the
proposed project, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, address the following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the
criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in
urban growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
comprehensive plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Project review by the director and appropriate city staff will identify specific project design and
conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts,
drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Packet Page 223 of 319
Page 4 of 5
ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA) was left off the list of potential City of Edmonds
regulations that may apply to the project because one assumption that we are working under is
that the categorical exemptions threshold for residential units has been increased to 20 units;
however, the 20-unit threshold is just one item that may trigger SEPA review. A proposal must
be reviewed in its entirety; just because a proposal meets one of the exemptions, it may not meet
another. For instance, a 10-lot subdivision on the subject property is likely to require significant
improvements (stormwater, roads, sidewalks, etc.) and it is likely that these improvements would
require grading of more than 500 cubic yards of material, which would trigger the requirement of
SEPA review. For illustrative purposes however, we are assuming the project will not require
SEPA review.
Process and Public Participation
The formal subdivision process provides the public with a number of opportunities to comment
on a proposal. Once an application has been determined to be complete pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.003, a Notice of Application must published in the Everett Herald, posted on the
site (on a large white 4 feet by 4 feet sign), and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the
subject site. Refer to Attachment 2 to see what properties would receive mailing notice for the
subject property. The Notice of Application for the subject property would also be mailed to the
City of Lynnwood and Snohomish County since the property is within one mile of Lynnwood’s
municipal boundaries and is adjacent to Snohomish County (Esperance). If the project is ready
for a public hearing, the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing will be combined.
Anyone can comment on the proposal until the close of the public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner. The Hearing Examiner’s decision on the preliminary approval (or denial) is
appealable to the City Council in a closed record review.
Once a formal subdivision has received preliminary approval, the next two steps in the process
must be completed before submittal for final approval. The applicant will prepare the civil
designs for the project (roads, sidewalks, stormwater, and other required improvements identified
as conditions of preliminary approval). The civil designs are reviewed and approved by the City
of Edmonds Engineering Division. Once the civil designs are approved, the applicant must
either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted to the City Council for
approval or post a bond to guarantee the completion of the improvements within one year of the
approval of the final plat.
When the civil designs have been approved and the work completed or bonded for, the applicant
can submit for final approval. Public Works and Development Services Departments review the
final subdivision to ensure the improvements have been completed in accordance with city
regulations and that the subdivision conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions
of the preliminary approval. The final subdivision will then be forwarded to the City Council for
a Type IV-A decision. A notice that the final subdivision has been forwarded to the City Council
will be published in the Everett Herald, posted on the site, and mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the subject site.
If the City Council finds that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed
subdivision and that all requirements of the preliminary approval have been met, the Council
may approve the final subdivision. The City Council’s decision of the final subdivision is
appealable to Superior Court.
Packet Page 224 of 319
Page 5 of 5
The final subdivision must be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor before the
subdivision is considered completed and the new parcels identified in the subdivision are
officially created.
SEPA
Under current SEPA threshold levels, any subdivision of five or more lots would also have
required SEPA review. SEPA review would be conducted with the underlying subdivision
application. In addition to the land use consistency review described above in the formal
subdivision section, under SEPA review, the City will review the proposed subdivision for
consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA rules in WAC 197-11, and the City’s SEPA
regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately
address identified environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on
compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for
specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or
development regulation level.
If the City bases or conditions the approval of the subdivision application on compliance with the
requirements or mitigation measures based on the City’s development regulations, the City
cannot impose additional mitigation under SEPA for the same adverse environmental impacts. It
is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied.
SEPA also has specific notice requirements; however, SEPA notices may be combined with the
Notice of Application. Since SEPA notice could be combined with the Notice of Application, no
additional notice would likely have been published, posted, or mailed with the subdivision of this
property. The only additional notice as a result of SEPA, would be that the threshold
determinations (Determination of Nonsignificance, Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,
or Determination of Significance) would also be mailed to other agencies with jurisdiction over
the proposal and posted on the SEPA register at the Department of Ecology.
SEPA does provide for an additional comment period, which would be a fourteen day comment
period on the threshold determination regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposal.
There would also be an opportunity to appeal the threshold determination, which would add one
more avenue for appeal in the formal subdivision process.
Packet Page 225 of 319
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
206TH ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W80TH PL W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL S W
20 8TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224 th P L SWWOODLAKE DR 83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99NW T R A C T IO N R/W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220T H S T SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W225TH ST 80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W22 6TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
2 23RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL84TH AVE W81ST PL W77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W
209TH ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W
230TH ST SW78TH PL W81ST AVE W229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W207TH PL
230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W2 2 7T H PL SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
2 25TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215TH ST SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL2 14TH PL SW
82ND AVE W83RD PL77TH AVE W84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W2 21ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE WHWY 99210TH ST SW
66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW66TH AVE W68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W67TH PL W66TH PL228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
206TH ST SW
222ND ST SW 77TH PL W82ND AVE W83RD AVE W80TH PL W74TH PL W82ND PL W213TH PL S W
20 8TH PL SW
73RD PL W229TH ST SW
224 th P L SWWOODLAKE DR 83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99NW T R A C T IO N R/W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH P L S W
206TH PL
219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220T H S T SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W225TH ST 80TH PL W 70TH AVE W215TH ST SW HWY 9980TH AVE W22 6TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL84TH AVE W81ST PL W77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W80TH PL W211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
82ND PL W218TH ST SW78TH AVE W
209TH ST SW
77TH PL W213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W78TH AVE W74TH AVE W78TH AVE W
230TH ST SW78TH PL W81ST AVE W229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W207TH PL
230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W2 2 7T H PL SW
208TH ST SW
76TH PL W228TH ST SW82ND PL W
2 25TH PL SW83RD AVE W79TH AVE W215TH ST SW
81ST PL W81ST PL W
228TH ST SW
215TH PL SW 83RD PL2 14TH PL SW
82ND AVE W83RD PL77TH AVE W84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W2 21ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE WHWY 99210TH ST SW
66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW66TH AVE W68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
221ST PL SW
67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W67TH PL W66TH PL228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Residential Development Case Study7723 and 7807 220th Street SW
Legend
Case Study Property
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Attachment 1Packet Page 226 of 319
220TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
222ND ST SW
82ND AVE W73RD PL W219TH ST SW
HWY 99220TH ST SW
225TH ST
215TH ST SW
80TH AVE W76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW
218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W 218TH ST SW
77TH PL W 78TH AVE W78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W
76TH PL W79TH AVE W215TH ST SW
215TH PL SW
214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W77TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
220TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
222ND ST SW
82ND AVE W73RD PL W219TH ST SW
HWY 99220TH ST SW
225TH ST
215TH ST SW
80TH AVE W76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW
218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH PL W78TH AVE W77TH AVE W
219TH ST SW
78TH PL W 218TH ST SW
77TH PL W 78TH AVE W78TH PL W81ST AVE W82ND AVE W
76TH PL W79TH AVE W215TH ST SW
215TH PL SW
214TH PL SW
82ND AVE W77TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
500 0 500 1,000250Feet
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Residential Development Case Study300 Feet Notice Radius
Legend
Case Study Property
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Attachment 2Packet Page 227 of 319
AM-3351 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on proposed updates to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA). The update is being conducted as part of the City’s
comprehensive review of its development regulations. The update is being done to ensure
ECDC 20.15A is consistent with WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, and the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. This update includes proposed
increases to categorical exemption flexible threshold levels for the Highway 99 Corridor as
defined by the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The ECDC 20.15A update was discussed with the CS/DS Committee on May 12, 2009 (See
Exhibit 1 on Agenda Item 3). An introduction to the proposed updates recommended by the
Planning Board was presented to the Council on July 27, 2010 (See Exhibit 2 on Agenda Item 3).
Council voted to split the Planning Board's recommendation in two parts and hold two separate
public hearings. Both proposals for the public hearings will consider the updates to ensure
consistency with WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations. One proposal will include increasing the categorical exemption
flexible threshold levels for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, while the second will
includes increasing the flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in ECDC 20.15A. The City’s original SEPA
regulations were adopted under Ordinance 1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance
No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with the new (at that
time) SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 and model SEPA ordinance in WAC 173-806. The ECDC
20.15A the City uses today is essentially the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago
having under gone only five minor amendments in that time.
ECDC 20.15A is being reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its development
regulations. Due to changes in the RCW’s, WAC’s, and the City’s own code, ECDC 20.15A is
long over due for an update.
Potential updates to ECDC 20.15A were presented to the Planning Board on July 22, 2009 (See
Exhibit 3 on Agenda Item 3). The Planning Board directed staff to propose new flexible
Packet Page 228 of 319
thresholds for categorical exemptions under SEPA.
Proposed new flexible thresholds were presented at the February 24, 2010 Planning Board
meeting (See Exhibit 4 on Agenda Item 3). The Planning Board agreed they would like to
consider changes to the flexible thresholds, but only for the Highway 99 Corridor and
multi-family residential areas along main arterials such as 212th St SW, 196th St SW, and State
Route 104. Staff was directed to update the flexible threshold proposal and bring it back for
further Board review.
Four flexible threshold alternatives based on Board guidance were presented to the Planning
Board on April 14, 2010 (See Exhibit 5 on Agenda Item 3). The Planning Board ultimately chose
an alternative that increased the flexible threshold for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
and the Highway 99 Corridor. The Planning Board also reviewed proposed changes to the text of
ECDC 20.15A which largely follows the model code provided in WAC 173-806.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed changes to ECDC 20.15A on June 23,
2010 and voted to forward the proposed amendments to ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review to
the City Council with a recommendation of approval as proposed (See Exhibit 6 on Agenda Item
3).
See Exhibit 7 on Agenda Item 3 for a memorandum detailing the review of ECDC 20.15A,
Exhibit 1 of this Agenda Item is a redline/strike version of ECDC 20.15A with proposed changes
to ECDC 20.15A including increasing the flexible threshold for the Highway 99 Corridor,
Exhibits 2 - 4 are maps of the Highway 99 Corridor, and Exhibit 5 is a case study of a
hypothetical development in the Highway 99 Corridor assuming the new flexible thresholds for
the corridor.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - ECDC 20.15A redline version with increases to flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor
Exhibit 2 - Aerial Photo of Highway 99 Corridor
Exhibit 3 - Map of Comprehensive Plan Designations for the Highway 99 Corridor
Exhibit 4 - Zoning Map of the Highway 99 Corridor
Exhibit 5 - Highway 99 Corridor Case Study
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/01/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 229 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 1 of 22
Chapter 20.15A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA)
Sections:
20.15A.010 Authority.
20.15A.020 General SEPA Requirements - Adoption by reference.
20.15A.025 Reliance on existing laws, plans and regulations
20.15A.030 Additional definitions.
20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official.
20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
20.15A.060 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations Rules for deciding
probable significant, adverse environmental impacts – Adoption by
reference.
20.15A.070 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations – Time estimates.
20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.
20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – DeterminationUse of exemptions.
20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage.
20.15A.120 Threshold determinations – Environmental checklist.
20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS.
20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.150 EIS – PreparationPreparation of EIS – Additional considerations.
20.15A.160 EIS – Commenting – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.170 Public notice.
20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities.
20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.195 Planned Actions
20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals.
20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.
20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies.
20.15A.240 Appeals.
20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations.
Packet Page 230 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 2 of 22
20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.280 Repealed.
20.15A.290 Fees.
20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.310 Severability.
20.15A.010 Authority.
The city of Edmonds adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197-11-
904. The city’s substantive polices for the enforcement of and procedures for SEPA are
contained in ECDC Title 15; its procedures are contained in this chapter. The SEPA rules
contained in Chapter 197-11 WAC must be used in conjunction with this chapter.
20.15A.020 General SEPA Requirements - Adoption by reference.
This part contains the basic requirements that apply to the SEPA process. The city adopts
the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended,
by reference:
197-11-040 Definitions.
197-11-050 Lead agency.
197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process.
197-11-060 Content of environmental review.
197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process.
197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.
197-11-090 Supporting documents.
197-11-100 Information required of applicants.
197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration.
197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions.
197-11-228 Overall SEPA/GMA integration procedures.
197-11-230 Timing of an integrated GMA/SEPA process.
197-11-232 SEPA/GMA integration procedures for preliminary planning,
environmental analysis, and expanded scoping.
197-11-235 Documents.
197-11-250 SEPA/Model Toxics Control Act integration.
197-11-253 SEPA lead agency for MTCA actions.
Packet Page 231 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 3 of 22
197-11-256 Preliminary evaluation.
197-11-259 Determination of nonsignificance for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-262 Determination of significance and EIS for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-265 Early scoping for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-268 MTCA interim actions.
20.15A.025 Reliance on existing plans, laws and regulations
In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold
determination, the City may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis,
protection, and mitigation measures in the City’s development regulations and
comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local,
state, or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all
of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project consistent with the initial
SEPA analysis identified in ECDC 20.04.002.
20.15A.030 Additional definitions.
In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700 through 197-11-799
and 197-11-220, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the following
meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise:
A. “Department” means any division, subdivision or organizational unit of the city
established by ordinance, rule or order.
B. “SEPA Rules” means Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the Department of Ecology.
C. “Ordinance” means the ordinance, resolution, or other procedure used by the city to
adopt regulatory requirements.
D. “Early notice” means the city’s response to an applicant stating whether it considers
issuance of a determination of significance likely for the applicant’s proposal
(mitigated determination of nonsignificance (DNS) procedures).
20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official.
A. For those proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall
be the community services director or such other person as the director may designate
in writingplanning manager or his/her designee.
B. For all proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall
make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required
EIS and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible
official by those sections of the SEPA rule that have been adopted by reference.
C. The city shall retain all documents required by the SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11
WAC) and make them available in accordance with chapter 42.17 RCW.
Packet Page 232 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 4 of 22
20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
A. The responsible official or the department receiving an application for or initiating a
proposal that involves a nonexempt action shall determine the lead agency for that
proposal under WAC 197-11-050, WAC 197-11-253, and WAC 197-11-922 through
197-11-940, unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the department
is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determining the lead
agency.
B. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal, the responsible official shall
supervise compliance with the threshold determination requirements, and if an EIS is
necessary, shall supervise preparation of the EIS.
B.C. When the city is not the lead agency for a proposal, all departments of the city
shall use and consider as appropriate either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead
agency in making decisions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or
require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency
unless the city determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under
WAC 197-11-600.
C.D. If the city, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency determination made
by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-253 or
WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any
objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and
resolved within 15 days of receipt of the determination or the city must petition the
Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946
within the 15-day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated
by the responsible official or any department.
D.E. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status
or shared lead agency’s duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-
944:.provided, that the responsible official and any department that will incur
responsibilities as the result of such agreement approve that agreement.
E.F. The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the applicant to
identify which other agencies with have jurisdiction over the proposal.
G. When the city is lead agency for a MTCA remedial action, the Department of
Ecology shall be provided an opportunity under WAC 197-11-253(5) to review the
environmental documents prior to public notice being provided. If the SEPA and
MTCA documents are issued together with one public comment period under WAC
197-11-253(6), the city shall decide jointly with Ecology who receives the comment
letters and how copies of the comments letters will be distributed to the other agency.
20.15A.060 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations Rules for
deciding probable significant, adverse environmental impact – Adoption by
reference.
This part contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a “probable significant,
adverse environmental impact” requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be
prepared. This part also contains rules for evaluating impacts of proposals not requiring
Packet Page 233 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 5 of 22
an EIS. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing
or hereinafter amended by reference as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-300 Purpose of this part.
197-11-305 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-310 Threshold determination required.
197-11-315 Environmental checklist.
197-11-330 Threshold determination process.
197-11-335 Additional information.
197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-350 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-355 Optional DNS process.
197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of scoping.
197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination.
20.15A.070 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations – Time
estimates.
The time estimates contained in this section apply when the city processes licenses for all
private projects and those governmental proposals submitted to the city by other
agencies. The actual time may vary with the complexity of the project, availability of
staff, cooperation of agencies with jurisdiction or expertise, etc. The time estimates
contained herein shall not be construed to be mandatory. For the purpose of this section
the word “day” shall mean a day upon which the city’s administrative offices are open for
business.
A.Categorical Exemptions. The city will normally identify whether an action is
categorically exempt within 10 days of receiving a completed application.
B.Threshold Determinations.
1.The city will normally complete threshold determinations that can be based solely
upon review of the environmental checklist for the proposal within 15 days of the
date an applicant’s adequate application and completed checklist are submitted.
2.When the responsible official requires further information from the applicant or
consults with other agencies with jurisdiction:
a.The city will normally request such further information within 15 days of
receiving an adequate application and completed environmental checklist.
b.The city will normally wait no longer than 15 days for a consulted agency to
respond.
Packet Page 234 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 6 of 22
c.The responsible official will normally complete the threshold determination
within 15 days of receiving the requested information from the applicant or
the consulted agency.
3.When the city must initiate further studies, including field investigations, to obtain
the information to make the threshold determination, the city will normally
complete the studies within 30 days of receiving an adequate application and a
completed checklist.
4.The city will normally complete threshold determinations on actions where the
applicant recommends in writing that an EIS be prepared, because of the probable
significant adverse environmental impacts described in the application, within 15
days of receiving an adequate application and completed checklist.
5.The responsible official will normally respond to a request for early notice within
10 days. The threshold determination will normally be made within 15 days of
receipt of the changed or clarified proposal, environmental checklist and/or permit
application.
20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.
The city adopts the following rules for categorical exemption of Chapter 197-11, as now
existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-800 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-880 Emergencies.
197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions.
20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.
A. The proposed actions contained in this section are categorically exempt from
threshold determination and EIS requirements, subject to the rules and limitations on
categorical exemptions contained in ECDC 20.15A.100. The exemptions in this
section apply to all licenses required to undertake the construction in question, except
when undertaken wholly or partly on lands covered by water. To be exempt under
this section, the project must be equal to or smaller than the exempt level.
A.B. The city establishes the following exempt level for minor new construction based
on local conditions in addition to those standards adopted by reference.
1. For landfills and evacuations excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) up to 500
cubic yards in all locations throughout the City of Edmonds.
2. The table below establishes the City’s exempt level for minor new construction
under WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i) through WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) for all
property located within the Highway 99 Corridor as defined in the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Packet Page 235 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 7 of 22
Residential
Structures
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i)
New construction
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iii)
Parking lot
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(iv)
Landfill or
excavation
WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(v)
20 units 12,000 square feet 40 spaces 500 cy
B.C. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the
Department of Ecology, Headquarters Office, Olympia, Washington.
20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – DeterminationUse of exemptions.
A. When the city receives an application for a license or, in the case of governmental
proposals a department initiates a proposal, the responsible official shall determine
whether the license and/or the proposal is exempt. The determination that a proposal
is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is
exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter shall apply to the
proposal. The city shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an
exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt the responsible official shall make
certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental license
required. If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the responsible
official shall determine the lead agency even if the license application that triggers the
consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the city may authorize
exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter,
except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse environmental impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
2. The city may withhold approval of any permit, application or proposal, the basis
of which is an exempt action that would lead to modification of the physical
environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if the nonexempt
actions were not approved.
3. The city may withhold approval of any permit, application or proposal, the basis
of which is an exempt action that would lead to substantial financial expenditures
by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if the
nonexempt actions were not approved.
20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage.
A. If the city’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other
licenses that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may
Packet Page 236 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 8 of 22
request in writing that the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of
the detailed plans and specifications.
B. In addition to the environmental documents an applicant shall submit the following
information for early environmental review:
1. A copy of any permit or license application;
2. Other information as the responsible official may determine.
20.15A.120 Threshold determinations – Environmental checklist.
A. Except as provided in subsection (E) of this section, Aa completed environmental
checklist, in the form provided in WAC 197-11-960, shall be filed at the same time as
an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not specifically
exempted by this chapter; except, a checklist is not needed if the city and applicant
agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance
has been initiated by another agency. The city shall use the environmental checklist
to determine the lead agency, and if the city is the lead agency, for making the
threshold determination. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197-11-960 with
such additions that may be required by the responsible official in accordance with
WAC 197-11-906(4).
B.A checklist is not needed if the city and the applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA
compliance has been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another
agency.
C.B. For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental
checklist. The city may provide assistance as necessary. For city proposals the
department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental checklist for that
proposal.
D.C. The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a
private proposal, if any of the following occurs:
1. The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to
the private applicant; or
2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on
proposals currently under consideration; or
3. On the request of the applicant.
E.D. The applicant shall pay to the city the actual costs of providing information under
paragraphs DC(2) and DC(3) of this section.
E. For projects submitted as planned actions under ECDC 20.04.003.B, the city shall use
its existing environmental checklist form or may modify the environmental checklist
form as provided in WAC 197-11-315. The modified environmental checklist form
may be prepared and adopted along with or as part of a planned action ordinance; or
developed after the ordinance is adopted. In either case, a proposed modified
environmental checklist form must be sent to the Department of Ecology to allow at
least a thirty-day review.
Packet Page 237 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 9 of 22
20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS.
A. The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based
on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or
clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.
B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a DS is likely. The
request must:
1. Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a
nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and
2. Precede the city’s actual threshold determination for the proposal.
C. The responsible official’s response to the request for early notice shall:
1. Be written;
1.2. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if
so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to
consider a DS; and
2.3. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the
indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and/or permit
application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications.
D. As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant with identification of impacts
to the extent necessary to formulate mitigation measures.
D.E. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised
environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed
or clarified proposal.
1. If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for
early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those
specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of
nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation
measures are required.
2. If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation
measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold
determination, issue a DNS or DS as appropriate.
3. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or
conditions must be in writing and must be specific. For example, proposals to
“control noise” or “prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals
to “muffle machinery to X decibel” or “construct 200-foot stormwater retention
pond at Y location” are adequate.
4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be
incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other
documents.
Packet Page 238 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 10 of 22
E.F. The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued
for 15 days after the date of issuanceA mitigated DNS is issued under either WAC
197-11-340(2), requiring a fourteen-day comment period and public notice, or WAC
197-11-355, which may require no additional comment period beyond the comment
period on the notice of application..
F.G. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed
conditions of approval of the licensing or permit decision and may be enforced in the
same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any matter
specifically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation
measures shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of any license or permit
issued.
G.H. If the city’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation
measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the city should
evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)
(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS.
H.I. The city’s written response under subsection C of this section shall not be
construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of
clarification or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice,
shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold
determination.
20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) – Adoption by reference.
This section contains the rules for preparing environmental impact statements. The city
adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter
amended, by reference as supplemented by this chapter:
197-11-400 Purpose of EIS.
197-11-402 General requirements.
197-11-405 EIS types.
197-11-406 EIS timing.
197-11-408 Scoping.
197-11-410 Expanded scoping.
197-11-420 EIS preparation.
197-11-425 Style and size.
197-11-430 Format.
197-11-435 Cover letter or memo.
197-11-440 EIS contents.
197-11-442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals.
197-11-443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS.
Packet Page 239 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 11 of 22
197-11-444 Elements of the environment.
197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations.
197-11-450 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-455 Issuance of DEIS.
197-11-460 Issuance of FEIS.
20.15A.150 EIS – PreparationPreparation of EIS – Additional considerations..
A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and SEISs shall be under the direction of the
responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be
satisfied that it complies with this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC.
B. The draft and final EIS or SEIS shall be prepared at the city’s option by the city staff,
the applicant or by a consultant approved by the city. If the responsible official
requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the city will
prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant immediately after
completion of the threshold determination. The responsible official shall also notify
the applicant of the city’s procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the
draft and final EIS prior to distribution.
C. The city may require an applicant to provide additional information which the city
does not possess, including information which must be obtained by specific
investigations. This provision is not intended to expand or limit an applicant’s other
obligations under WAC 197-11-100, or other provisions of regulation, statute, or
ordinance. An applicant shall not be required to produce information under this
provision which is not specifically required by this chapter nor is the applicant
relieved of the duty to supply any other information required by statute, regulation or
ordinance.
20.15A.160 EIS – Commenting – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for consulting, commenting, and responding on all environmental
documents under SEPA, including rules for public notice and Thehearings. The city
adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing or hereinafter
amended, by reference as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-500 Purpose of this part.
197-11-502 Inviting comment.
197-11-504 Availability and cost of environmental documents.
197-11-508 SEPA register.
197-11-510 Public notice.
197-11-535 Public hearings and meetings.
197-11-545 Effect of no comment.
197-11-550 Specificity of comments.
Packet Page 240 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 12 of 22
197-11-560 FEIS response to comments.
197-11-570 Consulted agency costs to assist lead agency.
20.15A.170 Public notice.
Public notice for SEPA reviews shall be carried out as described in ECDC 20.03.002.H.
Whenever the city issues a threshold determination, or EIS requiring public notice, the
city shall give public notice of the determination or the availability of the environmental
documents and whether any public hearing will be held as follows:
A.Threshold Determination Notice. Public notice will be given on the following
situations:
1.DNS involving another agency with jurisdiction;
2.DNS involving demolition of any structure or facility not exempted by 197-11-
800(2)(f) or 197-11-880;
3.DNS involving issuance of clearing or grading permits not exempted under WAC
Part Nine – Categorical Exemptions;
4.DNS under WAC 197-11-350(2) Early Notice;
5.DNS under WAC 197-11-350(3) Mitigated DNS;
6.DNS under WAC 197-11-360(4) change from DS to DNS;
7.DS for scoping purposes;
8.Availability of a DEIS.
B.Type of Notice. Under subsection A of this section, notice will be given as follows:
1.Posting in accordance with ECC 1.03.010;
2.Publication in the SEPA register.
For project actions and other site specific development approvals:
3.Mailing to owners of property within 300 feet and to the residences, if the property
owner’s address as shown on the records of the Snohomish County assessor’s
office differs from the address of the property;
4.Other methods as deemed necessary and appropriate by the responsible official or
required by ordinance or statute.
C.Public Hearing. Whenever a public hearing is held notice shall be given. Such notice
shall precede the hearing by at least 10 days.
D.Type of Notice. Under subsection C of this section notice will be given as follows:
1.Posting of or near the property for site specific proposals;
2.Mailing to property owners within 300 feet for site specific proposals;
3.Posting in accordance with ECC 1.03.010;
Packet Page 241 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 13 of 22
4.1. Other methods as deemed necessary and appropriate by the responsible
official; provided that a public hearing on a non-project proposal must be
preceded by written, published notice in accordance with WAC 197-11-502(6)(b)
at least 10 days prior to the hearing. [Ord. 2950 § 2, 1993].
20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted agency responsibilities.
A. The responsible official shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for
the city in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination,
participation in scoping and reviewing of a draft EIS.
B. The responsible official shall be responsible for the city’s compliance with WAC
197-11-550 whenever the city is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop
operating procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests are
prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the
city.
20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for using and supplementing existing environmental documents
prepared under SEPA or national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the City’s own
environmental compliance. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-1l
WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating planned actions – Procedures for
adoption.
197-11-172 Planned actions – Project review.
197-11-600 When to use existing environmental documents.
197-11-610 Use of NEPA documents.
197-11-620 Supplemental environmental impact statements.
197-11-625 Addenda – Procedures.
197-11-630 Adoption – Procedures.
197-11-635 Incorporation by reference – Procedures.
197-11-640 Combining documents.
20.15A.195 Planned Actions
Definition and criteria for planned actions within the City are included in
ECDC 20.04.003.B.
20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules and policies for SEPA’s substantive authority, such as decisions
to mitigate or reject proposals as a result of SEPA. This part also contains procedures for
appealing SEPA determinations to agencies or the courts. The city adopts the following
sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
Packet Page 242 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 14 of 22
197-11-650 Purpose of this part.
197-11-655 Implementation.
197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation.
197-11-680 Appeals.
197-11-700 Definitions.
20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals.
For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or draft EIS for the proposal shall accompany the city
staff’s recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such as the planning
commissionboard. If a final EIS is or becomes available, it shall be substituted for the
draft.
20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.
A. The city may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as:
1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse
environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental documents prepared
pursuant to this chapter; and
2. Such conditions are in writing; and
3. Such The mitigation measures included in such conditions are reasonable and
capable of being accomplished; and
4. The city has considered whether other local, state or federal mitigation measures
applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and
5. Such conditions are based on one or more policies in subsection C of this section
or ECDC 20.15A.230 and cited in the permit, approval, license or other decision
document.
B. The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long
as:
1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant
adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIS or final
supplemental EIS prepared pursuant to this chapter; and
2. A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measures sufficient to
mitigate the identified impact; and
3. The denial is based on one or more policies identified in subsection C of this
section or in ECDC 20.15A.230 and identified in writing in the decision
document.
C. The City designates and adopts by reference the following policies as the basis for the
City’s exercise of authority pursuant to this section:
Packet Page 243 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 15 of 22
1. The City shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential
considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions,
programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may:
a. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for
succeeding generations;
b. Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
c. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without
degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences;
d. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national
heritage;
e. Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and
variety of individual choice;
f. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit
high standards of living and wide sharing of life’s amenities; and
g. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
attainable recycling of depletable resources.
2. The City recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a
healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to
the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies.
A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the
existing authorization of the city.
B. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances,
resolutions and plans, as now existing or hereinafter amended, as a possible basis for
the exercise of substantive authority in the conditioning or denying of proposals.
1. Chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy Act;
2. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program;
3. Chapter 5.05 ECC, AnimalsAnimal Control;
4. ECC Title 6, Health and Sanitation;
5. ECC Title 108, Traffic;
6. ECC Title 9, Streets and Sidewalks;
7. ECDC Title 15, Comprehensive PlanLand Use Plans and Policies;
8. ECDC Title 16, Zone Districts, and Title 17, General Zoning Regulations;
9. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
Packet Page 244 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 16 of 22
10. ECDC Title 19, Building Codes;
11. ECDC Title 20, Review Criteria and Procedures;
12. ECDC Title 21, Definitions;
13. ECDC Title 22, Design Standards
14. ECDC Title 23, Natural Resources
13.The comprehensive plans of the city regarding street, sewer, sidewalk, parks,
water, and trails and bikeways, of Snohomish County, and of the Metropolitan
Sewer District.
15. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and adopted elements.
20.15A.240 Appeals.
A. Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS
and the conditions or denials of a requested action made by a non-elected city official
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. No other SEPA appeal shall be
allowed.
B. All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the director of
community services within 14 calendar days of the date of the decision; appealed
from.provided that when a 14 day DNS comment period is required pursuant to this
chapter, appeals may be filed no later than the 21 calendars from the date of decision.
C. On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the director of community services
shall advise the hearing examiner of the pendency of the appeal and request that a
date for considering the appeal be established. The decision of the hearing examiner
shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council.
D. Appeals shall be governed by the procedures specified in Chapter 20.105 06 ECDC.
E. All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal. The
procedural determination by the city’s responsible official shall carry substantial
weight in any appeal proceeding.
F. For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist
of the following:
1. Findings and conclusions;
2. Testimony under oath; and
3. A taped or written transcript.
G. The city may require the applicant to provide an electronic transcript.
H. The city shall give official notice under WAC 197-11-680(5) whenever it issues a
permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for
commencing judicial appeal. [Ord. 3112 § 7, 1996].
Packet Page 245 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 17 of 22
20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations.
A.D. The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action.
B.E. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197-
11-990. The notice shall be published by the city clerk, applicant or proponent
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080.
20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference.
This part contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under SEPA. The city adopts
the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended,
by reference, as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-700 Definitions.
197-11-702 Act.
197-11-704 Action.
197-11-706 Addendum.
197-11-708 Adoption.
197-11-710 Affected tribe.
197-11-712 Affecting.
197-11-714 Agency.
197-11-716 Applicant.
197-11-718 Built environment.
197-11-720 Categorical exemption.
197-11-721 Closed record appeal.
197-11-722 Consolidated appeal.
197-11-724 Consulted agency.
197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-728 County/city.
197-11-730 Decision maker.
197-11-732 Department.
197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-736 Determination of significance (DS).
197-11-738 EIS.
197-11-740 Environment.
197-11-742 Environmental checklist.
Packet Page 246 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 18 of 22
197-11-744 Environmental document.
197-11-746 Environmental review.
197-11-748 Environmentally sensitive area.
197-11-750 Expanded scoping.
197-11-752 Impacts.
197-11-754 Incorporation by reference.
197-11-756 Lands covered by water.
197-11-758 Lead agency.
197-11-760 License.
197-11-762 Local agency.
197-11-764 Major action.
197-11-766 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-768 Mitigation.
197-11-770 Natural environment.
197-11-772 NEPA.
197-11-774 Nonproject.
197-11-775 Open record hearing.
197-11-776 Phased review.
197-11-778 Preparation.
197-11-780 Private project.
197-11-782 Probable.
197-11-784 Proposal.
197-11-786 Reasonable alternative.
197-11-788 Responsible official.
197-11-790 SEPA.
197-11-792 Scope.
197-11-793 Scoping.
197-11-794 Significant.
197-11-796 State agency.
197-11-797 Threshold determination.
197-11-799 Underlying governmental action.
Packet Page 247 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 19 of 22
20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for agency compliance with SEPA, including rules for charging
fees under the SEPA process, designating categorical exemptions that do not apply within
critical areas, listing agencies with environmental expertise, selecting lead agency, and
applying these rules to current agency activities. The city adopts the following sections
of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as
supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-900 Purpose of this part.
197-11-902 Agency SEPA policies.
197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions.
197-11-920 Agencies with environmental expertise.
197-11-922 Lead agency rules.
197-11-924 Determining the lead agency.
197-11-926 Lead agency for governmental proposals.
197-11-928 Lead agency for public and private proposals.
197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects with one agency with jurisdiction.
197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one
agency, when one of the agencies is a county/city.
197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency,
not a county/city, and one or more state agencies.
197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one
state agency.
197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific proposals.
197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency.
197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency status.
197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties.
197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes.
197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency status.
20.15A.280 Environmentally sensitive areas.
Repealed by Ord. 3345.
20.15A.290 Fees.
The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter:
Packet Page 248 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 20 of 22
A. Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the city reviews as lead
agency, the city shall collect a fee set by Chapter 15.00 ECDC from the proponent of
the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination. This fee may be waived
as provided therein. The time periods provided by this chapter from making a
threshold determination shall not begin to run until fee has been paid or waived in
writing by the responsible official. When the city assists the applicant or completes
the environmental checklist at the applicant’s request under ECDC 20.15A.120 (EC),
an additional fee equal to the estimated actual cost of providing the assistance shall be
collected.
B. Environmental Impact Statement.
1. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the
responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the
city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover
costs incurred, including overhead, by the city in preparing the EIS. The
responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs for the EIS
prior to actual preparation.
2. The responsible official may determine that the city will contract directly with a
consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated
by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses
directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement
of the city and applicant after a call for proposals.
3. The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the city prior to commencing
work. The city will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the
city’s cost exceeds the projected costs, the applicant shall immediately pay the
excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the
responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subsections (B)(1) or (2)
of this section which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid.
C. The city may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting
the public notice requirements of this chapter relating to the applicant’s proposal.
D. The city shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency.
D.E. The city may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this
chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW.
[Ord. 2829 § 1, 1991].
20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference.
The city adopts the following forms and sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now
existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-960 Environmental checklist.
197-11-965 Adoption notice.
197-11-970 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
Packet Page 249 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 21 of 22
197-11-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS).
197-11-985 Notice of assumption of lead agency status.
197-11-990 Notice of action.
12.15A.310 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, or the application of the provision to other
persons or circumstances, shall not be affected.
NEW SUBSECTION ADDED TO ECDC 20.03.002
H. SEPA Review Noticing.
1. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice required under this
subsection with existing notice procedures for the City’s nonexempt permits(s) or
approvals(s) required for the proposal.
2. Whenever the City issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a DS under
WAC 197-11-360(3) the City shall give public notice as follows:
a. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the notice shall state whether a DS
or DNS has been issued and when comments are due.
b. If an environmental document is issued concurrently with the notice of application, the
public notice requiremnts for the notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) will suffice
to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in WAC 197-11-510(1).
c. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or approval, the City shall give
notice of the DNS or DS by:
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records fo the county assessor within 300
feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper (or if one has not been designated, in a
newspaper of general circlulation within the City).
d. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3), the City shall state the
scoping procedure for the proposal in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408 and in the
public notice.
3. If a DNS is issued using the optional DNS process, the public notice requirments for a
notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the requirments in
WAC 197-11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirments in WAC
19711-510(1)(b).
Packet Page 250 of 319
ECDC 20.15A Update – Hwy 99 Corridor Public Hearing Draft Page 22 of 22
4. Whenever the City issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a SEIS under WAC
197-11-620, notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
a. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice required for a nonexempt
license;
Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
c. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within
300 feet of the boundary of the property, for site specific proposals; and
c. Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper (or if one has not been designated,
in a newspaper of general cirulation within the City).
5. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions shall be tied to underlying
permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a planned action. If notice is
not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
6. The City may require an applicant to complete the public notice requirements for the
applicant’s proposal at his or her expense.
Packet Page 251 of 319
76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SW
MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL 92ND AVE W92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
23 4 TH P L
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave W76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
92ND PL W75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W207TH ST SW
209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SW
MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
206TH PL
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL
228TH ST SW 92ND AVE W92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W92ND PL W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
23 4 TH P L
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave WLake Ballinger
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Highway 99 Corridor
Legend
Highway 99 Corridor
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Highway 99 CorridorHighway 99 CorridorPacket Page 252 of 319
76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W207TH ST SW
209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SW
MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL
228TH ST SW 92ND AVE W92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
23 4 TH P L
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave W76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE
217TH ST SW 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
92ND PL W75TH PL W87TH AVE W93RD AVE W207TH PL SW
208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W207TH ST SW
209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SWSKYLINE DR MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
206TH PL
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W 78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL
228TH ST SW 92ND AVE W93RD AVE92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W92ND PL W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE WHWY 9963RD AVE W60TH AVE W
208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
23 4 TH P L
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave WLake Ballinger
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Highway 99 Corridorwith Comprehensive Plan Designations
Legend
Highway 99 Corridor
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Public
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical
Single Family Urban1Highway 99 CorridorE
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Single Family Urban1
Highway 99 CorridorSingle Family Resource
Neighborhood Commercial
Packet Page 253 of 319
!
!
!! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SW
MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL 92ND AVE W92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
23 4 TH P L
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave W76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
92ND PL W75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W207TH ST SW
209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SWSKYLINE DR MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
206TH PL
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL
228TH ST SW 92ND AVE W92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W92ND PL W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
23 4 TH P L
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave WLake Ballinger
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Highway 99 Corridorwith Zoning
Legend
Highway 99 Corridor
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
P
BN
MU
RS-8
RM-2.4
CG2
CG
RM-1.5
BC
RS-8
CG
RSW-12
Packet Page 254 of 319
Page 1 of 3
Highway 99 Corridor Case Study
12,000 Square Foot Commercial & 20 Residential Unit Mixed-Use
Development
23320 Highway 99
Introduction
This case study is for a mixed use development on the property located at 23320 Highway 99
consisting of 12,000 square feet of commercial area on the first floor with 20 residential units located
above the commercial development. The property is located in the southern portion of the Highway
99 Corridor just north of 234th Street SW (Attachment 1). The subject site is consists of two
contiguous parcels totaling 2.29 acres and is zoned General Commercial – CG. Assuming the SEPA
threshold for commercial development within the Highway 99 Corridor has been increased to 12,000
square feet for new development, the residential unit threshold has been increased to 20 units, and the
parking threshold has been increased to 40 spaces, this case study will outline the process for
reviewing a generic commercial development and the City of Edmonds codes that would apply to
this development.
Development Review
Any use that is permitted or requires a conditional use permit in any other zone in the City of
Edmonds is permitted within the General Commercial zones of the Highway 99 Corridor with a
couple of exceptions. Generally, residential development is not permitted within the ground floor
and aircraft landings require a conditional use permit. As such, a mixed-use development with
12,000 square feet of commercial area and 20 residential units would be reviewed by staff and no
public hearings would be required. Additionally, because the project is located within the
Highway 99 Corridor, design review for the proposal would be a District Based Design review,
conducted by staff as a Type I decision.
The City will review the proposal for consistency with the applicable development regulations and
Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to ECDC 20.04.001, during review of the application, the City will
determine whether the development regulations applicable to the proposed project, or in the absence
of applicable development regulations, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, address the following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Project review by the director and appropriate city staff will identify specific project design and
conditions relating to the character of development, such as the details of site plans, curb cuts,
drainage swales, the payment of impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable
significant adverse environmental impacts.
Packet Page 255 of 319
Page 2 of 3
Below is a list of City of Edmonds development regulations that may apply to a mixed-use
development at this location which staff will review the proposal for consistency with:
ECDC 16.60 CG – General Commercial: CG and CG2 Zones
ECDC 17.10 Bonds
ECDC 17.50 Off-Street Parking
ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
ECDC 18.10 Sewers
ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls
ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
ECDC 18.95 Parking Lot Construction
ECDC 19.00 Building Code
ECDC 19.05 Residential Building Code
ECDC 19.15 Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code
ECDC 19.20 Plumbing Code
ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
ECDC 19.30 Energy Code
ECDC 19.35 Ventilation Code
ECDC 19.45 Housing Code
ECDC 19.55 Electrical Code
ECDC 20.12 District Based Design Review
ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA)
ECDC 20.60 Sign Code
ECDC 23.40 – ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
While this mixed-use proposal meets the exemption thresholds for new development (12,000 square
feet) and residential units (20 units), SEPA review is required if any of the SEPA thresholds are
exceeded. Assuming the 20 residential units are two-bedroom units, ECDC 17.50 requires 1.8
parking spaces per two-bedroom unit, which would require 36 parking spaces (20 units * 1.8 parking
spaces) for the residential units. Assuming the commercial space is office space with on-site
customer service, ECDC 17.50 requires one parking space per 400 square feet, which would require
30 parking spaces (12,000 sq. ft. / 400 sq. ft.) for the commercial portion of the development. All
total, the off-street parking regulations in ECDC 17.50 would require this mixed-use development to
provide at least 66 parking spaces which exceeds the 40-stall parking lot exemption threshold and
thus SEPA review would be required for this development.
Packet Page 256 of 319
Page 3 of 3
Process and Public Participation
A development proposal such as this would likely go through the preapplication conference process
offered by the City of Edmonds. At the preapplication meeting, the applicants would be provided the
following:
1. A form which lists the requirements for a complete application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to
approval of the application; and
4. The City’s design guidelines.
When a complete application for the proposal is submitted to the City of Edmonds, the application
will be routed to the departments and divisions responsible for permit review and the proposal is
reviewed for consistency with the City’s development regulations and Comprehensive Plan as
described above.
SEPA review would be conducted with the underlying development permit application. In addition
to the land use consistency review described above, under SEPA review, the City will review the
proposed development application for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA rules in
WAC 197-11, and the City’s SEPA regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on
compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific
project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development
regulation level.
If the City bases or conditions the approval of the development application on compliance with the
requirements or mitigation measures based on the City’s development regulations, the City cannot
impose additional mitigation under SEPA for the same adverse environmental impacts. It is only
when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that additional
conditions under SEPA may be applied.
SEPA threshold determinations (Determination of Nonsignificance, Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance, or Determination of Significance) are Type II decisions, as such; notice of the
SEPA threshold determination for the proposal would be published in the Everett Herald, posted on
the site, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Refer to
Attachment 2 to see what property owners would be notified of this proposal by mail. SEPA also
requires that threshold determinations also be mailed to other agencies with jurisdiction over the
proposal and posted on the SEPA register at the Department of Ecology.
SEPA provides for a fourteen day public comment period on the threshold determination regarding
potential environmental impacts of the proposal. There would also be an opportunity to appeal the
threshold determination, which would be heard by the City’s Hearing Examiner.
The design review decision on the mixed-use development proposal is considered a Type I decision
which would be appealable to Superior Court.
Packet Page 257 of 319
76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SW
MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL 92ND AVE W92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
2 3 4 TH PL
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave W76TH AVE W220TH ST SW
E
D
M
O
N
D
S W
A
Y
212TH ST SW
244TH ST SW/LAKE BALLINGER WAY
238TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
240TH ST SW
B O W D O IN W A Y 75TH AVE W90TH AVE W242ND ST SW
N. 205TH ST
234TH ST SW NW TRACTION R/W210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W77TH PL WMAPLE LANE 82ND AVE WHOLLY LANE
217TH ST SW 83RD AVE WMADRONA LANE PIONEER WAY INTERSTATE 588TH PL W80TH PL W74TH PL W85TH AVE W2 3 8 T H P L S W82ND PL W213TH PL SW
92ND PL W75TH PL W87TH AVE W208TH PL SW
SH
E
L
L
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
215TH ST SW
73RD PL W79TH PL W207TH ST SW
209TH PL SW
87TH PL WHILLCREST PL 229TH ST SW
PARK ROAD
SHELL PL
7
7
TH AVE W85TH AVE W221ST PL SW
235th ST SW
224th PL SW
BOAT LAUNCHWOODLAKE DR 220TH PL SWSKYLINE DR MAIN ST
PARK RDMAI
N STSHELL VALLEY WY83R D A V E W 82ND AVE W211TH PL80TH AVE W82ND AVE W81ST AVE W76TH AVE W77TH AVE W208TH ST SW
72ND AVE WHWY 9968TH AVE W212TH ST SW
HWY 99N W T R A C T IO N R /W
216TH ST SW
233RD PL SW
76TH PL W80TH WY 2 0 9 T H S T S W
210TH PL SW
206TH PL
91ST AVE W219TH ST SW 68TH AVE W70TH AVE WHWY 99220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
LAKE VIEW DRIVE74TH AVE W72ND AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW75TH AVE W74TH AVE W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW74TH AVE W74TH AVE WBEESON PL240TH PL SW
225TH ST86TH PL W80TH PL W9 0 T H P L W
70TH AVE W 215TH ST SW
226TH PL 89TH AVE W76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL WHWY 9980TH AVE W226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW 76TH AVE W224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW82ND PL W218TH ST SW 80TH AVE W76TH AVE W88TH PL W77TH PL W78TH AVE W 80TH PL241ST ST SWSUMMIT LN86TH PL W87T H PL W88TH AVE W88TH PL W220TH ST SW
84TH AVE W88TH AVE W90TH AVE W85TH AVE224TH ST SW
87TH PL W87TH AVE W224TH ST SW
86TH AVE W228TH ST SW
88TH AVE W90TH AVE W232N D S T S W
231ST PL SW
E
D
MONDS WA
Y84TH AVE W240TH ST SW
89TH PL W89TH PL W90TH AVE W87TH PL W78TH P
L W78TH PL W 85TH PL W81ST PL W87TH AVE W77TH AVE W 84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
219TH ST SW 90TH PL W78TH PL W 80TH PL W242ND PL SW
244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW92ND AVE W242ND ST SW 92ND AVE W 211TH PL
72ND PL W78TH PL W
230TH ST SW
221ST PL
228TH ST SW 92ND AVE W93RD AVE92ND AVE W7
7
T
H
P
L W 207TH PL SW
82ND PL W 218TH ST SW78TH AVE W 92ND AVE W92ND PL W
209TH ST SW
236TH ST SW 77TH PL W 223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
78TH AVE W84TH PL W85TH PL W78TH AVE W 74TH AVE W78TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
217TH S T SW230TH ST SWPIONEER WY 78TH PL W81ST AVE W232ND PL SW 229TH ST SW 82ND AVE W88TH AVE W207TH PL
86TH AVE W
225TH PL
87TH AVE W242ND ST SW 230TH ST SW 74TH AVE W91ST AVE W2 2 7TH PL SW
90TH PL W
208TH ST SW
86TH AVE W86TH PL W 89TH PL W76TH PL W217TH ST SW
233RD PL 82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW82ND PL W214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
80TH PL W
225TH PL SW83RD AVE W89TH AVE W 79TH AVE W
215TH ST SW
91ST AVE W 86TH PL W 86TH PL W218TH ST SW
229TH PL 81ST PL W227TH ST SW 81ST PL W90TH AVE W
228TH ST SW
92ND AVE W86TH AVE W86TH PL W215TH PL SW
78TH AVE W 82ND AVE W226TH ST SW
77TH PL W239T H P L S W 229TH ST SW
79TH AVE W 83RD PL77TH AVE 86TH AVE W 214TH PL SW
90TH AVE W80TH AVE W82ND AVE W2 2 1 S T S T S W
83RD PL225TH PL SW 77TH AVE W216TH ST SW 84TH AVE W72ND AVE W81ST AVE W86TH AVE W221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
73RD PL W83RD AVE W63RD AVE W208TH ST SW
210TH ST SW
212TH ST SW66TH AVE W67TH AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W
214TH ST SW
213TH PL SW
215TH ST SW67TH AVE W66TH AVE W216TH ST SW
218TH ST SW
219TH ST SW66TH AVE W64TH AVE W220TH ST SW
68TH PL W68TH AVE W222ND ST SW
224TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
220TH PL
221ST PL
221ST PL SW
223RD PL
223RD PL SW67TH PL W68TH AVE W66TH AVE W65TH AVE W64TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL W226TH ST SW
225TH PL
225TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
226TH ST SW
227TH PL SW67TH PL W63RD PL W62ND AVE W62ND AVE W
2
2
7
T
H ST SW
68TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH PL65TH PL64TH PL W228TH ST SW
229TH PL
230TH ST SW
68TH AVE W
230TH ST SW
231ST ST SW 63RD AVE W63RD PL66TH AVE W67TH PL W66TH AVE W67TH PL W232ND ST SW
232ND PL SW
233 PL
2 3 4 TH PL
233RD ST SW
234TH ST SW
234TH ST
64TH AVE W63RD AVE W63RD AVE W66TH AVE W234TH PL 2 3 4 T H P L
235TH PL
65TH PL W67TH AVE W2
3
4
T
H S
T S
W235TH ST SW
92ND AVE W91ST AVE WN W T R A C T IO N R /W78TH PL W236TH ST SW
Albion
W
a
y
85th Ave WLake Ballinger
2,000 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Highway 99 Corridor Mixed-Use Development Case Study23320 Highway 99
Legend
Case Study Property
Highway 99 Corridor
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Attachment 1Packet Page 258 of 319
234TH ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W80TH PL W238TH P L S W
7
7
TH AVE W235th ST SW
76TH PL W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL W80TH PL84TH AVE W78TH P
L W81ST PL W84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
W 79TH AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
233RD PL
82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW
81ST PL W 78TH AVE W82ND AVE W 79TH AVE W77TH AVE 80TH AVE W83RD PL81ST AVE W83RD AVE W78TH PL W234TH ST SW
233rd St SW
78TH AVE W80TH PL W238TH P L S W
7
7
TH AVE W235th ST SW
76TH PL W236T
H
S
T
SWM C A L E E R W A Y
237TH ST SW76TH AVE W80TH LN238TH ST SW
HWY 9976TH AVE WHWY 9981ST PL W80TH PL84TH AVE W78TH P
L W81ST PL W84TH AVE W236TH ST SW
7
7
T
H
P
L
W 79TH AVE W229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
233RD PL
82ND PL W228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW
81ST PL W 78TH AVE W82ND AVE W 79TH AVE W77TH AVE 80TH AVE W83RD PL81ST AVE W83RD AVE W78TH PL W500 0 500 1,000250Feet
Highway 99 Corridor Mixed-Use Development Case Study300 Feet Notice Radius
Legend
Case Study Property
Plan Overlays
Activity Center
Corridor Development
School
High Rise Overlay
Attachment 2Packet Page 259 of 319
AM-3356 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Update from Planning Board on PRD/subdivision study, PRD perimeter buffer ordinance
and Planning Board needs/priorities.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action required.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Planning Board Chair Phil Lovell and Vice-Chair John Reed will provide a status report to council on the
Board's activities and how the recent Council request to deal directly with the PRD/setback issue fits into
the Planning Board's work schedule.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Planning Board Extended Agenda
Exhibit 2: Planning Board Work Plan Status
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 03:38 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/02/2010 03:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 260 of 319
Planning Board
Extended Agenda
Sept. 8, 2010
Meeting Item
SEPTEMBER 2010
Sept. 8
2010
1. Update on Sustainability Indicators
2. Discussion on interior lot lines overlapping PRD perimeter
buffers
3. Presentation on Capital Facilities Plan (File No. AMD20100020)
4. Work session on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and
20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of
wireless telecommunication facilities (File No. AMD20100004)
Sept. 22
2010
1. Public Hearing on Emergency Temporary Indoor Shelters
2. Public Hearing on Temporary Homeless Encampments
3. Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan (File No.
AMD20100020) (TENTATIVE)
4. Report on adult entertainment sites
5. Discussion on potential of having a student representative
OCTOBER 2010
Oct. 13
2010
1. Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and
20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of
wireless telecommunication facilities (File No. AMD20100004)
2. Public Hearing on Meadowdale Annexation Zoning (File No.
AMD20090002)
3. Continued discussion on Home Occupations
4. P&R Quarterly Report
5. Further information on proposed amendments to Subdivision
regulations / PRD’s
Packet Page 261 of 319
Oct. 27
2010
1. Public hearing regarding interior lot lines overlapping PRD
perimeter buffers
2. Work session on Highway 99 parking standards
3. Discussion on BD zoning ‘clean up’ issues, including
commercial depth requirements, map of designated street
frontages, review of 4th Avenue Arts Corridor recommendations
NOVEMBER 2010
Nov. 10
2010
1. Work session on Subdivision Regulations / PRD’s
2. Work session on Highway 99 parking standards
Nov. 24
2010 CANCELLED FOR THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY
DECEMBER 2010
Dec. 9
2010
1. Public Hearing on Subdivision Regulations / PRD’s
2. Public Hearing on Highway 99 parking standards
3. Election of 2011 Officers
Dec. 23
2010 CANCELLED FOR CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY
JANUARY 2011
Jan. 12
2011 3. Update on Shoreline Master Program (File No. AMD20090006)
Jan. 26
2011
Packet Page 262 of 319
Potential 2010 Planning Board Work Plan
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Stormwater Comprehensive Plan – Work Completed
Water Comprehensive Plan – Work Completed
Update to policy discussion in Public Utilities Chapter of Comprehensive Plan –
Not This Year
Update to Capital Facilities Element – In Progress
Update to Economic Development Plan – Not This Year
Comprehensive Plan Framework (e.g. compatibility with Vision 2040) – Work
Completed
Two lots at 215th ST SW & 76th Ave W – Awaiting Scheduling
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding land use and urban design – Not This
Year
Streetscape Plan (see Council minutes, 5/26/2009) – In Progress
Comprehensive Plan provisions mandating Hearing Examiner review of projects
and property decisions – Work Completed
Shoreline Master Program – Awaiting Scheduling
Port of Edmonds Master Plan Update(s) – Not This Year
Code Revision Project
Title 16 Zoning Classifications – Not This Year
Title 17 Zoning Standards – Not This Year
Subdivision Regulations / PRD’s – In Progress
City Council Referrals
Economic Development (with Economic Development Commission) –
Monitoring
Highway 99 Parking Standards – In Progress
Homeless Shelters / Tent Cities – In Progress
Title 20 Procedures – Work Completed
Wireless Facilities Regulations – update – In Progress
Civil Enforcement Procedures – 20.110.040(F) – Work Completed
Parks Issues
Park Naming – Work Completed
Periodic Updates & Reports – Continuing
Other Items
Sustainability Implementation – Monitoring
Stormwater Code & Low Impact Development Provisions
Five Corners, Westgate neighborhood plans & implementation – Monitoring
Edmonds Landing (Rezone & Development Agreement) – Awaiting Scheduling
Packet Page 263 of 319
AM-3328 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/07/2010
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion and possible action regarding a proposed “Tree Board.”
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None
Previous Council Action
(See Exhibits)
Narrative
Continued discussion and possible action regarding a proposed “Tree Board.” Councilmember Bernheim
plans to make a motion to adopt the draft ordinance.
There are 8 attachments to this agenda memo. The current draft of the proposed ordinance is contained in
Exhibit 2.
Attachments
Attach 1 - Bernheim Memo to CSDS committee
Attach 2 - 1 Tree Board Ordinance
Attach 3 - 3 Benefits of Being a Tree City at arborday org
Attach 4 - Spehar e-mail Ordinance_Proposed Tree Board Question
Attach 5 - A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
Attach 6 - Tree Board Ordinance Status
Attach 7: Tree City USA Standards
Attach 8 - May 11 2010 CS-DS Commitee
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 11:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/02/2010 04:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/02/2010 04:12 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/27/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/02/2010
Packet Page 264 of 319
Memo to CSDS committee
From Steve Bernheim
Re: continued discussion re: “Tree Board”
Date: August 2, 2010
There is proposed an ordinance that would create a Citizens’ Tree Board of up to seven members
with an alternate, chosen by the City Council.
The Board would be empowered to advise and recommend regarding:
1. Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees,
encourage additional trees, appropriately safeguard trees in construction areas,
and encourage active stewardship of the urban forest.
2. Increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees,
proper selection of trees, and correct methods for planting of and caring for
trees.
3. Organizing invasive plant removal and native vegetation planting
4. Facilitating grant applications
5. Sponsoring an annual Arbor Day Event, and
6. Working towards achievement of Tree City USA® status
Attached is a draft of the proposed ordinance, which already is the result of some prior
collaboration and review among city staff (Rob Chave), city council (Steve Bernheim) and
residents (Laura Spehar, Barbara Tipton, Richard Senderoff).
At present, 77 cities in Washington are official Arbor Day Foundation Tree Cities, including
Lynnwood (11 years), Burien, Everett (17 years), Issaquah (17 years), Lake Forest Park,
Marysville (one year), Port Townsend, Poulsbo, Redmond, Sea Tac, and Woodway (4 years).
Standards and Benefits of becoming a “Tree City” are attached.
Attached is an Email from Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat regarding some areas of concern.
Also attached is an email raising a question as to how a future tree ordinance might look to
view impacts, or also might consider impacts on solar power systems or neighbors. However,
we are not drafting a tree ordinance tonight, only an ordinance authorizing the creation of an
advisory board.
Also attached is a publication of the Washington State Department of Commerce discussing
elements of a local tree protection program.
Recommended Action: The committee should review the proposed ordinance and forward it to
city council with recommendation for adoption. After the Tree Board is appointed, it can assist
city staff with development of a tree ordinance and gaining Tree City designation from National
Arbor Day Foundation.
Packet Page 265 of 319
Page 1
Ordinance Number [City Clerk, please fill in number]
An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, Amending the Edmonds City Code, Title 10
to add a new Chapter 10.95
____________________________________________________________________________
Citizens’ Tree Board
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council developed a sustainability agenda during their 2009
retreat; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council enacted Resolution 1129 to adopt the United States (US)
Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual US Conference of
Mayors; and
WHEREAS, old growth forests have been heavily logged in the Pacific Northwest section of the
US resulting in a significant loss of native conifers; and native deciduous trees including big leaf
maples and red alders are in decline; and
WHEREAS, urban forests provide habitat for wildlife, including migratory birds; and
WHEREAS, urban forests lessen the effects of storm events by slowing the rate of surface water
runoff and thus reducing the need for construction and maintenance of flood control
structures; and
WHEREAS, tree roots stabilize steep slopes minimizing the amount of soil erosion; and
WHEREAS, urban forests improve air and water quality and sequester carbon; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds it to be in the public interest to establish a Citizens’
Tree Board, one of the four steps to becoming a certified as a Tree City USA® by the US
Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program.
NOW, THEREFORE,
The City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, does ordain as follows:
Section 1: The Edmonds City Code, Title 10, is hereby amended by the adoption of a new
Chapter 10.95 Citizens’ Tree Board
to read as follows:
10.95.010 Board created – membership
10.95.020 Officers of board – meetings – forum
10.95.030 Powers and duties
10.95.010 Commission created – membership
A. There is hereby created a Citizens’ Tree board consisting of up to seven (7) members
plus one (1) alternate. Citizens must be Edmonds residents. It is recommended the
Packet Page 266 of 319
Page 2
board include citizens from throughout the city (representing different watersheds and
neighborhoods). Additionally, those with professional or hobbyist interest/experience
in urban forestry, horticulture, and habitat enviroscaping are preferred; these may
include arborists, botanists, horticulturists, native plant experts, master gardeners,
wildlife experts, and related. The members shall be appointed in the following manner.
Within thirty (30) days after this ordinance is passed, the city shall draft and publish an
announcement seeking applicants for board membership. The standard City of
Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application will be used. Prospective board
members will have thirty (30) days to submit their application. Initially, each
Councilmember will appoint one (1) Tree Board member within thirty (30) days
following the close of the application period. The alternate member shall be appointed
by the Council President or Mayor (as determined by the Council). The selections shall
be made based on the qualifications described per the applications; Councilmembers
may also interview applicants at their discretion. Subsequent to the initial
appointments, recommendations for renewal/replacements, when required, will be
made by the Council President or Mayor (as determined by the Council) and approval of
by the full Council.
B. The term of appointment shall be four (4) years. However, initially, to ensure
transitional consistency 4 (four) members shall be appointed to 4 (four) year terms and
3 (three) members (plus the alternate) shall be appointed to three (3) year terms. Each
member, at his or her discretion, may seek renewal for one additional term.
10.95.020 Officers of board – meetings – forum
Members of the Commission shall meet and organize by electing, from the members of
the board, a chair and vice chair and other officers as may be determined by the board.
It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice chair shall perform
this duty in the absence of the chair. A majority of the filled positions on the board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board is expected to meet
monthly or as otherwise agreed to by the board. The regular public meeting of the
board shall be held at such time or place as may be determined by the chair or a
majority of the members of the board.
10.95.030 Powers and duties
A. The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council and, as appropriate, to the Planning Board and other boards or commissions of
the city on such matters including but not limited to:
1. Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees,
encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees on parcels where
construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur, and encouraging the
Edmonds citizenry to become active stewards of the urban forest.
Comment [rs1]: Or the existing Board members
may make recommendations?
Packet Page 267 of 319
Page 3
2. Increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees,
proper selection of trees, and correct methods for planting of and caring for
trees.
3. Working with civic, religious, and citizen groups to organize invasive plant
removal and native vegetation planting in accord with the Department of Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services.
4. Coordinating with other citizen groups on specific projects.
5. Facilitate relevant grant applications supporting ecology and watershed
protection projects.
6. Sponsoring an annual Arbor Day Event
7. Working towards achievement of Tree City USA® status
B. The board shall provide an annual report to the City Council in December of each year
Section 2: Sunset Clause. The provisions of this ordinance will not be subject to a sunset clause.
This ordinance may be repealed or amended by act of the Edmonds City Council.
Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to
the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effective five (5) days after
passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH CITY CLERK:
Packet Page 268 of 319
Page 4
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NUMBER:
Packet Page 269 of 319
Benefits of Being a Tree City at arborday.org
http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/benefits.cfm[8/2/2010 3:42:33 PM]
cart | wish list | sign in
Tree City Benefits
Every community, regardless of size, benefits in different ways
from being a Tree City USA. Reports of these benefits have
reached The Arbor Day Foundation through the years and are
summarized below in six general categories:
Framework for Action
Meeting the four standards for becoming a Tree City USA
provides initial direction for an urban or community forestry
program. Like the first rungs on a ladder, the standards help get
a community started toward annual, systematic management of
its tree resources.
Education
Education begins with discussion of the standards and getting
organized to apply for Tree City USA status. It continues as the
desire for Tree City USA recognition leads to contacts with the
state forester’s staff. In turn, this can set in motion aid from a
variety of professionals in the form of technical advice,
literature, films, and other assistance.
Public Image
A community’s public image is a very real phenomenon and
important in many ways. Being a Tree City USA helps present
the kind of image that most citizens want to have for the place
they live or conduct business. The Tree City USA signs at
community entrances tell visitors that here is a community that
cares about its environment. It is also an indication to
prospective businesses that the quality of life may be better
here. It has even been known to be a factor in where meetings
or conferences have been held. This reason alone caused a
motel owner to start action for his community to join the
network!
Citizen Pride
Pride is sometimes a less tangible benefit. Gaining and
retaining Tree City USA recognition is an award to the tree
workers, managers, volunteers, tree board members and others
who work on behalf of better care of a community’s trees. Non-
involved citizens, too, often share a sense of pride that theirs is
a Tree City USA . This may translate to better care of trees on
private property or a willingness to volunteer in the future.
Home | Trees | Membership | Programs | News | Arbor Day Farm | Lied Lodge | Shop | Careers | Take Action
You are here: Home → Programs → Tree City USA → Benefits of Being a Tree City
Tree City USA
Tree City USA Home
About Us
Is Your Community a
Tree City?
Benefits of Being a Tree City
Tree City Standards
Request an Application
Tree City Growth Awards
Tree City USA Bulletins
Tree City USA Supplies
Community Foresters
Directory
Get Our E-Newsletter About
Our Programs
Related Programs
Tree Line USA
Conservation Trees
See All Programs
Shopping
Tree City USA Supplies
Arbor Marketplace
Buy Trees and More
Packet Page 270 of 319
Benefits of Being a Tree City at arborday.org
http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/benefits.cfm[8/2/2010 3:42:33 PM]
Financial Assistance
Preference is sometimes given to Tree City USA communities over other communities when allocations
of grant money are made for trees or forestry programs. The reason is that there are invariably more
requests than available funds when grants are available through state or federal agencies. If requests
are equally worthy, some officials tend to have more confidence in communities that have demonstrated
the foresight of becoming a Tree City USA.
Publicity
Presentation of the Tree City USA award and the celebration of Arbor Day offer excellent publicity
opportunities. This results not only in satisfaction for the individuals involved and their families, but also
provides one more way to reach large numbers of people with information about tree care. As one
forester put it, “This is advertising that money can't buy—and it is free!”
More
Read our list of 15 reasons to become a Tree City.
More Information
Call: 402-474-5655
Monday–Friday
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST
Tree City USA is supported by the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program.
1-888-448-7337 | donate now | privacy | about us | contact us | site map | your state
Packet Page 271 of 319
From:Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat
To:Steve Bernheim; council@stevebernheim.com
Cc:Barbara Tipton ; Richard ; Valerie Stewart; Gary Smith ; Susie Schaefer ; Mcintosh, Brian; alan.mearns
Subject:Tree City USA/City Ordinance/Proposed Tree Board Question
Date:Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:11:45 PM
Attachments:A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming.pdf
Hi Steve & Happy Summer,
I just received an email from Rich Senderoff stating the following:
Hi Laura,
The Tree Board Ordinance is finished, including attorney review. It was set to be
presented to the CS/DS committee this week, but was displaced by the Mayor
candidate interviews. I‛ve asked Council President Bernheim to bypass the
committee that is already aware of the concept (just not the finished form) and
take it straight to council, so it doesn‛t have to wait another month.
My question for you is where is the City/ Edmonds at the moment with the Tree Board
Ordinance, and has it already been adopted or passed? Last I knew about any of this was
the "discussion of proposed Tree Board" at the August 10th Council meeting. I can't
locate anything else on the City's website. If you have a copy of this ordinance to share
or can let me know where to view it.. myself and Barbara Tipton would love to take a look
at it. We are still completely engaged in pursuing an ordinance and or board and helping
the City as volunteers to obtain Tree City USA status. Our hope is through obtaining this
status and setting up this criteria that our city will not only gain a national recognition
but locate funding sources for future tree conservation projects which educate local
residents about tree planting, health, and overall care of before just grabbing the chain
saw...
Please let me know what you would like the citizens and volunteers of Edmonds to do to
help move things along. As you well know, we have all been reviewing the City of Shoreline
& Lake Forest Park meetings as they amend and revise their tree conservation
codes/ordinances. The Mayor of Lake Forest Park established an Urban Tree Task
Force to look at the existing tree preservation ordinance, and make recommendations to
changes to the City's Municipal Code if necessary.
My friend and Edmonds Planning Board Commisioner, Val Stewart recently attended a
Urban Forest Symposium in Seattle. Val has shared many of the great tree resources
gained from that symposium with Barbara and myself. One of the main focal points of
the workshops was creating and implementing an urban forestry board within our cities...
One of the documents cited/ taken from symposium:
The Urban Forestry Program is lead by a board of volunteers. The board advises the city
council on matters pertaining to the promotion, improvement and protection of the urban
forest. The board's mission is to provide wise stewardship and leadership to ensure that
we protect our existing trees and encourage proper selection, planting methods, and
maintenance of our new trees so that we continually enhance the quality of life in our
city.
The board pledges to increase community understanding of the value of our urban forest
Packet Page 272 of 319
and to take responsibility for the education and publicity of those values. This is done
through a variety of educational initiatives in cooperation with local elementary schools,
the Boys' and Girls' Club and other groups throughout the city.
Edmonds is definitely at a residential crisis point with tree regulations as seen by the
volume of tree clearings in recent months, and letters to the Editor in regards to the
issue. In fact, one resident and EBWH Project Steering Team member, Alan Mearns
(NOAA Scientist/local resident) has been working this past year on documenting and
monitoring the tree removal or canopy loss in his Maplewood Neighborhood. This
information could possibly act as baseline data for monitoring habitat conditions in the
future.
On Tuesday evening my husband Paul and I along with Barbara & Jim Tipton (whom worksfor the Nature Conservancy btw) attended the Cascade Land Conservancy's CompleteStreets meeting at the Frances Anderson Center. We all signed up to help with theEdmonds campaign. I left a packet of the evenings information for Brian McIntosh, andstill have more packets if you would like one. With this campaign will come dialog aboutstreet trees in business areas for sure.
With all of this happening in our city; I cannot but think this is the time afterappointing a new Mayor to proceed with our tree preservation and conservation efforts.I also truly believe that we have a wonderful Parks Dept., and that through it will comeour best ally in tree education and conservation training.
Please let myself and Barbara know where and when you need our help in pursuingthe ordinance, board and or future tree related projects. Same goes for everyone else Ihave cc'd in this email. I know you all to be interested in tree preservation andeducation.
Steve, I would appreciate hearing back from you on this email as well as others. Yourtime & energy on these efforts is appreciated!
My Best,
Laura Spehar
Note: Here are a few good websites for all to check out, and see what options are outthere and could be possibly implemented for Edmonds (thinking positive!):
**also attached to this email is a great document called : "A GUIDE TO COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMMING"
http://www.seattleurbannature.org/Projects/newprojects.html
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubWorks/strees.aspx#Programs
http://www.cityofshoreline.com/index.aspx?page=501
http://www.cityoflfp.com/city/taskforce/forest/documents/20100311CFMA-PUB.pdf
http://www.saveseattlestrees.com/Save_Seattle_s_Trees.html
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/planning/SeattlesTreeRegulationUpdate/Overview/default.asp
Packet Page 273 of 319
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Development%20Services/CG_DevStds2010_BMPT101.pdf
--
Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project
http://edmondsbackyardwildlifehabitat.org"Fostering a Community that Lives in Harmony with Nature"18104 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, WA, 98026
(425) 672-2150Follow us on Twitter, http://twitter.com/edmondsbwh
Packet Page 274 of 319
A GUIDE TO COMMUNITY
AND URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMMING
JUNE 2009
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF COMMERCE
EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE
Packet Page 275 of 319
Packet Page 276 of 319
i
A GUIDE TO COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMMING
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF COMMERCE
AND
THE EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
2. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 2
3. PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 6
4. COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ........................................................................................ 9
5. ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ..................................................................10
6. ELEMENTS OF A COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE .............................................12
7. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION ...............................................................................24
8. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................28
9. URBAN FORESTRY RESOURCES ..............................................................................................29
10. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE ...........................................................33
11. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT ....................................................................................................35
Packet Page 277 of 319
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Washington State Department of Commerce
Leonard Bauer, Managing Director, Growth Management Unit
Micki McNaughton, Urban Forestry Specialist
Crystal Harper and Cynthia Ritchey, Support Staff
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Sarah Foster, Program Manager, Urban and Community Forestry Program
Linden Mead, Inventory and Assessment Specialist, Urban and Community Forestry Program
We gratefully acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the members of the Evergreen
Communities Partnership Task Force in 2008-2009 as they developed guidance for community
and urban forestry policies, ordinances and management plans, as well as drafting a proposal
for an evergreen communities recognition plan.
The Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force
Stephen Bernath, Washington State Dept. of Ecology
Kathleen Wolf, Washington Community Forestry Council
Alternate - Jana Dilley, University of Washington
Bruce Wishart, People for Puget Sound
Alternate - Cyrilla Cook, People for Puget Sound
David Erickson, City of Wenatchee Parks and Recreation
Janet Way, City of Shoreline City Council
Alternate - Chris Eggen, City of Shoreline City Council
David Grimes, Chelan County Development
Alternate - Keith Goehner, Chelan County Commissioner
Joseph Scorcio, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities
Alternate - Anne-Marie Marshall-Dody, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities
Phil Harlan, Keller Williams Realty Olympia, Washington Association of Realtors representative
Alternate - Jeanette Samek-McKague, Washington Association of Realtors
Brian Ross, YarrowBay Group
Alternate - Katherine Orni, YarrowBay Group
Charles Kahle, Audubon Washington
Alternate - Matt Mega, Seattle Audubon
Ara Erickson, Cascade Land Conservancy Green Cities Program
Alternate - John Floberg, Cascade Land Conservancy
Courtney Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation
Brian Carlson, City of Vancouver Public Works Director
Alternate - Charles Ray, City of Vancouver Urban Forester
Beth Rogers, Puget Sound Energy
Alternate - Janet Brown, Puget Sound Energy
Paula Swedeen, Pacific Forest Trust
Sandy Salisbury, Washington State Dept. of Transportation
Alternate - Mark Maurer, Washington State Dept. of Transportation
Elizabeth Walker, Sound Tree Solutions
Adrian Miller, Washington Forest Protection Association
Packet Page 278 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
1 June 2009
1. INTRODUCTION
Healthy community and urban forests are a valuable and potentially powerful tool to support
economically viable, sustainable urban areas in the State of Washington. The 2008 Evergreen
Communities Act (ECA; ESSHB 28441 and RCW 35.1052) seeks to assist municipalities and
jurisdictions across the state to better manage existing urban forests and plan for improvements
to urban forests to increase the value of the ecological, social, and economic services that
urban trees provide. The ECA created the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force (the
Task Force) to develop model urban forest management plans and model ordinances to provide
this assistance, as well as an awards program to recognize all communities that plan and
manage their community forests. Funding for work directed by the ECA, however, has been
suspended for the State Fiscal Biennium 2009-2011.
Recognizing the possibility of a loss of funding early in 2009, the Task Force members
expedited a compressed work program so that tangible resources could be produced by June
30, 2009, to guide local communities in urban forestry programming efforts during the unfunded
interim. This document provides a resource for local governments interested in creating or
enhancing community and urban forestry programming, and discusses a possible approach to a
future awards program to recognize communities who excel in planning and managing their
community and urban forestry resource for maximum benefit.
During the unfunded interim, guidance and technical assistance for communities working to
build or enhance community and urban forestry programming is also available through the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Urban and Community Forestry
Program. Contacts there include
• Sarah Foster, Program Manager, (360) 902-1704, sarah.foster@dnr.wa.gov
• Linden Mead, Urban Forestry Specialist, (360) 902-1703, linden.mead@dnr.wa.gov
• Micki McNaughton, Urban Forestry Specialist, (360) 902-1356,
micki.mcnaughton@dnr.wa.gov
In addition to providing interim guidance for communities who wish to move forward with
incorporating urban forestry principles and practices into both current and long-range planning,
this document provides a strong platform from which to launch continuing work under the
authority of the ECA when funding resumes.
A. CONTENTS OF THE REPORT
The report
• Describes social, ecological and economic benefits of healthy community and urban forests.
• Discusses policies that relate to those benefits and functions, and includes examples, when
appropriate, from existing urban forestry programs in municipalities throughout the State.
• Reports briefly on the related work of developing inventories and canopy assessment
protocols and methodologies, accomplished by the Technical Advisory Committee (the TAC)
convened by the DNR. A link is provided to the full TAC report.
1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2844&year=2007
2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105
Packet Page 279 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 2
• Provides broad guidelines for the direction and intent of urban forestry management plans.
Development of model urban forestry management plans is currently on hold, pending
funding.
• Presents suggestions for addressing the tree ordinance components listed in Section 12 of
the ECA, along with other points important to consider in crafting an ordinance. The purpose
for each component is discussed, with portions of code from local jurisdictions throughout
the State offered as illustrative examples where appropriate. Development of a model tree
ordinance is currently on hold at this time, pending funding.
• Proposes a structure of an awards program that incorporates incremental awards and
incentives that support excellence in urban forestry programming at a variety of levels.
Development of a recognition program is currently on hold.
• Lists urban forestry resources available for reference and guidance.
• Provides background of the ECA, together with challenges and recommendations for the
future.
B. HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
The report is designed for people who wish to incorporate community and urban forestry into the
comprehensive planning efforts of their communities, and may be used as a springboard for
community discussion that focuses on the role of community and urban forestry in creating and
supporting the vital, healthy, sustainable communities that we all want to live in and bequeath to
our children.
Although this report does not contain fully developed models of management plans and
ordinances, the guidance and assistance offered here covers important policy, planning, and
ordinance elements that should be considered during development of a new community and
urban forestry program or enhancement of an existing one.
Full citations for printed sources referred to in the text are gathered in a References section at
the end of this document. Online web addresses (URLs) are footnoted at the bottom of each
page for those interested in investigating sources in more depth. This document is available
online as a fully-linked webpage at
2. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS
PROVIDED BY COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTS
The concept of “ecosystem services” has recently emerged to describe the tangible and
intangible contributions that natural systems provide for human life support, and human health
and well-being. Some ecosystem products have obvious market value, such as timber or
mineral ore; others have been identified by scientific study, but do not yet figure widely into
market-based planning.
Many of the benefits and services provided by community forests, for example, are not yet
easily assigned a dollar value but are, nonetheless, absolutely essential for vital, livable
communities. Community and urban forests are defined by the DNR as “that land in and around
Packet Page 280 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
3 June 2009
human settlements ranging from small communities to metropolitan areas, occupied or
potentially occupied by trees and associated vegetation. Community and urban forest land may
be planted or unplanted, used or unused, and includes public and private lands, lands along
transportation and utility corridors, and forested watershed lands within populated areas” (RCW
76.151). Below is a selection of ecosystem services provided by trees and associated vegetation
in urban areas, based on the most current scientific research.
• Stormwater, Water Quality, Flooding and Erosion
As noted in the preamble to the ECA, trees and forests play a major role in reducing the
stormwater runoff, flooding, and erosion that contribute to degraded water quality in urbanized
areas. While urban forests are typically not as effective as large, intact forest stands, they can
help to lessen the volume and velocity of surface water that moves through urban areas,
reducing the need for highly-engineered man-made structures as well as mitigating the negative
impacts of stormwater discharge into lakes, rivers and other public water bodies.
Before precipitation reaches the ground, the leaves, branches and trunks of trees intercept
moisture or facilitate evaporation (Schwab 2009). When native vegetation and soils are
removed or compacted, infiltration is limited, groundwater recharge is reduced, and surface
runoff and erosion occur, all of which may contribute to flooding, loss of stable and diverse
aquatic habitat, loss of nutrient cycling, an increase in suspended particulates in the water
column, and increases in water temperature (Schwab ed. 2009). Preserving and retaining trees
and forested areas in appropriate places within a community may reduce the need for built
stormwater controls and increased water quality treatment in urban areas. Research indicates
that a healthy forest canopy may reduce stormwater runoff. Local jurisdictions may benefit from
community and urban forestry programs that provide guidelines for builders and developers
during the development process to offset the loss of the ecological services of forested areas
when such sites are converted through development. For additional guidance on planning
stormwater mitigation measures using urban forestry principles and practices, see the
Department of Ecology’s stormwater management manuals for eastern2 and western3
Washington.
• Air Quality
Trees and forests improve air quality in urban areas in many ways (Wolf 2004). Trees remove
carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis. Forest canopy can remove tons of
material from the air across a city as particulates, or fine dust and pollutants, settle in the leaves
of trees.
Some emissions from vehicles and industry undergo chemical changes, or may generate “bad
ozone,” under certain atmospheric conditions. The effects on human health of both particulates
and chemical compounds are extensive and can include breathing disorders such as asthma
and bronchitis, sensitivity to allergens, eye irritation, and even dizziness and nausea (AIRnow
2007). Direct sunlight and hot weather drive formation of the airborne chemical irritants. Trees
are an effective way to reduce surface temperatures as they block solar radiation from heating
paved surfaces. Reducing urban heat island effect reduces the formation of harmful compounds
in the air.
1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15
2 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/easternmanual/index.html
3 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html
Packet Page 281 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 4
• Economic Development and Aesthetics
Many people recognize that trees contribute to more beautiful urban settings. Trees also have a
positive effect on economic development and community vitality. Well-planned tree plantings
have positive impacts on retail sales and consumer behavior. Studies done at the University of
Washington indicate that shoppers claim to spend up to 12 percent more for goods and services
in shopping districts having a quality tree canopy. Shoppers say they will spend more time in
well-canopied business districts and perceive the merchandise to be of better quality in these
areas (Wolf 2009). Many studies show that trees, landscape, and natural parks increase the
value of nearby homes. Residential properties that are attractively landscaped may increase up
to 7% in value, and those located near forested open spaces and parks may have up to 20%
greater value (Wolf 2007). Trees have a positive effect on commercial property as well; one
study found that building rental rates were 7% higher for office complexes having a quality
landscape (LaVerne & Winson-Geideman 2003).
• Human Health and Well-Being
Many people enjoy working with plants or in their gardens, yet many studies tell us that simply
having views of trees and nature in urban areas can have a positive effect as well (Wolf 2008a).
Patients in hospitals heal faster when they have views of trees and greenery. Office workers are
more productive when they can take brief breaks in natural settings. People feel less stressed
when they view trees and green space. Pediatric researchers have also noted less frequency,
and milder attacks, of childhood asthma in urban areas with greater tree canopy coverage.
Trees also contribute to solving the obesity epidemic by enhancing recreation and walkability
through attractive tree-lined routes for pedestrians and bicycle riders (Wolf 2008b).
Street trees are one approach to safer streets (Wolf 2006). The line of trees between the curb
and sidewalk forms a barrier, both visual and physical, between traffic and pedestrians that
creates a feeling of greater safety. Drivers respond to tree-lined streets by driving more slowly,
adding another potential level of safety. Trees, and tree-planting events, have been linked to a
greater sense of community connection that may help neighborhoods become safer and less
susceptible to crime (Kuo 2003). Conversely, a sense of social malaise may be triggered in a
treeless urban landscape. The Trust for Public Land1 has measured a variety of values that
urban parks bring to a community, including user happiness and health, and “neighborhood
social capital.”
• Land Use, Climate Change, Energy and Carbon
Regional land use patterns have a significant influence on global climate change and the overall
livability of communities, neighborhoods and rural areas. Coordinated urban development that
promotes higher density in established urban centers while incorporating community and urban
green space and forests helps to create attractive, livable communities with efficient regional
transportation and land use patterns that reduce development pressures on rural and wildland
resources. Additional benefits of compact development include reduced single-occupancy
vehicle trips and the associated greenhouse gas emissions; multi-modal transportation
networks; and retention and conservation of farmland, forests, and open space in rural areas.
Community and urban forests also mitigate climate change through energy use reduction.
Properly sited trees may provide significant energy savings by reducing heating and cooling
energy requirements through both direct protection of buildings from sun and wind, and the use
of vegetation to reduce the amount of thermal gain across large urban areas, commonly
referred to as the “urban heat island effect”. Forested neighborhoods (i.e., those with 40 percent
tree canopy coverage) may save homeowners more than 4 percent in heating costs in the
1 http://www.tpl.org/
Packet Page 282 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
5 June 2009
winter and 10 percent in cooling costs in the summer. Energy savings may be as high as 30
percent when trees are properly sited to protect the home from the effects of sun and wind
(Akbari et al. 1997).
Community and urban forests may also help mitigate climate change by sequestering or storing
carbon, although the benefits and tradeoffs of urban tree sequestration are still under
investigation. At the present time carbon markets are not well-established nationally and current
markets are extremely administratively intensive. Communities may wish, however, to position
themselves for participation in future carbon markets by considering steps such as baseline
inventories and management programming as recommended by the TAC and DNR, and the
2008 Climate Action Team’s Forest Sector Working Group1, convened by Washington’s
Governor and Legislature. Carbon gains in urban areas are more likely to be found through
reduced energy use as described above, which in turn reduces carbon emissions associated
with energy production. In addition, tree-lined transportation corridors provide pleasant, safe
walkable routes that people may choose to experience by walking or bicycling, thereby reducing
vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
• Wildlife, Fish and Habitat
Urban trees provide nesting and roosting sites for birds and other wildlife, as well as a wide
range of insects and fruits that serve as important food sources. Urban trees also play a role in
protecting aquatic habitats used by salmon and forage fish through their shade which cools
water, better water quality through stormwater and erosion control, and nutrient cycling. In an
urban setting, green corridors may support diverse wildlife species as well as provide important
connectivity within an often fragmented landscape.
Forested riparian corridors may enhance salmon survival by shading water to maintain cool
water temperatures and ensuring a diversity of microorganisms and other food sources
(Brennan 2007). Trees adjacent to marine shorelines harbor terrestrial insects that provide food
for salmon and other fish species, and moderate beach temperatures, reducing the potential for
desiccation of fish eggs (Brennan 2007). In the Pacific Northwest, urban stream corridors often
connect the marine or riverine environment to smaller stream networks upstream, and thus can
support—or disconnect—water quality and fisheries enhancement efforts.
Although urban forests cannot fully mitigate the hydrologic consequences of urban
development, they can help to keep streams healthy by reducing the extremes of stormwater
discharge, which in turn helps to reduce erosion and allows for more consistent, long-term
groundwater discharge. Such moderation provides more water in streams during summer low-
flow periods for salmon and other aquatic species. Roots of live trees also protect against
erosion and sedimentation of streams and shorelines (EnviroVision 2007).
Forest structure is a critical component of wildlife habitat. Structural elements that contribute to
healthy wildlife populations include a diversity of tree species, ages and sizes, with an
understory of native shrubs and ground cover. Snags (standing dead trees) and nurse logs
(downed dead trees) also provide important structural elements for wildlife habitat, and should
be considered during planning. Finally, urban trees help keep people connected to the natural
world through wildlife viewing as well as their own intrinsic nature.
1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2008FAdocs/11241008_forestreportversion2.pdf
Packet Page 283 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 6
3. PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT
The following elements are important considerations in developing a program that supports
healthy urban forests and the ecological, social and economic benefits they confer in an
efficient, effective manner that is consistent over time.
Community and urban forestry policy typically includes references to natural as well as human
systems, and may include discussion of both tree-related and broader community-based goals
and objectives. Policy principles communicate the shared vision that a community has for, and
about, its trees. Such principles, expressed as brief statements, may be found in a community’s
comprehensive plan, in its urban forestry management plan, and/or as the opening statements
of a tree ordinance. Public discussions about such statements help to build public awareness of
the importance of the community and urban forestry resource. Referencing best practices
supported by current science makes the policy statements credible throughout community
debate about policy priorities.
A. POLICY PRINCIPLES
The following policy principles offer several ideas to begin the process of expressing the values
that a community holds for its trees. The list below, while not all-inclusive, serves as a
framework for discussion about the benefits and challenges of trees within communities.
Principles such as these should be incorporated into ongoing planning and management efforts,
while also bearing in mind the community’s other activities, programs and goals such as the
location and intensities of land uses, parks and open spaces, and the location of major utility
and infrastructure corridors.
• General Statements of Vision and Purpose
A healthy urban forest contributes to the economic vitality of the community, provides
environmental stability and resiliency, and ensures a better quality of life.
Trees provide important ecological, economic and social functions and benefits in urban
landscapes that should be recognized, protected, and enhanced where possible.
Protecting the environment and conserving natural resources is a priority and is
essential to maintaining healthy, vital and safe neighborhoods.
Urban natural resources and urban natural systems, including trees and forests, are
important for public health, economic development, education and community values.
• Protect, Preserve, Restore and Enhance the Community and Urban Forest
Protect, restore and improve existing vegetation that has environmental, wildlife and
aesthetic value. Such vegetation may include groves of trees, significant individual trees
or tree stands, forested hillsides, and vegetation associated with wetlands,
stream/wildlife corridors and riparian areas.
Healthy retained and restored forests and natural systems provide benefits and services
that are essential for human health and well-being.
Forested natural areas form the green infrastructure of a community, contributing to
better air and water quality, as well as benefiting other ecosystem services.
Invasive species that are destructive to forest health must be controlled and eradicated
where possible.
• Manage the Community and Urban Forestry Resource for Maximum Benefit
Initiate and promote appropriate urban tree management practices in high density,
mixed-use areas in order to improve quality of life for all district users and create more
Packet Page 284 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
7 June 2009
livable conditions, to include visual amenities, environmental services and economic
development.
Trees and understory vegetation retain stormwater, reduce erosion, buffer water bodies
from polluting runoff, and clean the air of airborne pollutants. As the extent and health of
an urban forest increases, so does its capacity to provide these green infrastructure
benefits in greater amounts.
An urban forest that is managed sustainably is healthier—allowing more trees to mature
and more species to thrive. Healthy forests ultimately increase the ecological, social, and
economic benefits of the forest and improve forest management.
Encourage the use of science-based Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect and
enhance community trees and forests. A well-managed community and urban forest
builds capacity for increased benefits and services over time, one of the few municipal
assets that appreciates in value and capacity over time.
Each community department with responsibility for the urban forest should share
standardized maintenance practices. Standardized practices increase overall
consistency in how trees are maintained, resulting in better tree health and longevity.
• Promote Stewardship and Enable Community Education and Action
Develop community-wide programming to enhance the community’s awareness of the
value of trees and the urban forest.
Knowledgeable citizens improve and enhance the quality of the urban forest through
greater engagement in the care and maintenance of trees and related resources.
Educate families and children about the natural world to benefit the health and wellness
of people and wildlife.
Develop programming that leverages the commitment and interest of citizens to support
environmental stewardship that works collaboratively to increase wildlife habitat and
other natural systems, and to generate greater public awareness of community and
urban forestry issues.
Benefits of community stewardship are numerous: increased community leadership and
civic engagement; creation and protection of more viable habitats for wildlife; improved
greenways and stream corridors; and a greater understanding by citizens of their
individual and combined impacts on natural systems.
• Optimize Opportunities for Partnerships in Urban Forest Preservation and
Enhancement
A community—residents and businesses alike—that is provided a clear picture of the
priorities, scope, timing, and resources for achieving a thriving urban forest is more likely
to invest their energy and resources to help achieve that vision.
Community trees must be actively cared for and managed to maintain a healthy, safe
existence and coexist well with homes, streets, infrastructure/utilities, businesses, parks,
and natural areas. An urban forest management plan that provides the public with a
vision for a healthy and sustainable urban forest, as well as a roadmap for getting there,
will inspire more people to become informed and involved as stewards to guide and
support future sustainable tree practices and policies.
Outreach programming should inspire community partnerships with other local
organizations, schools, and agencies, and will result in greater awareness and
understanding of the importance of protecting and caring for community and urban
forests.
Packet Page 285 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 8
• Promote the Use of Incentives to Leverage Community and Urban Forestry Goals
Broader community support for tree conservation and planning can be built through
positive appeals for best practices that include voluntary and incentive-based programs,
such as stormwater utility credits, certified wildlife habitat, density/building height
bonuses, streamlined permit review, adjusted setback or parking requirements, and
property or impact fee reductions.
• Provide Urban Forest Resources Equitably Across the Community
The local jurisdiction (city, town, county or tribe) and its partners (e.g., local
communities, organizations, etc.) should allocate community and urban forest resources
in a manner that recognizes geographic, racial and social equity.
Community and urban forest benefits should be equitable for all residents of a
community. All residents within a jurisdiction deserve the benefits of a healthy urban
forest.
• Transportation and Utilities
Planning and management of urban forests and trees must take into account urban
utility infrastructure. Location and type of trees in proximity to aboveground and
underground utilities must be considered in order to avoid damage to both the utility’s
infrastructure as well as to the forest and trees.
Transportation corridors may provide excellent opportunities for tree and shrub planting
when safety and design guidelines are taken into consideration. Partnerships with public
works departments, transportation and utility organizations are encouraged.
B. CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
• Costs
Local governments must consider the costs associated with community and urban forestry
programs in addition to the benefits of a local urban forestry program. Careful planning of
program costs will help provide a defensible basis for budget requests and grant proposals, as
well as determine eligibility for federal, state, and local funding assistance. Program costs that
may be considered include inventory and assessment of the community’s trees; long-range
implementation plans; development of a management plan including maintenance activities;
formation of a tree board or urban forestry commission; the adoption and enforcement of
ordinances and code; public outreach and education; and tree evaluation and appraisal.
• Relationship to Other Programs, Plans and Policies
Vital, livable communities have a number of responsibilities and requirements to fulfill toward
their citizens, both residential and commercial. Community and urban forestry principles and
practices should be integrated into the land use, transportation, parks and open spaces, and
capital facilities plans and programs to maximize the ecosystem benefits described elsewhere in
this document. These elements should be crafted collaboratively with reference to each other to
avoid unintended consequences and the highest achievement of community benefits. It is
important that there be deliberate discussions about the tradeoffs that will occur over time to
accommodate future growth and change as policies are established concerning the location and
maintenance of trees within a community.
A thoroughly integrated program may also assist with compliance and implementation of other
state and local programs. As local governments are increasingly being held responsible for
implementing pollution control and ecosystem restoration projects, community and urban
forests, along with other green infrastructure features, should be viewed as strategic tools for
compliance. For example, community and urban forestry programs may help communities
Packet Page 286 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
9 June 2009
manage flooding and stormwater runoff to mitigate discharges into Puget Sound, as required in
the Land Use Element of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(1) Land Use
Element1).
In addition, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for both Phase I and Phase II
stormwater permits allow communities to include urban forestry in their best management
practices. Programs that protect and restore trees in riparian areas may work hand-in-hand with
local Shoreline Master Plans, which must ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions
(WAC 173-26-2212).
Protecting and enhancing community and urban forests may also help meet air pollution
mandates as well as mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases. Because smog formation is
directly related to air temperatures in the lower atmosphere, the ability of trees to moderate
temperatures in urban areas may also help to reduce smog.
• Evaluation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Communities that incorporate community and urban forestry principles into planning processes
must consider how to evaluate their programs to ensure maximum efficiency and
effectiveness. Clear, measurable goals and objectives must be set, with reasonable timelines
for implementation. Management plans must have the flexibility to adapt to new information as a
result of monitoring outcomes, or changes in best management practices based on best
currently available research.
4. COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY
INVENTORY AND CANOPY ASSESSMENT
The DNR Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF), with the assistance of the Technical
Advisory Committee (the TAC), is charged with the development of inventory and assessment
protocols along with a project implementation plan under the ECA. The TAC and UCF have
worked closely with CTED to assure that inventory criteria are designed to meet the goals and
objectives of urban forestry management plans and tree ordinances. Similarly to CTED and the
Task Force, funding is not available for the Fiscal Biennium 2009-2011, causing a suspension of
activity in this arena as well. The Task Force and the TAC recognize, however, that evaluation
of the resource through inventories and assessments are an important first step toward
sustainable community and urban forestry management and programming.
An inventory catalogues existing trees and their associated attributes while an assessment
evaluates the state of the existing forest resource. Both are valuable and essential tools in
identifying current maintenance and management needs and setting future goals. Analysis of
the resulting information may be used to determine both baseline conditions and to set long-
term goals regarding specific achievable conditions for a community’s forest resource, which are
important both to develop an accurate, effective management plan for the resource and to set
measurable goals to evaluate program efficiency and efficacy.
1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070
2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-26-221
Packet Page 287 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 10
Community and urban tree inventories typically focus on city-managed street, park and/or
natural-area trees. It is important to remember, however, that a community forest is much larger
than the public tree component; the majority of trees comprising a community forest canopy are
actually located on private property. Forest canopy assessment through the use of remote
sensing technology such as aerial photography or satellite imagery captures the total effect of
all trees within a community and, thus, is a major component of the ECA recommended
inventory and assessment protocol.
The core data set recommended by the TAC for use in ground-based inventories is designed to
provide communities sufficient information to assess the forest resource, address local
management needs, and develop a site-specific management plan. This basic data set will also
provide the information necessary to use the i-TREE1 analysis tools developed by the USFS,
should a community desire to do so. Communities may choose to collect additional information
beyond the required data elements to address their particular management goals.
For more information about the work and recommendations of the TAC, as well as the pilot
project details, please refer to the TAC report2 available on the DNR website.
5. ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY
MANAGEMENT PLANS
While the Task Force did not have time to fully develop model community and urban forestry
management plans, the following elements are important points to consider when developing a
strong, thoughtful management plan, an important step in fostering sustainable community and
urban forestry programming and achieving healthy forest systems.
A management plan conveys a vision for the resource in practical terms, based on the
distinctive character and context of a community, and helps to establish consistency and
coherence in long-range planning even should changes occur in local administration. A
management plan is an expression of purpose that identifies how community and urban forests
and other ecosystems may aid the community in achieving its broader planning goal.
An urban forestry program may also be guided in its larger purpose by a strategic plan.
Strategic plans establish long-term over-arching goals and objectives for a community’s urban
forestry efforts in order to provide a logical process for programmatic development, and may
function as a framework for interagency cooperation toward the incorporation of urban forestry
principles into general community planning and infrastructure maintenance. Management plans,
by contrast, tend to be more specific to the field operations of a tree program. This section
focuses on recommendations for urban forestry management plans.
A. SCOPE OF A MANAGEMENT PLAN
A key decision early in the process of drafting a management plan is the scope of applicability of
the document. Most plans begin by addressing those trees under the jurisdiction of the
community or municipality, such as trees in parks, open space lands, street rights-of-way, and
other publicly-owned properties. The next tier may include trees on properties owned or
managed by other public entities such as school districts, water districts, and public utility
1 http://www.itreetools.org/
2 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/urbanforestry/pages/rp_urban_eca_tac.aspx
Packet Page 288 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
11 June 2009
services. A final management arena, perhaps the most difficult to scope and implement,
involves trees on privately-owned property, including trees in commercial areas such as parking
lots and commercial building complexes; residential areas, including both single and multifamily
housing; dedicated open space lands owned and managed by homeowners’ associations; and
vacant lands that may be subject to future development. Trees in some of these designations
may have been protected or planted as a condition of development plan approval.
B. CONTENTS OF THE PLAN
Management plans will be as varied as the communities they serve, but most contain the basic
elements discussed below. A good management plan is a clear representation of the unique
characteristics of the community’s forest resources and the values that local citizens hold
concerning trees. In addition, the level of detail will vary among communities according to staff
and other resources available.
• Executive Summary
An abbreviated version of major findings and recommendations should be provided, with more
extensive, supporting detail following.
• Introduction/Rationale
The introduction should answer the key question, “Why was this plan developed?” That answer
may address forest loss, forest health, community aesthetics, and environmental conditions,
among others. A summary of benefits based on scientific research and studies may provide
strong justification for subsequent policy and action recommendations.
• Community Context
A quick overview of the status of the urban forest resource should be provided, connected to the
historical and cultural background of the community. Economics and trees of past times may be
discussed. Heritage, historic or landmark trees in the community and their social significance
may be described. The status and primary activities of any existing urban forestry program
should be detailed.
• Assessment Outcomes
Results of a forest assessment such as a street tree inventory or canopy cover analysis should
be summarized. Maps are often the best way to highlight key information provided by an
assessment. Challenges, such as canopy loss, should be described and discussed. Previous
past programmatic successes should be highlighted.
• Needs
Needs of the forest resource, the existing program, and management efforts should be
described and related to the broader needs and desires of the community, such as meeting the
environmental elements of the community’s comprehensive plan.
• Concept and Vision
The management plan builds on what has already been achieved and guides future action. It
discusses specific local concerns and issues in terms of the forest resource. Some communities
emphasize green infrastructure, the idea that connected forest systems across the community
provide cleaner air and water, mitigate stormwater effects and reduce energy use. A related
concept is that of ecosystem services, the idea that trees provide tangible and intangible goods
and services that sustain basic needs, and improve human health and well-being. Communities
may plan to promote a systems approach toward planning the forest resource, rather than
planning for single trees or small groves, depending on the needs and desires of their citizens.
Packet Page 289 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 12
• Review of Current Practices
The management plan needs to provide the context that links background information and
previous actions to existing activities and practices. It should report the current work plan (e.g.
conservation, planting, stewardship), along with those responsible for the work (e.g. government
departments, community organizations, a tree board). Current planning documents and
code/ordinances that apply to trees should be included or summarized.
• Plan Goals and Objectives
The management plan establishes a framework of long-term, comprehensive intentions, and
becomes the “road map” for future actions. Clear goals and objectives provide a consistency
and continuity of purpose and outcome over an extended time period.
• Implementation Actions and Timeline
Specific actions to meet the goals and objectives must be included, with detailed specifications
as to who will do the work and timelines for accomplishment, with phases of work coinciding
with the community’s budget cycle. Programs should be monitored so that outcomes can be
measured over time, providing feedback on effectiveness and efficiency of the work plan. Goals
and actions may need periodic adjustment to reflect updated information and conditions.
Adaptive management through a monitoring and feedback informational loop will produce best
results over time.
• Appendices
Appendices provide technical documentation to support the plan’s assessment and
implementation efforts. This reference material may be too complex or lengthy to present in the
main body of the document.
6. ELEMENTS OF A COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE
While the Task Force did not have time to fully develop model community and urban forestry
ordinances, commonly referred to as “tree ordinances”, the following elements are important
considerations in developing a program that supports healthy urban forests and the ecological,
social and economic benefits they confer. Elements may be scaled to the size and needs of the
community, depending on resources available and support dedicated to community and urban
forestry programming.
A well-crafted community and urban forestry ordinance should include discussion and support of
these items:
• Establishment of priorities for tree removal and replacement, possibly placing more
rigorous standards for higher valued trees and higher functioning forests
• Conflict resolution
• Cross-referencing to other local, state and federal policies
• Inclusion of urban forestry policy in the community’s Comprehensive Plan
• Tree recognition program (i.e. significant trees, historical trees, Tree City USA)
• Incentives for tree retention and tree maintenance (tax credits, etc.)
• References to existing professional, accredited maintenance and management
standards and best management practices rather than including technical detail in the
ordinance itself
Packet Page 290 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
13 June 2009
Elements listed below include several important points that the Task Force recommends for
consideration in addition to those listed in Section 12 of the Act. The underlying purpose of each
element is described, considerations are discussed, and references to existing programs, code
language or other helpful resources are given where appropriate examples are available. A
community may develop topics or elements in addition to those listed, based on their own needs
or desires; if such additional items are included in a management plan or policy statement, be
sure that they are addressed in the related ordinance. Further ordinance-writing references and
guides may be found in the Resources section at the end of this document.
• General Purpose Statement
Purpose: A clear purpose statement is an important organizing element in an effective tree
ordinance. It states the reason for having a tree ordinance as part of an community and urban
forestry program, and sets the overarching goals of the program.
Considerations: A tree ordinance provides the legal authority to manage and maintain
community and urban forests. Clearly identify which trees are regulated by the tree ordinance:
public, private, those on the right of ways, in parks, in city jurisdiction, etc.
References:
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Ordinance Guidelines1
Model Tree Ordinances For Louisiana Communities2 - scroll down to Section 2
Lacey Title 14.32.0203 Purposes and permit criteria
• Tree Canopy Cover
Purpose: For the past decade, the benefits of urban forestry (stormwater/runoff
abatement, pollution, shade) have been quantified through analysis of tree canopy cover
for a community, with optimal percentages proposed for various land uses, as well as
target coverages for a community working toward realizing maximum benefit from its
urban forest. A goal that states an optimal percentage of tree canopy cover that a
community wants to pursue will further support its ordinance and urban forestry program.
Considerations: Canopy coverage goals should be included in purpose and intent
sections of an ordinance as an overall goal.
References:
DNR’s TAC inventory and assessment report4
American Forests Ecosystem Analysis5
NCDC Imagining, Inc. projects6
• Tree Conservation and Retention
Purpose: Tree conservation encompasses all aspects of tree management – installation,
maintenance, retention, preservation, removal and replacement. Tree ordinance
components and requirements must point to the ultimate goal of appropriate tree
conservation to ensure optimal benefit and provide a firm basis for continuing tree care
and public education.
1 http://www.isa-arbor.com/publications/tree-ord/ordprt1a.aspx#Goals
2 http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/modeltree.htm
3 http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/lmc/lmc_main_page.html
4 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/urbanforestry/pages/rp_urban_eca_tac.aspx
5 http://www.americanforests.org/resources/rea/
6 http://www.ncdcimaging.com/page.asp?id=175&name=Projects
Packet Page 291 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 14
Considerations: Retention and conservation goals should be included in purpose and
intent sections of an ordinance as an overall goal.
References:
Olympia Title 16.561 Landmark Tree Protection
Olympia Title 16.602 Tree density protection and replacement
Bellevue Title 20.20.9003 Tree retention and replacement
• Tree Density
Purpose: Promoting a target tree density in a community helps to further conservation
efforts toward optimal tree canopy cover.
Considerations: Minimum tree densities are typically required for sites under
development or redevelopment, when appropriate, to ensure a minimum canopy
coverage is achieved through a combination of retention, allowable removal and
required replacement. Other opportunities to address tree density occur when tree
removal is requested that is not related to development. Examples of density
measurements include actual measurements of tree crowns through aerial photography
analysis, stem counts that enumerate actual trees, and diameter measurements that
correlate to predetermined “tree units”. The most popular is the diameter measurement
due to ease of administration and a reasonable correlation of density to a common
measure.
References:
Vancouver Title Section 20.770.0804 Tree Density Requirement
Kirkland Title 95.355 Tree Retention, Protection and Density
Olympia Title 16.60.0806 Tree density requirement
• Tree Spacing
Purpose: Tree spacing ensures adequate space for individual trees to grow, develop and thrive
in order to provide the highest possible benefit and services.
Considerations: Growing space both above and below ground must be considered. It is best to
link to outside documents (such as American National Standards Institute [ANSI]
standards, BMPs, etc.), rather than spell out detailed specifications in the ordinance itself, as
this allows for more flexibility and more timely updates as best practices improve through
research, and precludes the need to amend the ordinance for such changes.
References:
street tree specifications from other jurisdictions
public works street specifications and standards
experienced urban forestry consultants
1 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/
2 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/
3 http://www.cityofbellevue.org/bellcode/Bluc2020.html#20.20.900
4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_20&ch
apter=770&VMC=080.html
5 http://kirklandcode.ecitygov.net/KirklandZC_html/kzc95.html#95.35]
6 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org
Packet Page 292 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
15 June 2009
• Vegetated Stormwater Runoff Management
Purpose: Trees and associated vegetation coverage are directly linked to stormwater mitigation
and should be aligned during planning to ensure proper placement of increased community and
urban tree cover in order to reduce and filter stormwater runoff.
Considerations: Consult with local, state, regional and/or federal stormwater management
manuals for guidance. Prioritize locations for tree and vegetation retention and replacement; for
example, stormwater facilities and buffers for sensitive areas can be high priority locations for
retention and replacement efforts. Trees intercept and store precipitation in leaves and bark, as
well as storing water in trunk, twig and leaf tissues. For example, a mature Douglas-fir may hold
up to 300 gallons of water throughout its structure.
References:
Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Manual for Western Washington1
DOE Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington2
US Environmental Protection Agency report, “Using Smart Growth Techniques as
Stormwater Best Management Practices3,” identifies urban tree canopy as an innovative
and sustainable means to dramatically reduce stormwater runoff and the costs
associated with stormwater management.
• Clearing, Grading, Protection of Soils
Purpose: Vegetation protects soils, provides permanent erosion control and reduces surface
stormwater runoff. Erosion control should be specified for projects requiring manipulation of the
soil in order to preserve this precious resource to the best extent possible. Clearing for new
development must take into consideration not only possible required tree retention, but ensuring
that tree tracts preserve the best trees in the healthiest way possible within the site constraints.
Manipulation of the soil such as grading has potential detrimental impacts on tree roots, and
should be conducted in accordance with best management practices for protection of critical
root zones.
Considerations: Consult with stormwater manuals for information about clearing and grading
impacts. Protection of water quality is a major consideration in developing erosion control
specifications. Protection of the critical root zone around urban trees during construction,
planting, and maintenance will help to preserve their health and structural integrity to ensure
maximum ecological benefit and ongoing safety.
References:
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification for
Road Bridge and Municipal Work4, 1-07.16(2)
WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual5
City of Olympia Urban Forestry Manual6
1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510029.html
2 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410076.html
3 http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/sg_stormwater_BMP.pdf
4 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/M41-10.htm
5 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M31-16/HighwayRunoff.pdf
6 http://www.olympiawa.gov/city-government/departments/community-planning-and-development/forms-
and-brochures-cpd.aspx#Urban
Packet Page 293 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 16
• Appropriate Tree Selection and Siting
Purpose: Planting the “Right Tree in the Right Place” eliminates many potential future conflicts,
particularly with overhead utilities. With the advent of solar and wind-generated power, it
becomes even more important to plan tree planting locations and choose an appropriate tree
variety. Maintenance costs may be considerably reduced through choosing varieties that are not
only of correct size and shape, but are adapted to local climate and conditions. Tree care costs
related to pest and disease control and irrigation may be significantly reduced through selecting
trees appropriate to the local conditions.
Considerations: An ordinance should link to a list of recommended trees rather than contain it,
so that the list may be reviewed and updated as new information becomes available. Some
jurisdictions find it useful to also have a “prohibited” or “restricted use” list of tree varieties to
reduce the use of problematic or invasive trees. Adequate growing space both above and below
ground will ensure well-shaped trees that are healthier and structurally safer for maximum
cost/benefit. Line-of-sight standards and utility constraints must be considered when siting trees;
guidelines for utility-appropriate trees are typically available through utility providers or
wholesale nurseries. ANSI A300 standards for nursery stock may be linked to the ordinance to
ensure quality young trees are provided for projects; minimum size standards for different
planting types (i.e., street tree planting, reforestation/restoration planting) may be indicated as
well.
References:
“The Right Tree for the Right Place” – Tree City USA Bulletin #41, The Arbor Day
Foundation
ISA BMP - Tree Planting2
Refer to local public works standards for line-of-sight clearances, side sewers, water
lines, and any on-site drainage requirements.
Consult with utilities regarding potential utility conflicts.
Check tree selection and spacing guidelines in tree manuals and nursery publications.
• Native Species and Non-native Species Diversity
Purpose: Diversity of tree ages and species ensures a healthier, more resilient ecosystem
capable of responding more easily to insect and disease threats, and changes in climate and
other environmental conditions.
Considerations: Planting native vegetation species should be encouraged where appropriate;
however, in many urban settings, native soils and hydrology have been severely impacted.
Native tree species may be less capable of coping with urban stresses than introduced
varieties. To the extent possible, match what is known of the native habitat of a tree species
with existing conditions. Consult with surrounding communities and the Washington State
University Cooperative Extension Service (WSU Extension) to avoid introducing invasive tree
species. Jurisdictions should plan for diversity in planting to avoid losing major tree canopy
through epidemic disease such as Dutch elm disease or infestation such as emerald ash borer.
An up-to-date inventory can help to plan continuing tree planting efforts in order to maintain tree
age diversity as well.
1 http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=129
2 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Planting-
P256C59.aspx
Packet Page 294 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
17 June 2009
References:
Local knowledge of successful tree species and varieties is extremely helpful.
Local nurseries, the WSU Extension and Master Gardeners are useful resources.
Experienced urban forestry consultants
• Centralized Tree Management
Purpose: This element ensures that there is a responsible party to administer and enforce the
code, as well as carry out the planning and maintenance activities described elsewhere in the
ordinance and/or management plan.
Considerations: A department, tree commission or board, or designated staff position must be
given the authority to manage the urban forestry program. There may additionally be a
requirement that all departments that perform work related to trees (including planning, street
and sidewalk maintenance, signs and signals, public utilities, transportation, parks, field
inspectors, etc.) shall coordinate efforts and perform work to the same standards. Several
jurisdictions further add that “no person may prevent, delay or interfere with this person,
department, or any city employee in the administration or enforcement of this ordinance.”
References:
Vancouver Chapter 12.021 URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION
Walla Walla Chapter 12.49.0302 Municipal arborist – Duties and powers
Everett Section 8.40.0703 Tree committee
• Tree Maintenance
Purpose: Correct, timely maintenance of trees protects the public’s investment in the urban
forest resource and enhances the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The community
and urban forest constitutes a vital environmental, historic, visual, and economic resource that
provides benefits to all who live, work, play and shop in a community.
Considerations: Clearly identify who is responsible for tree maintenance. In some jurisdictions
the property owner is responsible for public trees adjacent to his/her property; in others the local
jurisdiction is responsible for all public tree maintenance. Permitting may be required of
residents for work they wish to perform to trees regulated by the local community. Professional
standards such as those outlined in the ANSI A300 standards for tree care and maintenance
should be linked to the ordinance, and enforced. All departments that perform work related to
trees should be fully trained in proper maintenance activities and coordinate efforts. Standards
and specifications should reference not only street trees, but all trees on publicly-owned
properties (parks, stormwater facilities, etc.). Some jurisdictions require all tree workers working
within their boundaries to be certified by a professional arboricultural organization.
References:
ISA BMP – Tree Pruning4
ISA BMP – Integrated Pest Management5
1thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch
apter=02&VMC=index.html
2 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/WallaWalla/wallawalla12/wallawalla1249.html#12.49.035
3 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/everett/everet08/everet0840.html#8.40.070
4 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Pruning-
P177C59.aspx
5 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Integrated-Pest-
Management-P308C59.aspx
Packet Page 295 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 18
ISA BMP – Tree and Shrub Fertilization1
Vancouver Chapter 12.042 STREET TREES
ANSI A300 standards – Integrated Vegetation Management, Pruning and Fertilization3
Everett Chapter 8.40.0404 Management program
Port Orchard Municipal Code §16.20.7005 - View Protection Overlay District
• Street Tree Installation and Maintenance
Purpose: The points made above in “Appropriate Tree Selection and Siting” and “Tree
Maintenance” apply here as well, with the additional responsibility of managing trees in
corridors of high traffic volume and greater potential risk to public safety.
Considerations: Developers of new residential and commercial development are responsible in
many jurisdictions for planting street trees, but bear no further responsibility for maintenance or
care. A few jurisdictions require performance bonds ranging from 3 to 5 years to ensure
adequate establishment of required tree plantings. In some jurisdictions, property owners have
the responsibility to install and maintain street trees and reduce tree related hazards. However,
due to increased risk management issues, many jurisdictions prefer to install, maintain, and
care for street trees themselves, particularly on major arterials. Proper selection, installation,
siting, and maintenance has been shown to significantly reduce risk associated with street trees
in high traffic corridors, as well as potentially increasing the services and benefits that such
trees provide. Minimum standards for quality and size must be provided, and enforced.
References:
ISA BMP – Tree Planting6
ISA BMP – Tree Pruning7
ISA BMP – Integrated Pest Management8
ISA BMP – Tree and Shrub Fertilization9
Vancouver Title12.0410 STREET TREES
Olympia Title 1211 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES
Edmonds Chapter 18.8512 STREET TREES
1 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-and-Shrub-
Fertilization-P174C59.aspx
2thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch
apter=04&VMC=index.html
3 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Combo-packages-C36.aspx
4 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/everett/everet08/everet0840.html#8.40.040
5 http://www.cityofportorchard.us/docs/city_clerk/Land_use_devl_reg.pdf
6 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Planting-
P256C59.aspx
7 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Pruning-
P177C59.aspx
8 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Integrated-Pest-
Management-P308C59.aspx
9 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-and-Shrub-
Fertilization-P174C59.aspx
10thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&c
hapter=04&VMC=index.html
11 http://www.olympiamunicipalcode.org/A55799/Oly-muni-
PUBLIC.nsf/1.%20Title/Chapter?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=12.12]
12 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds18/edmonds1885.html
Packet Page 296 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
19 June 2009
• Tree and Vegetation Buffers
Purpose: Healthy and sustainable vegetated buffers help to ensure optimal functionality of
wetlands, riparian zones and similar locations. Well-planned tree retention tracts and buffers
reduce utility conflict through assessment and analysis of potential locations within a
development site.
Considerations: Planning and design for tree and vegetation buffers must consider the inherent
risk to transportation and utility corridors, as well as potential risk to homes, schools, hospitals
and other structures. Jurisdictions should work closely with local utility providers to identify utility
corridors and coordinate planning and development of retained tree tracts and buffers. Long,
narrow tracts or buffers consisting of retained native trees should be avoided, as these are
particularly prone to windthrow once the supporting stand has been removed. Retention of
single trees has not been successful over the long term using dense development standards;
such individual trees tend to sustain considerable root damage during construction and are
easily blown over due to both root damage and to loss of the supporting stand.
References:
Buffer requirements for sensitive areas may be found in community development and
critical area codes
Riparian buffer regulations
Consult with local utility foresters to learn more about local utility concerns and issues.
• Tree Assessments for Site Permitting
Purpose: Assessment and evaluation of trees and tree stands during site planning and
permitting ensures retention of healthy trees in the most appropriate manner, as well as
adequate protection of viable trees during the development and construction processes.
Considerations: A complete forestry report by a qualified professional that contains an inventory
of trees on the site and discusses the health, structural integrity and risk assessment should be
part of the permitting process for new development and/or redevelopment. Trees adjacent to the
development site that may be impacted by development and/or construction processes should
be included in the documentation. Particular site-related issues that may impact the long-term
viability of the retained tree tract (steep slopes, laminated root rot, etc.) should be noted and
discussed in detail. Long, narrow tracts or buffers consisting of retained native trees should be
avoided, as these are particularly prone to windthrow once the supporting stand has been
removed. Retention of single trees within a development have not been shown to be successful
over the long term; such individual trees tend to sustain considerable root damage during
construction and are easily blown over due to both root damage and to loss of the supporting
stand.
References:
Kirkland Chapter 95.351 Tree Retention, Protection and Density
Olympia Chapter 16.60.0502 Tree plan required
Vancouver Section 20.770.0503 Tree Plan Required
1 http://kirklandcode.ecitygov.net/KirklandZC_html/kzc95.html#95.35
2 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/
3thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_20&ch
apter=770&VMC=050.html
Packet Page 297 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 20
• Tree Protection During Construction
Purpose: Protecting existing trees from damage or removal on a site is important in retaining the
ecosystem services those trees contribute to the community. Protecting trees during
construction ensures that trees identified as having long-term benefit to the community retain
their health and structural integrity, which is necessary for continued public health and safety.
Considerations: Trees and their root systems require protection from disturbance and
compaction during construction in order to remain healthy and safe. The ISA has developed a
“rule of thumb” guideline for the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) area of retained trees that should be
protected from construction impacts: one foot from the base of the trunk (radius) for each one
inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade. Several jurisdictions have detailed specifications
for protection measures, including fencing of the CRZ during construction, especially on new
construction. Missing or inadequate safeguards may render a tree tract hazardous through
damage to trunks and roots, thereby raising risk factors to an unacceptable level.
References:
ISA BMP – Managing Trees During Construction1
WSDOT Standard Specification for Road Bridge and Municipal Work2, 1-07.16(2)
Vegetation Protection and Restoration
Redmond Chapter 20D.80.20-1003 Protection Measures
Olympia Chapter 16.60.0904 Tree protection during construction
City of Olympia Urban Forestry Manual5
• Forest Condition for Different Land Use Types
Purpose: This element is intended to provide options and a range of forestry opportunities for
the possible range of land uses in communities.
Considerations: Community and urban forests consisting of different species, sizes, densities,
percent canopy coverage, and heights may be indicated for different land use zones, such as
residential, commercial, parks, etc. A jurisdiction may also incorporate additional opportunities,
such as the retention of existing trees on site, supplemental planting, or the creation of stands of
trees. Vancouver and Kirkland have different retention requirements for single-family, multi-
family and commercial. Maintenance and management of view corridor planning overlays, if
identified, must be taken into consideration as well.
References:
Bellevue Chapter 20.20.9006 Tree retention and replacement. Sections D, E, F, and G
contain different requirements for differently zoned development.
Clyde Hill Chapter 17.387 View Protection and Tree Removal
1 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-BMP-Managing-Trees-During-
Construction-P394C59.aspx
2 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/M41-10.htm
3 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20D8020.html#20D.80.20-100
4 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/
5 http://www.olympiawa.gov/city-government/departments/community-planning-and-development/forms-
and-brochures-cpd.aspx#Urban
6 http://www.cityofbellevue.org/bellcode/Bluc2020.html#20.20.900
7 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/clydehill/clyde17.pdf#Page=31
Packet Page 298 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
21 June 2009
• Public Education and Support
Purpose: Urban forestry can be a powerful tool to aid in building strong, vital, sustainable
communities. Establishing an environmental and stewardship ethic helps bring the importance
of the tree canopy—a community asset that functions for the common good—to the forefront of
public awareness. Such awareness is important to create and foster ongoing support for future
program development and needs.
Considerations: Development of a citizen tree board or commission in addition to municipal staff
can be useful in implementing educational programs and soliciting community engagement in
urban forestry programming. Celebrate Arbor Day. Partner with local organizations such as
schools, garden clubs or libraries to provide educational events. While the level of public
education and outreach will be largely dependent on jurisdiction’s resources, explore
partnerships with local organizations to increase outreach potential. A public well-educated
about best tree maintenance practices will be more engaged in day-to-day care of the
community-based forestry resource.
References:
“Handbook for Tree Board Members” – available through the Arbor Day Foundation1
“Trees Are Good2” - ISA public education website
Alliance for Community Trees3
• Tree Account
Purpose: A dedicated tree account will allow penalties, fines, fees or payments in lieu of
required planting and/or donations to be directly received by the urban forestry program in order
to be used by the program for replanting, maintenance, additional planting, education and other
activities.
Considerations: Financial challenges are an ongoing concern for most community and urban
forestry programs. A mechanism to capture funds associated with regulating a community’s
trees provides a method to leverage those funds from tree-related fines, fees, etc. to increase
the efficacy of the overall program. Some jurisdictions also provide for replacement fees or fines
based on appraised replacement value of trees that have been damaged on publicly-owned
property through vehicle collision or vandalism.
References:
Vancouver Title 20.770.0404 City Tree Account
Lacey Title 14.32.066(B)5 City Tree Account
Olympia 16.60.0456 City tree account
• Permits and Appeals
Purpose: Permits provide a standardized platform to review and approve or deny tree-related
actions to ensure quality and consistency of the work. An appeal process should be linked to
any permitting process, to provide for equitable conflict resolution.
1 http://www.arborday.org
2 http://www.treesaregood.org
3 http://actrees.org/site/index.php
4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_20&ch
apter=770&VMC=040.html
5 http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/lmc/lmc_main_page.html
6 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/
Packet Page 299 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 22
Considerations: Permits may be required for removal, planting, pruning or any other tree-related
work within the right-of-way at a minimum or be more far-reaching, as desired by the
community. Some jurisdictions require that any and all tree work performed within jurisdictional
borders must be performed by a tree worker certified by a professional arboricultural
organization. Some jurisdictions require permits for tree work performed on private property as
well, at no charge, in order to have the opportunity to review the intended work. Particularly in
the case of tree removals, staff may use this opportunity to educate the consumer on other
options that may be available, as well as discuss minimum tree density requirements with the
consumer, if such exist.
References:
Vancouver Section 12.04.0401 Street tree work permit
Walla Walla Section 12.49.2002 Appeals
Lacey Section 14.32.0403 Permits
• Enforcement and Penalties
Purpose: Ordinances must have enforcement capabilities in order to be effective. Penalties help
ensure compliance and may require restitution, such as civil fines or site restoration, for non-
compliance.
Considerations: Incentives and education may render enforcement obsolete; however, it is
always wise to have enforcement capability associated with a tree ordinance to protect this
valuable community resource most effectively. Because enforcement happens within an urban
area, fines and fees should be calculated on appraised landscape value rather than wildland
timber value. Fines, fees or other restitution or penalties should be received by the Tree
Account to be used to support the urban forestry program, as detailed earlier in this document in
the discussion of Tree Accounts.
References:
Vancouver Title 12.04.1004 Enforcement
“Guide for Plant Appraisals, 9th Edition” - Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers,
available through the ISA5
Olympia Chapter 16.58.0706 Penalties
• Alternative Compliance
Purpose: Other approaches that incorporate ‘green’ elements into a site design may be offered
for review; alternatively, a site that cannot comply with the provisions of the ordinance but does
or can provide benefits as stated in the purpose/intent section of the ordinance will have the
legal opportunity to offer valid options.
Considerations: Requests to use alternative measures and procedures should be reviewed by
the staff responsible for urban forestry programming to ensure that issues and concerns are
adequately covered. Examples include retaining specimen or landmark trees or low impact
1thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch
apter=04&VMC=040.html
2 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/WallaWalla/wallawalla12/wallawalla1249.html#12.49.200
3 http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/lmc/title_14/chapter_14-32.htm
4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch
apter=04&VMC=100.html
5 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore
6 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/
Packet Page 300 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
23 June 2009
development techniques, including such programs as Green Building Design or Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which demonstrate a significant reduction to
stormwater runoff from the site.
References:
Kirkland Zoning Code Chapter 95.251 Alternative Compliance
Redmond Chapter 20D.80.10-0302 Unique or Special Circumstances
• Alternatives for Safety
Purpose: Potential high-risk situations must be addressed in an orderly manner to preserve
public safety. This element should provide criteria by which a community or its citizens may
remove trees on both public and private property which are deemed to be a severe risk to public
safety and critical infrastructure.
Considerations: Trees identified as “hazardous” or “at risk” should be identified as such by a
certified arborist using a validated method whenever possible. Owners of trees deemed to be an
imminent hazard on private property should be notified prior to removal or abatement whenever
possible. Procedures for tree removals or other hazard abatement processes should be clear
and flexible to protect public and property safety in the event of emergency situations.
References:
“A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas” - Metheny and
Clark, 1994.
“Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface3”
Vancouver Chapter 12.084 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION
• Alternatives and Exemptions for Utility Companies
Purpose: Washington State requires utilities to provide for “the safe and uninterrupted delivery
of service.” Cooperation among jurisdictions, citizens and local utility providers is essential to
meet this requirement and still retain healthy, viable trees, and vegetation.
Considerations: Utility providers may be granted ‘self-permitting’ privileges with an annual
review of work to be accomplished within a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions and utility providers may
collaborate on arboricultural training for utility workers and public outreach and education to
consumers. Utility providers must be exempt, within reason, from lengthy review and permitting
processes during storm events and emergency response. Exemptions or a high degree of
cooperation are required for utilities in order to meet certain federal standards in conjunction
with state and local mandates with regard to tree pruning and removal practices along critical
infrastructure. An annual integrated vegetation management plan may be useful in addressing
such issues in a positive, time-sensitive fashion. Street tree work should be coordinated with
utility providers and local public works departments, including both above- and belowground
disturbance such as trenching, pipe installation, curb cuts, sidewalk installation, sign installation,
etc., and traffic control when needed.
1 http://kirklandcode.ecitygov.net/KirklandZC_html/kzc95.html#95.25
2 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20D8010.html#20D.80.10-030
3 http://www.pnwisa.org/TRACEBulletin.pdf
4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch
apter=08&VMC=index.html
Packet Page 301 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 24
References:
ANSI A300 Part 1: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance--Standard
Practices, Pruning1
ISA BMP - Utility Pruning of Trees2
“Trees and Overhead Electric Wires: Proper Pruning and Selection” – available through
ISA3
• Variance to Address Conflicts
Purpose: Clear criteria and an equitable process should be designed for parties to work toward
resolving conflicts involving trees and other structures such as solar panels, wind towers, view
corridors, and utilities. Such criteria should enable a conversation about the benefits and
contributions of trees that lead to a practical and workable alternative solution to removal
without replacement.
Considerations: Ordinances dealing with this issue emphasize a conflict resolution process
rather than litigation. Proper valuation of the benefits and services of trees must be taken into
consideration. The lifespan of the impacted tree versus the lifespan of the proposed structure
should also be considered.
Reference:
Clyde Hill Chapter 17.384 View Protection and Tree Removal
Redmond Section 20D.80.10-0305 Unique or Special Circumstances
• Definitions
Purpose: A section of definitions will provide clarification for terminology in ordinance elements,
so that all users understand concepts and principles contained in the code without uncertainty
regarding technical jargon.
Considerations: Definitions should be simple and accurate, and reflect the intent of the
ordinance.
7. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION
Section 6 of the Evergreen Communities Act sets out the framework for an evergreen
communities recognition program, codified in RCW 35.105.0306, which builds upon the existing
Tree City USA program, created and administered nationally by The Arbor Day Foundation.
While the Task Force did not have time to fully develop a recognition program, the following
considerations are essential to a future program that supports healthy urban forests and the
ecological, social and economic benefits they confer. Further development of program criteria
and establishment of the recognition program will resume when funding is restored.
1 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/ANSI-A300-Pruning-Standard-2008-Edition-P20C21.aspx
2 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Utility-Pruning-of-Trees-
P230C59.aspx
3 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Trees-and-Overhead-Electric-Wires-Proper-Pruning-and-
Selection-P26.aspx
4 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/clydehill/clyde17.pdf#Page=31
5 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20D8010.html#20D.80.10-030
6 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.030
Packet Page 302 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
25 June 2009
• The award program should enable every Washington State community (city, town, county or
tribe) to attain recognition.
• Outstanding achievement should be rewarded with higher recognition.
• The recognition program should provide for flexibility concerning community context, rather
than a list of absolutes uniformly applied across all communities.
A. BASIC EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION
The first four steps toward attaining Evergreen Community status as described in the ECA are
essentially the same as the four requirements to become a Tree City USA, and will be
applicable to all jurisdictions including those not currently eligible for the Tree City USA
program:
• The development and implementation of a tree board, tree department, or responsible
department;
• The development of a tree care ordinance;
• The implementation of a community forestry program with an annual budget of at least
two dollars ($2) for every resident; and
• Official recognition of Arbor Day through a celebration and proclamation by the mayor or
other community dignitary.
The Task Force strongly urges any community interested in participating in the Evergreen
Communities Program and its incentives to begin by implementing the Tree City USA
standards, with or without recognition through the Arbor Day Foundation.
Basic evergreen communities recognition as laid out in the ECA requires a fifth step in addition
to the four above:
• The completion of an updated community and urban forest inventory for the city, town, tribe
or county or the formal adoption of an inventory developed for the city, town, tribe or county
by the DNR (RCW 76.15.0701).
B. PROGRAM-BUILDING STEPS
A second graduated step of designation as an Evergreen Community includes adoption of
evergreen community management plans and ordinances that exceed the minimum
standards adopted under RCW 35.105.0502. While development of criteria and programming
toward this step and any other additional graduated steps wait upon renewed funding of the
ECA, the Task Force offers the following approach toward building an evergreen communities
recognition program when funding becomes available.
A 3-tiered (or “step” as described in the legislation) system of awards is recommended, similar
in concept to LEED certification rankings of Silver, Gold, and Platinum. A community is
recognized as it completes each step’s designated product, while maintaining the requirements
for all prior steps that are achieved, thus building integrated urban forestry programming that
builds strength upon strength incrementally.
The Task Force believes that this proposal lays out a framework for an evergreen communities
recognition program that potentially:
• enables every Washington community to attain recognition, but also rewards ever higher
achievement;
1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15.070
2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.050
Packet Page 303 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 26
• provides for flexibility concerning community context by offering a palette of choices or
options, rather than a uniformly applied list of requirements across all sizes and types of
communities; and
• builds excellence in urban forestry programming that is integrated into long-range
community planning through preferential access to a wide range of State grant and loan
opportunities.
• Step 1
The first step of recognition is
explicitly defined in the ECA
and largely adopts the
requirements of the Tree City
USA designation as described
above, then adds a tree
inventory requirement.
Because Tree City USA is
currently available only to
cities and towns, these
recognition requirements will
be adapted to apply to
counties and other non-
municipal jurisdictions as well.
• Step 2
The ECA then specifies that
the second graduated step
must include adoption of an urban forestry management plan. This step should include an
update to the tree ordinance that is part of Step 1 in order to address the management plan’s
vision and goals.
• Step 3
Finally, the ECA states that the “department may require additional graduated steps and
establish the minimum requirements for each.” The Task Force proposes a third step, in which a
community must adopt an urban forest management plan with higher level visions and goals,
and update the tree ordinance to address those. This highest level of recognition would
acknowledge continuing excellence in urban forestry programming that is comprehensive and
visionary in tree policy, programs, and actions.
Under this vision of the recognition program, Step 3, and to some extent Step 2, would reward
increasingly expanded urban forestry programming that addresses:
• planning, protection, conservation and management of trees and forest groves on private
property as well as public properties; and
• planning and management of trees and forest groves to develop higher percentages of
community canopy coverage and performance of ecosystem services.
C. RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The Task Force recognizes that each of these steps represents a substantial commitment of
staff and administration by a community. Renewed full funding of the ECA will ensure that
resources and assistance will be available to communities. Section 3 of the ECA (RCW
PLUS
Packet Page 304 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
27 June 2009
76.15.0701) indicates that the DNR will conduct a statewide community and urban forestry
inventory and that these data will be made available to communities as the inventory proceeds.
Sections 8 and 19 (RCW 35.105.0402; RCW 76.15.0303) provide for grants and technical
assistance to communities for inventories, management plans, and code development when the
Program is fully funded. Section 9 (RCW 35.105.0504) provides for the development of model
management plans and ordinances by CTED and the Task Force to serve as guides for the
development of locally appropriate urban forestry management plans and tree ordinances.
D. INCENTIVES
Sections 26 through 30 of the ECA list a wide variety of infrastructure and environmental grants
and loans available through several State agencies that will provide preferential consideration to
applications from communities that have achieved recognition as evergreen communities.
• Section 26 (RCW 43.155.0705) – Grants and project funding through the Public Works
Board
• Section 27 (RCW 70.146.0706) – Water pollution control grants or loans
• Section 28 (RCW 89.08.5207) – Water quality improvement and habitat protection grants
• Section 29 (RCW 79.105.1508) – Aquatic lands enhancement project funding through the
recreation and conservation funding board
• Section 30 (RCW 79A.15.0409) – Habitat conservation grants or project funding through the
recreation and conservation funding board
These incentives will become operational one year after adoption of the model management
plans and ordinances developed by CTED staff and the Task Force; as with the rest of the ECA,
this portion is on hold due to budget constraints.
1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15.070
2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.040
3 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15.030
4 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.050
5 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.155.070
6 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.146.070
7 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=89.08.520
8 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.105.150
9 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79A.15.040
Packet Page 305 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 28
8. REFERENCES
AIRnow. 2007. Quality of Air Means Quality of Life. Washington, D.C. Available online at
http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=jump.jump_ozone.
Akbari H., S.E. Bretz, D.M. Kurn and J.W. Hanford. 1997. Peak Power And Cooling Energy
Savings Of Shade Trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139-148.
Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine Riparian Vegetative Communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound
Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-02. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District, Seattle, WA.
EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. 2007.
Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound, An Interim Guide. October
2007. Page II - 42.
Kuo, F. E. 2003. The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology. Journal of Arboriculture
29(3):148-155.
Laverne, R. J., and K. Winson-Geideman. 2003. The Influence of Trees and Landscaping on
Rental Rates at Office Buildings. Journal of Arboriculture 29(5):281-290.
Schwab, James. 2009. Branching Out. Planning Magazine, March 2009, 11-15. American
Planning Association.
Schwab, James, ed. March 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and
Community Development. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service,
Report Number 555. 154 pp.
Wolf, K. L. 2004. Trees, Parking and Green Law: Strategies for Sustainability. Stone Mountain,
GA. Georgia Forestry Commission, Urban and Community Forestry. Available online at
http://www.naturewithin.info/transportation.html.
Wolf, K. L. 2006. Roadside Urban Trees: Balancing Safety and Community Values. Arborist
News, December 2006, 15(6 ) pp. 56-58.
Wolf, K.L. 2007. City Trees and Property Values. Arborist News, August 2007, pp. 34-36.
Wolf, K.L. 2008a. With Plants in Mind: Social Benefits of Civic Nature. MasterGardener, Winter
2008, 2(1) 7-11.
Wolf, K.L. 2008b. City Trees, Nature and Physical Activity: A Research Review. Arborist News,
17, 1:22-24.
Wolf, K.L. 2009. More in Store: Research on City Trees and Retail. Arborist News 18, 2: 22-27.
Packet Page 306 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
29 June 2009
9. URBAN FORESTRY RESOURCES
GENERAL URBAN FORESTRY REFERENCE
A City Among the Trees: an urban forestry resource guide. City of Seattle Urban Forest
Coalition. October 1998. In collaboration with Arai/Jackson Architects & Planners. 204
pp.
A Handbook for Tree Board Members. Gene W. Grey. 1993. The National Arbor Day
Foundation. 50 pp.
A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. J. R. Clark, N. P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake.
January 1997. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1 ): 17 – 30. Available online at
www.naturewithin.info/Policy/ClarkSstnabltyModel.pdf.
A Technical Guide to Urban and Community Forestry in Washington, Oregon and California.
World Forestry Center, Portland, OR, and Robin Morgan, urban forestry consultant.
March 1993. In partnership with USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Pacific
Southwest Regions, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Oregon
Department of Forestry, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 49
pp.
Community Forestry and Urban Growth: A Toolbox for Incorporating Urban Forestry Elements
into Community Plans. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. December
1994. In partnership with USDA Forest Service and Washington Community Forestry
Council. 19 pp.
Department of Natural Resources Urban and Community Forestry Program website online at
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/UrbanForestry/Pages/rp_urban_comma
ndurbanforestry.aspx.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington Urban Forestry webpages online at
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/urbanforest/urbtrees.aspx.
Northern Mountain and Prairie Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting.
McPherson, E.G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Q. Xiao, S.E. Maco, and P.J. Hoefer. 2003.
Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station. 92 pp. Appropriate for northeastern Washington. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/tree_guides.php.
Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. James C.
Schwab, general editor. March 2009. American Planning Association Planning Advisory
Service, Report Number 555. 154 pp.
Temperate Interior West Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting.
Vargas, K. E.; E. G. McPherson, J. R. Simpson, P. J. Peper, S. L. Gardner, Q. Xiao.
2007 General Technical Report PSW-GTR-206. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 108 p. Appropriate for
southeastern Washington. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/tree_guides.php.
Packet Page 307 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 30
Urban & Community Forestry: A Practical Guide to Sustainability. James R. Fazio. 2003. The
National Arbor Day Foundation. 75 pp. Available online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=81.
Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic
Planning. McPherson, E.G., S.E. Maco, J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Q. Xiao, A.M.
VanDerZanden and N. Bell. 2002. General Technical Report International Society of
Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter. 76pp. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/tree_guides.php.
INVENTORY AND CANOPY ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
How to Conduct a Street Tree Inventory – Tree City USA Bulletin #23; available through the
Arbor Day Foundation online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=108.
Placing a Value on Trees – Tree City USA Bulletin #28; available through the Arbor Day
Foundation online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=113.
Public Property Tree Inventory and Assessment Report, March 2007. City of Renton. 67 pp.
Available online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=16702.
STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE
Guidelines for Developing Urban & Community Forestry Plans, Strategic Plans & Management
Plans for Street and Park Tree Management. Vermont Urban and Community Forestry
Program. 23 pp. Available online at http://www.vtfpr.org/urban/documents/PlanGuid.pdf.
How to Plan for Management – Tree City USA Bulletin #29; available through the Arbor Day
Foundation online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=114.
How to Fund Community Forestry – Tree City USA Bulletin #34; available through the Arbor
Day Foundation online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=118.
Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: A Technical Guide to
Developing Urban Forestry Strategic Plans & Urban Forest Management Plans.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry. 28 pp. Available
online at
http://www.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-
4.pdf.
COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE GUIDANCE
Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances. Elizabeth A. Bernhardt and
Tedmund J. Swiecki. 1991, updated 2001. California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection Urban Forestry Program. 76 pp. 2001 edition online at http://www.isa-
arbor.com/publications/ordinance.aspx.
How to Write a Municipal Tree Ordinance – Tree City USA Bulletin #9; available through the
Arbor Day Foundation online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=96.
Packet Page 308 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
31 June 2009
Louisiana State University Green Laws website online at http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/.
Tree Protection Ordinances – Tree City USA Bulletin #31; available through the Arbor Day
Foundation online at
http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=116.
SPECIAL TOPICS RESOURCES
The Arbor Day Foundation
Online at http://www.arborday.org/.
Center for Urban Forest Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station
Online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/.
City of Portland and Multnomah County Action Climate Plan 2009 – Public Comment Draft.
See Chapter 4 – Urban Forestry. 59 pp.
Online at
Human Dimensions of Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, Dr. Kathleen Wolf.
Online at http://www.naturewithin.info/.
Municipal Research and Services Center Urban Forestry webpages
Online at http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/urbanforest/urbtrees.aspx.
Trees Are Good! International Society of Arboriculture consumer education website
Online at http://www.treesaregood.org/.
USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry
Online at http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/.
Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington
Online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510029.html.
Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington
Online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410076.html.
Packet Page 309 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 32
This page left intentionally blank
Packet Page 310 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
33 June 2009
10. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE
Chair: Joseph Scorcio
Vice Chair: Beth Rogers
Note: Task Force members are listed in the following format:
• Interest group, agency or organization as described in Section 17 of the ECA
Primary representative of the organization
Alternate representative of the organization, where designated
• Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
Leonard Bauer, Washington State CTED Growth Management Services
Micki McNaughton, Washington State CTED Urban Forestry Specialist
• Department of Natural Resources
Sarah Foster, Washington State DNR Urban and Community Forestry Program
Linden Mead, Washington State DNR Urban and Community Forestry Program
• Department of Ecology
Stephen Bernath, Washington State Dept. of Ecology
• A statewide council representing urban and community forestry programs authorized under
RCW 76.15.020
Kathleen Wolf, Washington Community Forestry Council
Jana Dilley, University of Washington
• A conservation organization with expertise in Puget Sound stormwater management
Bruce Wishart, People for Puget Sound
Cyrilla Cook, People for Puget Sound
• At least two cities, one from a city east and one from a city west of the crest of the Cascade
mountains
David Erickson, City of Wenatchee Parks and Recreation
• At least two cities, one from a city east and one from a city west of the crest of the Cascade
mountains
Janet Way, City of Shoreline City Council
Chris Eggen, City of Shoreline City Council
• At least two counties, one from a county east and one from a county west of the crest of the
Cascade mountains
David Grimes, Chelan County Development
Keith Goehner, Chelan County Commissioner
• At least two counties, one from a county east and one from a county west of the crest of the
Cascade mountains
Joseph Scorcio, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities
Anne-Marie Marshall-Dody, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities
Packet Page 311 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 34
• Two land development professionals or representative associations representing
development professionals affected by tree retention ordinances and storm water
management policies
Phil Harlan, Keller Williams Realty Olympia, Washington Association of Realtors
Jeanette Samek-McKague, Washington Association of Realtors
• Two land development professionals or representative associations representing
development professionals affected by tree retention ordinances and storm water
management policies
Brian Ross, YarrowBay Group
Katherine Orni, YarrowBay Group
• A national conservation organization with a network of chapter volunteers working to
conserve habitat for birds and wildlife
Charles Kahle, Audubon Washington
Matt Mega, Seattle Audubon
• A land trust conservation organization facilitating urban forest management partnerships
Ara Erickson, Cascade Land Conservancy Green Cities Program Director
John Floberg, Cascade Land Conservancy
• A national conservation organization with expertise in backyard, schgoolyard, and
community wildlife habitat development
Courtney Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation
• A public works professional
Brian Carlson, City of Vancouver Public Works Director
Charles Ray, City of Vancouver Urban Forestry
• A private utility
Beth Rogers, Puget Sound Energy
Janet Brown, Puget Sound Energy
• A national forest land trust exclusively dedicated to sustaining America’s vast and vital
private forests and safeguarding their many public benefits
Paula Swedeen, Pacific Forest Trust
• Professionals with expertise in local land use planning, housing, or infrastructure
Sandy Salisbury, Washington State Dept. of Transportation
Mark Maurer, Washington State Dept. of Transportation
• Professionals with expertise in local land use planning, housing, or infrastructure
Elizabeth Walker, Sound Tree Solutions
• The timber industry
Adrian Miller, Washington Forest Protection Association
Packet Page 312 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
35 June 2009
11. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT
The portion of the 2008 Evergreen Communities Act (ESSHB 2844; RCW 35.105) that is
administered by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED) is intended to assist local jurisdictions to make best use of the benefits
and services that trees in urbanized areas provide by offering technical guidance for
communities through the development of model tree ordinances and model urban forestry
management plans. Such management programming may include urban and community
forestry assessments and inventories, tree ordinances, management plans, maintenance
programs, partnerships, and community involvement. In addition, CTED staff and the Evergreen
Communities Partnership Task Force (the Task Force) are responsible for creating an awards
program to recognize those communities who work toward developing excellent management
programming that enhances the capacity of their urban and community forests to provide
ecological, social, and economic services.
The Act directs CTED to complete the following tasks, subject to available funding:
1. Form the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force (RCW 35.105.110);
2. Develop model tree ordinances suitable for use as a guide for jurisdictions of all
configurations throughout the State (RCW 35.105.080);
3. Develop model urban forestry management plans suitable for use as a guide for
jurisdictions of all configurations throughout the State (RCW 35.105.070);
4. Develop and implement an Evergreen Communities grant and competitive awards
program to provide financial assistance to towns, tribes, cities and counties to develop,
adopt and implement Evergreen Communities management plans or tree ordinances
(RCW 35.105.040); and
5. Create an Evergreen Communities recognition program built upon the Tree City USA
award program to recognize communities for their work in developing excellent urban
forest management programs (RCW 35.105.030).
CHALLENGES
Funding for work directed by the ECA has been suspended for the Fiscal Biennium 2009-2011.
The timeline for work proceeding under the ECA, therefore, was reduced from more than two
years (a deadline of December 2010) to one year, ending on June 30, 2009. During the funding
hiatus, the Act will continue to provide a statutory platform for cooperation and collaboration
among agencies, organizations and communities that work to build or improve urban forestry
programming. The Task Force Report will function as a valuable outreach tool for CTED, the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Washington Community
Forestry Council (WCFC; RCW 76.15) to support urban and community forestry programs
around the state until CTED, the DNR and the Task Force are funded and reconvened to finish
their ECA work.
NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During the one year of funding for the Evergreen Communities program, CTED has worked with
its partner agency, the DNR, and with the Task Force toward completion of tasks #2, #3, and #4
above. Although fully-developed model ordinances and management plans were not possible
due to the shortened timeline, the Task Force has worked diligently to provide this document as
basic guidance to local jurisdictions desiring to better manage and plan for improvements to
their urban and community forests during the unfunded interim. The resources and
recommendations offered in this Task Force Report provide an excellent foundation for local
jurisdictions to establish or expand urban forestry programming. Through these resources,
Packet Page 313 of 319
A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming
June 2009 36
communities can increase the value of the ecological, social, and economic services that urban
forests provide.
This document was completed through the tremendous efforts of the members of the Task
Force. Recognizing the possibility of a loss of funding in early 2009, the Task Force members
expedited a compressed work program so that tangible resources could be produced by June
30, 2009, to guide local communities in their urban forestry programming efforts during the
unfunded interim. Due to the time constraints, the Task Force, CTED staff and the DNR were
unable to present the resources and recommendations in the Task Force Report to the public
for review and feedback, but will do so once funding is restored and the development process
can be resumed.
The commitment and dedication of the Task Force has resulted in these additional resources
becoming available to communities that choose to enhance the quality and capacity of their
urban forests, thereby improving their ability to manage stormwater, reduce carbon emissions
into the atmosphere, lower the cost of heating and cooling of buildings, and experience the
many other benefits and services of community and urban forests, as discussed elsewhere in
this document.
When funding is again available for CTED, the DNR, and the Task Force to return to their tasks
as assigned in the ECA, this document will provide the foundation to fully complete the
development of the tools described in the Act without delay or “backtracking” on work that has
already been completed. The Legislature will need to adjust the deadlines in RCW
35.105.050(5) to provide adequate time for completion of the assigned work.
Packet Page 314 of 319
From:Chave, Rob
To:Barbara Tipton ; Richard Senderoff
Cc:Steve Bernheim
Subject:RE: Tree Board Ordinance Status
Date:Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:24:28 AM
I believe your next stop with the draft ordinance is the Council’s Community Services/Development
Services Committee.
Re: incorporating view issues into the Whereas clauses. Personally, I see Scott’s point, but I am
ambivalent about it being included in the ordinance setting up the Tree Board. I tend to agree with
Barbara that it can be left to future issues the Board may decide to wrestle with rather than raising
it at this point in time. I’d suggest you proceed with scheduling on the August Council Committee?
Rob Chave
Edmonds Planning Manager
From: Barbara Tipton [mailto:barbaratipton@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:26 PM
To: Chave, Rob; 'Richard Senderoff'
Cc: 'Steve Bernheim'
Subject: RE: Tree Board Ordinance Status
Gentlemen:
I’m back from sunny California and responding to e-mail messages.
I was afraid that the “view” issue would be raised. I intentionally left it out of my “whereas”
statements, because I had hoped to tackle the “view” issue once the Tree Board was
formed. It is a thorny issue. In communities with restrictive covenants, it is clear cut. The
covenants often include specific language regarding view preservation. There might be
covenants in specific neighborhoods in Edmonds where view protection is referenced.
One could make a good argue for protection of views from streets, parks and public areas.
It is more difficult to make an argument for private easements in neighborhoods not
covered by restrictive covenants. My good friend, Seattle resident Wallie Harrington says:
“If you don’t want your view blocked, you have to buy tickets in the front row.”
My preference would be for us to engage in conversation with the Planning Board rather
than include it in the “whereas” section. If your preference is to include a reference to
views, please let me know and we can discuss this further. I am flexible.
Once we decide whether to include view preservation in the “whereas” section, do I ask to
get on the agenda of the Planning Board? Or, is it more appropriate for Mr. Chave to make
that request?
Thank you,
Barbara
Packet Page 315 of 319
From: Chave, Rob [mailto:Chave@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Richard Senderoff
Cc: Steve Bernheim; Barbara Tipton
Subject: RE: Tree Board Ordinance Status
Scott’s comments were minor -- he suggested the following:
“One big picture issue and one minor item.
Big picture: in a view sensitive area like Edmonds, the ordinance fails to take into account or
balance the value and preservation of views. My take is that the council should acknowledge that
in certain areas of the city, a proper balancing of neighborhood needs and values may result in a
different approach to trees. For example, limiting the planting of street and subdivision trees to
those with a growth pattern appropriate to the preservation of views. I.E. don’t plant Douglas firs
down slope from a neighbor with a 180 degree view. I would recommend that the powers and
duties section be amended to take differing needs and views into account—“balancing the need to
protect and preserve scenic public and private views while preserving and planting trees
appropriate to the particular area or neighborhood.”
Small item: Section two is completely unnecessary. I’ll take care of that when and if this moves
forward.”
I suppose the first comment could be incorporated as a ‘whereas,’ or left up to the Board to figure
out. I agree that Section 2 of the ordinance could just be deleted… just states the obvious.
The attached is the last version of the ordinance I saw (and was the one I forwarded to Scott).
Rob Chave
Edmonds Planning Manager
From: Richard Senderoff [mailto:richsend@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 10:53 AM
To: Chave, Rob
Cc: Steve Bernheim; Barbara Tipton
Subject: Tree Board Ordinance Status
Hello Mr. Chave,
I was just wondering and curious as to whether you received the Tree Board ordinance
document with suggested edits back from the City Attorney, Scott Snyder. If so, could you please
share the current version?
Thanks,
Rich
Packet Page 316 of 319
Richard I. Senderoff, Ph.D.
Precinct Committee Officer- Edmonds 34, 21st Legislative District, 1st Congressional District
Commissioner- Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission
Steering Committee- Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Community Certification Project
Board Member- Rose House Preservation; Center for Creative and Humanitarian Endeavors
18823 81st Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
425-778-9746
Packet Page 317 of 319
Tree City USA Standards at arborday.org
http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/standards.cfm[8/2/2010 3:43:38 PM]
cart | wish list | sign in
The Four Standards for Tree City USA
Recognition
To qualify as a Tree City USA community, a town or city
must meet four standards established by The Arbor Day
Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters.
These standards were established to ensure that every
qualifying community would have a viable tree management
plan and program.
It is important to note that they were also designed so that no
community would be excluded because of size.
1. A Tree Board or Department
2. A Tree Care Ordinance
3. A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget
of at Least $2 Per Capita
4. An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation
These standards were
established to ensure that
every qualifying
community would have a
viable tree management
plan and program.
Photo by Paul Collins
Tree City USA Standards
More Information
Call: 402-474-5655
Monday–Friday
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST
Tree City USA is supported by the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program.
Home | Trees | Membership | Programs | News | Arbor Day Farm | Lied Lodge | Shop | Careers | Take Action
You are here: Home → Programs → Tree City USA → Standards
1-888-448-7337 | donate now | privacy | about us | contact us | site map | your state
Tree City USA
Tree City USA Home
About Us
Is Your Community a
Tree City?
Benefits of Being a Tree City
Tree City Standards
Request an Application
Tree City Growth Awards
Tree City USA Bulletins
Tree City USA Supplies
Community Foresters
Directory
Get Our E-Newsletter About
Our Programs
Related Programs
Tree Line USA
Conservation Trees
See All Programs
Shopping
Tree City USA Supplies
Arbor Marketplace
Buy Trees and More
Packet Page 318 of 319
Community Services/Development Services
Meeting Minutes
5/11/2010
2
Fire Marshal Westfall presented the proposed adoptive language for the Fire Code and
the Marina Code. Westfall noted changes in the 2009 Fire code related to emergency
responder radio coverage, new fire alarm requirements and requirements for installation
of CO monitors. Particular amendments to the City ordinance include a restriction on
above ground fuel storage tanks in residential zones to 1000 gals, and 500 gal restriction
for LPG storage.
Westfall presented proposed changes to the Marina Code in title 19.65, which included a
requirement for slip numbering and pier identification to assist in emergency response.
Also he noted that there were some changes related to spill reporting requirements.
Council member Wilson asked if these requirements could be compared to the
stormwater discharge regulations to ensure consistency. Westfall acknowledged that
this could be brought back to full Council.
C. Tree City; tree ordinance; review of Planning Board recommendations on
Streetscape Plan
Steve Bernheim was present for this item, and introduced the ordinance that would
establish a ‘tree board’ to study ideas for Edmonds, such as obtaining “Tree City USA”
status and sponsoring an Arbor Day event. Steve believed that the proposed ordinance
was a good first step, without committing to too much in terms of time and resources
while doing further exploration and research. Stephen Clifton noted that the City would
need to be careful before committing additional staff resources, understanding that
additional regulations and programs all have associated costs. Rob Chave and Brian
McIntosh both noted that supporting boards and commissions can be a challenge,
especially if the group is too large and the terms or conditions of service are too
restrictive. Steve agreed, saying that the intent was to initiate the discussion, and a tree
board could help. After discussion, all agreed that staff should meet with the principal
citizens spearheading the effort to develop a solid proposal for the Committee and full
Council to consider. Brian also mentioned that staff was working on a review and update
of the Street Tree Plan, focusing on what is working and where minor modifications
might be needed. This will proceed through the Planning Board and Council approval
process.
.
ACTION: Staff will meet with the program proponents to refine the proposal, and bring
back to the Committee for discussion and potential action next month (June).
D. Discussion on Conditional Use Permits for home occupations
Gina Coccia briefly explained the City’s process for approving home occupations, and
that there is essentially a two-tiered system where customers or employees coming to a
residence mainly triggers an expensive Hearing Examiner hearing and review. Staff’s
experience has been that certain types of home occupations, such as music teachers,
generate very little neighborhood concern, but have to undergo the expensive Hearing
Examiner process. Other cities surveyed seem to have more streamlined rules, and on
review, it seems to staff that it should be possible to more clearly codify conditions that
.
Packet Page 319 of 319