The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-11-02 City Council - Full Agenda-2703Agenda Edmonds City Council SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 2, 2020, 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Agenda November 2, 2020 Page 1 DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525 OR CALL TOLL FREE: 888 475 4499 | MEETING ID 425 775 2525 IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2020 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2020 3. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. 4. 2021 COLA Adjustment for non-represented employees 5. Authorization for Mayor to sign an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Edmonds City Council Agenda November 2, 2020 Page 2 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement (45 min) 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. Extension of Interim Finance Director Appointment (10 min) 2. Consideration of the Planning Board's recommendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi-Family Residential - Medium Density.” (30 min) 3. Ordinance Imposing Moratorium on Certain Subdivision Applications (30 min) 4. Ordinance adopting interim development regulations to make the moratorium ordinance more enforceable (30 min) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 10-27-2020 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes 6.1 Packet Pg. 3 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES October 27, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Council President Susan Paine, Council President Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Mike Nelson, Mayor STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director 1. CALL TO ORDER At 6:00 p.m., an Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nelson. The Council utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting. 2. CLOSED SESSION The Council then convened in closed to consider Collective Bargaining Strategy per RCW 42.30.140(4)(A). ADJOURN At 6:25 p.m., the closed session concluded and the meeting was adjourned. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 10-27-2020 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 6.2 Packet Pg. 5 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES October 27, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Dave Turley, Interim Finance Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember K. Johnson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO 1) ADD ACTION ITEM 9.2, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR ANY 6.2.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 2 PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN 4 SIGNIFICANT TREES FOR 10,000 SQUARE OF LOT AREA, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, AND 2) TO ADD ACTION ITEM 9.3, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM EMERGENCY DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TO ACCOMPANY THE CITY’S MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN 4 SIGNIFICANT TREES FOR 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDM ONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Buckshnis said a moratorium is a process the City has used in the past, it is very short term, six months. It has been discussed with the Administration and will give the busy Administration time to process the comprehensive tree code. A public hearing on December 1 st will allow Council to address the ordinances and make changes such as changing six months to four months or something of that nature. She hoped discussion on these items would not occur too late in tonight’s meeting; she was also willing to move them to next week if the Council did not have time to vet it sufficiently but felt it was important to introduce it tonight. Councilmember Distelhorst suggested moving the ordinances to next week, noting he still has a number of outstanding questions; the more questions he asks, the more questions he has. He suggested it would be beneficial to everyone to have additional time. Councilmember Paine supported moving the proposed ordinances to next week. The Council just received this information late yesterday and early today and there are a lot of questions. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO MOVE THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY MORATORIUM AND THE SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE TO NEXT WEEK, NOVEMBER 2ND. Councilmember Olson said she preferred to move this to next week as she was still in the process of reviewing it. Councilmember Buckshnis did not anticipated the Council would approve the ordinances tonight based on the lengthy agenda. She wanted to get the information on the screen so citizens could see it and some of the questions could be vetted. The Administration has worked with Mr. Taraday, Councilmember L. Johnson and her. If there is enough time, she preferred to discuss the proposed ordinances tonight. Councilmember Distelhorst suggested if the maker of the motion did not expect action, that they be placed on the agenda as study items for an introduction rather than action items. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained from an agenda-management standpoint, since this is a regular meeting, the Council can do whatever it wants with the agenda including adding study items or action items. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted Council to discuss Item 9.1 first. Many Councilmembers were made aware of this last week via phone. If the Council wanted to move the ordinances to study items, that could be done. She felt it would be helpful to have the ordinances at the end of the agenda and if the Council had time, discuss them and if there wasn’t time, move them to the next week. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 3 During the above vote, Councilmember K. Johnson stated she preferred it be a study item and Councilmember Buckshnis said it could be a study item. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers vote yes, no, or abstain and refrain from making comments during the vote. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. JOINT MEETING 1. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING -SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS South County Fire Chief Thad Hovis introduced Jason Isotalo, who was promoted to Assistant Chief of Operations in September and is responsible for oversight of over 250 employees within the operations division. He introduced Deputy Chief Bob Eastman and Assistant Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer who oversees the City’s fire prevention and investigation needs. He also introduced Fire Commission Board Members Jim Kenney (Chair), Bob Meador (Vice Chair), David Chan, Drew Burnett, Mark Laurence, Chris Teofilak, and Greg Urban. Chief Hovis explained an earlier meeting was canceled due to the pandemic and he appreciated the opportunity for the City and RFA to revisit the 2019 annual report to the City. Sin ce eight months have passed since the annual report was provided in February, he planned to take this opportunity to update the Council on South County Fire’s (SCF) work during the first three quarters of 2020 during the pandemic, primarily focused on their work in Edmonds. Chief Hovis reported there has been tremendous change in the world during 2020. COVID-19 and its impacts on both organizations, local communities, county, state and nation have altered much of what was previously considered normal and transformed current reality into a new normal. SCF transferred the first known COVID-19 patient in the United Stated on January 21, 2020. Last week marked the ninth month of their COVID-19 related response. As of yesterday, SCF has transported 264 confirmed COVID-19 positive individuals this year. SCF continues to minimize risk for employees and in turn, play a role in keeping residents of the City of Edmonds and the RFA safer by providing effective fire and EMS response. That’s been a challenge, but a challenge they have risen to meet and will continue to do so. Chief Hovis expressed gratitude to the City for taking an early lead in the county to recognize the threat of COVID-19 as a significant public health impact to the local community and thanked the City for expressing that via a State of Emergency Declaration. He also thanked Safety & Disaster Coordinator Craig Cottrell and Acting Police Chief Jim Lawless for their partnership with the RFA and the City in their combined COVID-19 response to keep employees of both organizations as safe as they can be and minimize risk. Change for SCF in 2020 has included not only COVID-19 and the promotion of Assistant Chief Isotalo, but also a change in leadership since the SCF and the Council last met. Fire Chief Doug Dahl retired on March 31st and Assistant Chief Kevin Zweber retired on August 31st. He was named Interim Fire Chief in April and appointed Fire Chief in August. He was proud and honored to lead the men and women of SCF and humbled by the commission’s confidence in him and the leadership team to carry out the agency’s mission to protect life, property and the environment. He was proud to have grown up in Edmonds; he started his career as a volunteer firefighter with the Edmonds Fire Department before bein g hired by the City of Mountlake Terrace in 1996. He will always be grateful that the City of Edmonds granted him a foot in the door to the fire service as well as the foundation it provided him to be SCF’s fire chief. Chief Hovis referred to a digital copy of SCF’s 2019 annual report that was previously presented, contained in the Council packet. He provided a refresh of presentation for quarters 1 through 3 of 2020, 6.2.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 4 noting any of the photos in the presentation that showed people without masks and or social distancing were taken prior to the pandemic:  South County Fire Service Area o Formerly covered by five separate agencies, two fire districts and three city departments, the RFA now covers a total of 50 square miles, more than 250,000 residents and is protected by 14 fire stations  Emergency Medical Services o Our most requested service: 85% of incidents in Edmonds are dispatched as EMS incidents o All firefighters are emergency medical technicians or paramedics o Our cardiac arrest save rate across the RFA is over 50%, well above the state and national average o Video of High-Performance CPR: (video demonstration at www.southsnofire.org/CPRTeam)  Community Paramedics o Non-emergency service to help reduce 911 calls and hospital use o Primarily serves older adults, mental health patients, disabled people, homeless and veterans o Breaks down barriers and create access to care o By the numbers in Edmonds:  119 enrollments  75 visits  510 phone call contacts  113 emails, texts and fax contacts  For Edmonds patients enrolled in the program: - 49% reduction in 911 calls - 51% reduction in emergency department visits  Snohomish County Fire Training Academy o Academy 2020-1  Graduated 10 South County Fire recruits o Academy 2020-2  18 South County Fire recruits attending o Academy hosted at SCF headquarters in partnership with Everett FD, Snohomish regional Fire and Rescue, Marysville Fire Authority and four other departments. Working with other county departments to regionalize training:  Fire Prevention o Development Review & Construction Inspections (Updated through Quarter 3 of 2020)  188 business license inspections  800+ maintenance/follow up inspections.  56 construction inspections  108 compliance inspections.  4 special event inspections  753 plan review hours  85% of single-family homes constructed this year had sprinkler systems installed o Major projects  Edmonds Post Office Phase II (Finished in March 2020)  Edmonds Senior Center  Main Street Commons  Anthology Senior Living  Graphite Arts Studio  Graphite Apartments  Westgate Village (Finished in June 2020)  Westgate Apartments (Finished in June 2020)  Kisan Townhomes (18 Units on Edmonds Way) 6.2.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 5  Magic Toyota (Finished in January 2020)  Doug’s Mazda Service Center (Finished in September 2020)  Doug’s Mazda (Finished in July 2020)  GRE Apartments (192 units)  234th Apartments (240 Units)  Community Health Expansion  Virtual Outreach and Education o Community outreach and education continues during the pandemic with online and virtual offerings. o Over 100 residents of Edmonds have participated in online classes.  Classes - ACT First Aid & CPR - Disaster Preparedness - Child Car Seat Safety - Virtual Car Seat Checks - Home Fire Safety - Introduction to Zoom coming soon - Child Safety & CPR coming soon  For kids and families - Online Kids Fire Camp - Online Kids Fire Academy - Virtual Classroom Visits  Videos - EMS Open House - Falls Prevention Education - Fire Prevention Week: Serve Up Fire Safety in the Kitchen - Holiday Safety coming soon  Edmonds Virtual Events o Edmonds Neighborhood Night Virtual Open House for Stations 16, 17 and 20  A video overview of South County Fire Services o 9/11 Memorial Ceremony  Created in partnership with the City of Edmonds, Edmonds Police Department and IAFF Local 1828  Pandemic Response o Since our transport of the first known patient in the United States on January 21, 2020, we’ve worked closely with county, state, and national public health officials and looked to the latest science to guide our response to keep our community and responders safe. o New precautions on 911 medical calls  South County Fire guidelines for PPE use and operations to protect firefighters and the public serve are being used as a model internationally o Coordinated regional response  Fire Operations Center: Established with other county fire agencies to provide unified tracking, planning and response to the outbreak to better serve all our communities  Snohomish County Emergency Coordination Center: South County Fire has been involved in the coordinating efforts countywide including securing PPE supplies for first responders and other long-range planning  Pandemic Outreach o Safely connecting:  Porch visits and telehealth allow us to safely connect with patients. We’re partnering with the Edmonds Senior Center to bring telehealth and Zoom visits to 100 vulnerable adults in the next six months. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 6 o Community Paramedics and Community Outreach staff have been working closely with the community partners to serve many of the city’s most vulnerable residents during the pandemic. Here’s what we are seeing:  More patients with more complex needs: 50% more patients per month with more complex service needs requiring more staff time  Increased isolation of older adults and others vulnerable residents staying home, not seeing their doctors as needed or not receiving other services that have been scaled back during the pandemic o Senior Living Support  Our Community Paramedics and Community Outreach Team have been working closely with senior living communities, including adult family homes, nursing homes, assisted living and independent living facilities. This includes: - Ongoing communication for EMS-related issues - Access to PPE and the distribution of cloth masks - Weekly calls to isolated older adults to check in on their well being o Community Resource Guide  We created a South County Resource Guide to help families navigate community resources such as access to food, medical care, prescriptions, free internet and mental health assistance. o More than 40,000 cloth face coverings provided by DEM have been distributed by our Community Outreach staff to senior communities and others in need in our service area.  Graph of Snohomish County COVID-19 case rate per 100,000 (2-week rolling periods) o Reminder: Keep social distancing, mask up and stay at home as much as possible  Emergency Responses – 2020 Quarter 1 – Quarter 3 o How many calls?  Total incidents in the City of Edmonds in 2020 Q1-Q3:  2016: 3,954  2017: 3,942  2018: 4,167  2019: 4,019  2020: 3,770 - Decrease in fire and EMS calls in Edmonds and throughout RFA primarily due to the Stay Home Stay Healthy orders and because people are moving about much less. Numbers are beginning to climb spiking o What type of calls? (2020 Q1-Q3)  85% of calls are dispatched as emergency medical aid - Basic Life Support – 39% - Advanced Life Support – 46%  15% increase YTD in 2020 for ALS (paramedic) calls compared to 2019. - Fire – 9% - Other – 4%  Transports (Q1-Q3) o 2018: 2,158 o 2019: 2,047 o 2020: 1,973  Significant incidents in Edmonds 2020 o Fire Commercial, 9627 Firdale Avenue, March 13, 2020 o Fire Residential, 22414 72 Pl W, June 18, 2020 o Rescue/Recovery, Lake Ballinger (border of Edmonds), July 19, 2020 o Fire Residential, 9315 220 St SW, July 20, 2020 o Fire Residential, 8721 191 Pl SW, August. 14, 2020 6.2.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 7 o Water Rescue, 336 Admiral Way, September 7, 2020 (3 rescued) o Water Rescue, 498 Admiral Way, September 23, 2020, (1 rescued) o Med-X (Shooting), 22618 Hwy 99, September 29, 2020 (3 transported) Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Chief Hovis for the presentation, everyone who was present and the work they have done during the pandemic. Observing that Community Paramedics are not routed via 911, he asked how initial contact with unsheltered individuals or people experiencing a mental health crisis in the community is made. Chief Hovis explained the Community Resource Paramedic (CRP) program has three CRP paramedics, one captain and two firefighters/paramedics as well as an admin assistant that coordinates calls and follow-up. Intake of people in need happens in the field with crews trained to identify things in the home such as rugs people may slip on, a diabetic that does not have food in the refrigerator, no heat in a house, etc. SCF has an electronic form explaining the program that patients sign and follow up occurs. There is also retrospective data analysis to identify names/birthdate of people who have called 911 three or more times in a 30 day period. Members of the community including the crisis line or other clinics also provide information on people they want CRP to reach out to. The CRP program also has a partnership with the Verdant Health Commission that ensures residents with higher needs within the RFA and Hospital District #2 get the help they need. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed questions she has received about the fire contract including that someone had heard two of the Edmonds stations should be replaced and made more physically attractive. She asked if there has been any discussions about moving or replacing stations. Chief Hovis answered the individual could be referring to the RFA’s completion of a Comprehensive Capital Facilities Plan review. The RFA is in phase 2 of 3 phases which includes review with TCA Architecture and other consultants. That Plan looked at the 14 fire stations and the headquarters to consider current and future needs. The cities of Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace were included in that plan; two of the three stations in Edmonds have been identified as needing additional work in the future, seismic and refresh/remodel of Station 17 and building a new Station 20 in Esperance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that station would be in the same footprint. Chief Hovis answered yes. Chief Hovis said that question could also be the result of his discussions with the commission about branding the RFA. The RFA has fire stations under contract and some that are part of the RFA that were Fire District 1, 11 or City of Lynnwood stations. The branding process to ensure there is signage showing it is a SCF station is about halfway done; the unincorporated stations have been completed and City of Lynnwood stations are next to be done and he recalled discussions with Phil Williams about signage for Edmonds stations. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a few years ago expert consultants looked at the City’s fire stations and indicated they were not in the best physical locations. She asked if there were any plans to close, relocate or consolidate fire stations. Chief Hovis recalled discussion in 2019 about the location of Station 17 downtown and its proximity to the waterfront. If a time machine could have predicted 40 years ago that there would be one fire agency covering what were five different agencies, some of the station locations might be different. SCF is doing its best with what it has right now. If an opportunity ever arises to relocate a station so it is in the best place to respond to the needs of the public or an area being developed, that opportunity should be captured if possible. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked SCF for their service and the commissioners for attending tonight’s meeting. Councilmember Paine expressed her appreciation for SCF’s service and their commitment to excellence. She asked why there were so many transports for other agencies/cities coming into Edmonds, whether it was a function of where they start or because Edmonds is centrally located and has a hospital. Chief 6.2.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 8 Hovis answered Swedish Edmonds is the main transport destination for the area that now comprises the RFA. Other agencies occasionally transport to Swedish Edmonds such as Shoreline, Bothell, Northshore and Mukilteo Fire Departments as well as the agency formally known as District 7 which is now called Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue. The majority of SCF’s transports go to Swedish Edmonds. The other large receiving destination in the RTA is Providence in Everett. Fire Commission Board Chair Jim Kenney explained the contract requires a once a year meeting. It is usually earlier in the year, but was delayed and is being held on Zoom. He pointed out the Council may see in the voter’s pamphlet or hear people in the community taking about the benefit charge that the RFA has before voters in the general election. It changes $0.50 of the fire levy from a property tax to a charge based on a property’s fire risk and use of fire flow based on square footage of the property instead of valuation. A number of other communities in the state utilize that, including Shoreline. He encouraged Edmonds to think about becoming part of the RFA versus a contracting member. Councilmember Olson asked about the benefits of becoming part of RFA versus a contracted member. Board Chair Kenney said being part of the RFA would allow Edmonds residents to vote for members of the RFA Board. Under the current contract, the City has control via contractual language but no vote in what the RFA does. Councilmember Olson asked the difference in cost. Board Chair Kenney said he did not have that information in front of him. Councilmember Buckshnis said in her opinion if the City wanted to consider that, it should go back to the drawing board and look at the numbers. She asked about the change in the fire benefit charge. Board Chair Kenney said it changes part of the taxation from a tax to a fee based on square footage. Councilmember Buckshnis commented for Edmonds residents with McMansions this would be beneficial. She offered to submit the questions she has received. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked SCF for everything they do, especially during these times. It is significant that SCF transported first patient back in January; not only is SCF on the frontline, but they have also been dealing with it longer than most people who are staying safe at home. Councilmember K. Johnson requested SCF address Section 4 of the Council-Adopted Standards Not Met which states SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council-adopted standards are not met, the predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance. Six performance standards were not met and she asked that each one be addressed separately. Deputy Chief Bob Eastman answered the first was turnout time; the RFA’s turnout time is 2:15; Edmonds turnout time in the Standard of Cover is 2:45 which was met. The RFA has done considerable work in the last couple years on improving turnout time and have continually reduced it. Deputy Chief Eastman responded to the following Council-adopted standards not met: 2A. Response time of the first-arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression Incident: Established: 6:30 Actual: 7:13 The actual time increased since 2018. Over the last couple years response times have been increasing in general partially due to traffic and initially due to increased call demand within the City. Mid 2017, Edmonds eliminated an additional 2-person medic unit that was staffed 24/7. That caused some of the increased response time because cross-staffed engines, whether an EMS or fire call, transporting to the 6.2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 9 hospital leaves the area unserved first-due so second-due units come in more frequently than prior to the deployment change. 2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident Established: 7:45 Actual: 11:35 The time of 7:45 has not been met since the contract with Edmonds was establishe d, primarily because units outside the City must respond to reach 15 firefighters assembled on scene. He explained work begins when the first unit arrives. The response time in 2019 was a few minutes lower than 2018. 2C. Response time for the deployment of full first-alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident: Established: 9:00 Actual: 11:49 This requires 18 firefighters assembled on scene. A relatively small number of commercial and residential fires meet this criteria. For example if one happen at the peak hour (4:00 p.m.), units from further away would be required to meet the first-alarm assignment. Due to the 90% standard and the small number of fires that meet the criteria, it would take only one incident to exceed the standard. 3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -level capability to an emergency medical incident: Established: 5:15 Actual: 6:17 This was partially related to having one fewer unit in Edmonds since 2017. Traffic congestion is also a factor, not necessarily in Edmonds, but for outlying stations who serve as second-in or third-in. 5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a hazardous materials incident: Established: 12:00 Actual: 15:04 This is a specialty response and there are not many in the RFA. Edmonds had two incidents in 2019; the decon unit came from Station 12. 5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident Established: 12:00 Actual: 15:04 Edmonds had 1-2 calls in 2019; regional team approach for technical rescue and hazmat; specialty equipment comes from Station 21 (near 164th & 13th), District 7, Everett Fire or Marysville Fire. Time is measured by when equipment arrives, not personnel. If Rescue 21 was unavailable to respond, the next closest unit was District 7 (Station 71) or Everett (Station 1) which is likely the reason for the increased time. Councilmember K. Johnson said Deputy Chief Eastman addressed the circumstances but did not describe the steps necessary to correct the deficiencies in order to achieve compliance. Deputy Chief Eastman 6.2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 10 answered it was a two-pronged approach. Some of the City’s standards have been met occasionally and some have not been met on a regular basis since the agreement was established. The standards were originally established in 2006 and likely need to be evaluated and potentially updated, especially the ones that have consistently not been met since they were established. Another challenge is call demand was increasing and when combined with the reduction of one unit, more strain was added with one less resource to respond. That was a dedicated transport unit that had the ability to respon d throughout the City. The impact of reducing the number of providers and responding units is a potential increase in response times. Deputy Chief Easton explained previously, Station 17 had two units staffed 24/7; there is now one so when Station 17 is on a response and unable to respond, one of the outlying stations comes in to cover (second-due coming into a first-due area). That causes a cascade effect; for example if Station 16 or 20 is covering in Station 17’s area and 16 gets a call, then Station 15, 10 or 14 covers for Station 16. That is part of the reason for the increase in response times. Councilmember K. Johnson said if the City considers an RFA or continues with the contract, it would be helpful to see a comparison of 2006 expectations and current standards for the RFA to see where there are discrepancies that need to be changed. Chief Hovis said the standards were created by the City Council in 2006 when Medic 7 out of Stevens Hospital was dissolved and Edmonds took one of the 2-person units. Since that time, staffing has been reduced in the City of Edmonds. One of the benefits of joining the RFA is it differs from a contract that specifies how many people are at each station, currently three at each Edmonds Station. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, in the City of Lynnwood and in the incorporated areas, the RFA was able to add staffing at Stations 14, 15, 21 10 and 11 to accommodate growth. Data reporting really comes down to people able to respond to calls in apparatus when needed. When there is a significant event within the City, there is a cascading effect. Geographically, due to Edmonds’ location on Puget Sound, there is no support from the west or from the south from Woodway. Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked SCF staff and the commission for attending. She pointed out the downtown unit in Edmonds actually had a paramedic unit. When staffing was decreased in the downtown unit, the staffing was changed to be the same as all other fire stations across the county. She asked if that was still accurate. Chief Hovis answered that was accurate, the RFA deploys the same way the City does with a minimum of one paramedic at each fire station. As he stated earlier, additional staffing has been added to some stations during the past three years. In those stations another unit has been added so there is a paramedic on the paramedic unit and on the engine or ladder. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled the reason for the reduction was due to the station only responding on three sides. The City chose to save money by making the fire stations equal throughout the organization. She wanted to ensure citizens were aware staffing levels were reduced to match the pattern of the other fire stations. She appreciated hearing that staffing has been increased in some stations but wanted Edmonds citizens to be clear regarding why reductions were made at Station 17. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the graph of transport fees billed and collected in Edmonds. There were over $2 million in transport fees in each of three years, but only about 40% are collected. She asked how collection of transport fees could be improved. Deputy Chief Eastman explained collection of transport fees is complex. One of the challenges with transport fees is if a patient is transported and the agency collects from Medicaid or Medicare, it is subject to whatever Medicaid or Medicare will pay for the transports and there is no opportunity to balance bill so by default, SCF must write off the remainder. For example, transport of a BLS call, Medicaid/Medicare pays $125 plus mileage on a $700 transport. The RFA also has a policy to take insurance for payment in full for residents within the service area. The graph looks like only 40% is collected and 60% left on the table when in reality due to contractual write- offs with Medicare/Medicaid and due to the RFA policy, there is about a 98-98.5% collection and very 6.2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 11 few are ultimately uncollectible. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked him for the explanation, noting at least $1 million was being collected. On behalf of the community and the City, Mayor Nelson thanked SCF and the commission for their dedication and unwavering support. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (https://zoom.us/s/4257752525) Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. There were no members of the audience who wished to provide comment. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO PULL ITEM 7.3, AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM, FOR A QUICK DISCUSSION AND PUT IT ON NEXT WEEK’S AGENDA. Councilmember Olson said she was still working on a couple of small edits and suggested either moving it to next week’s Consent Agenda or approve it in a substantially similar form to allow those edits to happen offline. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she had no problem with allowing the edits to occur offline and be approved. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had no problem as long as the Council was copied on the corrections and it was on next week’s Consent Agenda. Councilmember Olson clarified those were two different proposals, 1) move the agreement to next week, or 2) approve it tonight on the Consent Agenda knowing the scrivener’s errors would be corrected and provided to Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said it depends on how scrivener’s errors was defined. She had no problem with errors in grammar, but if there were substantial errors, she would like to see them. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said a motion is not necessary to pull something from the Consent Agenda. It is removed upon a Councilmember’s request and then a decision is made later about what to do with it. With regard to this particular item, he was hesitant about the idea of approval happening outside of a Council meeting even if it is correction of a scrivener’s error because it could be an Open Public Meetings Act issue. It was fine to pull it and have it on a subsequent agenda or the Council can agree o n the corrections tonight. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed they were scrivener’s errors such as numbering issues. Staff has been working with Councilmember Olson over the last 24+ hours to determine if a change needs to be made and have not reached a conclusion. None of the changes are consequential or change the meaning or 6.2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 12 intent of the Interlocal Agreement. He referred to an email from Sharon Cates stating the way the agreement was written was okay. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there was a timeline that need to be met. Mr. Williams answered there was not a critical timeline and it could be moved to next week. Staff was not yet convinced that the changes needed to be made. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA NEXT WEEK. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented scrivener’s errors have occurred for the past ten years and unless it drastically changed the agreement, she was satisfied with moving it to next week’s agenda. If there was a difference of opinion between Councilmember Olson and the department, it may need to be a business item. Councilmember Olson anticipated it could be resolved within the week. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE 5. COUNCIL RESOLUTION TO NAME AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUAL TO MANAGE CITY INVESTMENTS IN LGIP 6. WWTP SCADA INTEGRATION 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COLA 2021 HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson reviewed the proposed 2021 wage adjustment for Non-Represented employees:  Personnel Policies – Chapter 5 Compensation o Annual Salary Adjustments o The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary ranges for non-represented employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process, effective January 1 of each year. The Mayor’s recommendation will take into consideration the average adjustment negotiated and approved for represented employee groups.  2021 Wage Adjustments for Represented Groups o Currently the AFSCME, Teamsters, and EPOA collective bargaining agreements are not settled for 2021 and therefore cannot be taken into account for determining the non - represented wage adjustment 6.2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 13 o The EPOA Commissioned contract is settled for 2021 but as this is a represented group that has binding arbitration, taking this group’s wage adjustments into consideration for the non- represented employees would not be appropriate.  Other data points o Using “comparator” organizations is often the standard in establishing compensation and has been used by Edmonds for both represented and non-represented employees o Using the Consumer Price Index for Urban wage earners in the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue area is also used as data point to establish compensation levels.  Issues with “Comparator” organizations at this time o The impact of CV19 on the economies and revenues of cities within the Edmonds comparator group has varied widely. While some cities have been significantly impacted and are therefore considering minimal or no wage adjustment in 2021, others have seen minimal impact to revenues and will be providing normal wage adjustments. o Due to the disparities among this group, using comparators’ wage adjustments as a basis for the Edmond’s wage adjustment would most likely not provide a reliable basis for the recommendation.  Using CPI-U (and not CPI-W) o The CPI is calculated for two population groups: All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The CPI-U represents about 93 percent of the total U.S. population and is based on the expenditures of all families living in urban areas. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U and is based on the expenditures of families living in urban areas who meet additional requirements related to employment: more than one-half of the family’s income is earned from clerical or hourly-wage occupations. The CPI-W represents about 29 percent of the total U.S. population. o Because the CPI-U population coverage is more comprehensive, it is used in most wage adjustment calculations.  How to use the CPI-U o In order to determine the cost of inflation from one year to the next the year a period is established be setting a base month between two years Table A. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA, CPI-U 2-month and 12-month percentage changes, all items index, not seasonally adjusted. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Month 2-mo 12-mo 2-mo 12-mo 2-mo 12-mo 2-mo 12-mo 2-mo 12-mo Feb 0.2 .22 1.0 3.4 0.8 3.3 0.7 2.7 1.0 2.5 April 1.1 2.5 0.8 3.1 0.8 3.3 0.5 2.4 -0. 1.3 June 0.9 1.8 0.8 3.0 0.8 3.3 0.7 2.3 0.2 0.9 August 0.3 2.1 -0.2 2.5 -0.3 3.1 0.6 3.2 1.4 1.6 Oct 0.0 2.4 0.5 3.0 0.4 3.1 -0.6 2.2 Dec 0.0 2.6 0.5 3.5 0.2 2.8 0.3 2.2  Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Impact on August 2020 Computer Price Index Data o Data collection by personal visit for the CPI program has been suspended since March 16, 2020. When possible, data normally collected by personal visit were collected either online or by phone. Additionally, data collection in August was affected by the temporary closing or limited operations of certain types of establishments. These factors resulted in an increase in the number of prices considered temporarily unavailable and imputed. o While the CPI program attempted to collect as much data as possible, many indexes are based on smaller amounts of  Recommendation o Provide a wage adjustment to non-represented employees that keeps wages advanced at least at the anticipated rate of inflation for 2021. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 14 o As the CPI-U has also seen volatility in the individual months’ data, it is recommended to use the first half of 2020 inflation data as the basepoint for wage adjustments, rather than a year to year comparison by month. o CPI for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)  12-month percentage change  Series Title: All items in Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted  Area: Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue WA  Item: All Items  Years 2010 to 2020 Year Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2019 2.7 2.4 2.3 3.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.6 2020 2.5 1.3 0.9 1.6 1.8 o The CPI-U for the first half of 2020 is 1.8%. o Based on the first half of 2020 CPI-U, and taking into account potential inflation fluctuations through the end of the year, a wage adjustment of 2% has been entered as the recommendation in the 2021 budget for non-represented employees. o A 2% wage adjustment for non-represented employees will cost $126,660 in 2021 based on current employee counts. Councilmember Distelhorst assumed the $126,600 takes into account the 25 frozen positions as proposed in DP #6. Ms. Neill-Hoyson answered the numbers were based on current staff, not current positions so if they were vacant, that may not have been taken into account. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if these all non-represented employees. Ms. Neill-Hoyson agreed, explaining all the represented employees’ wages are governed by their collective bargaining agreements. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the non-represented and represented employees received last year. Ms. Neill-Hoyson advised non-represented employees received a 2.75% wage adjustment and represented employees received a 3% wage adjustment. Councilmember Buckshnis said even during COVID, this is a good recommendation. The Federal Reserve is attempting to average inflation at a 2% rate. Times are tough and a COLA increase is appropriate. She recalled the Council was interested in revising the non-represented employee policy, but that had not been done due to COVID-19. Ms. Neill-Hoyson answered for the same reasons that pulling comparator data is not a good idea, it was not a good idea to do a compensation study when data is fluctuating. She was aware the Council wanted a full compensation study. Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated it would take a couple years to get normalized. She was not interested in funding the frozen positions other that on a case-by-case basis. Noting the City was doing well, she expressed supported for the recommendation. Councilmember Olson said she had been struggling with this a little, knowing that times were tough for everyone. Those who are lucky enough to have jobs, still have to be careful about not overspending. Although it can be said the City is doing well, there are many unfinanced priorities in the proposed budget and she wanted to ensure citizens were aware that the Council had considered that in this agenda item. This is a COLA for a category of employees who have worked hard and may be lagging behind where the Council would want them to be in an ideal world, so the least the Council can do is a COLA. Finance Director Dave Turley referred to an earlier question, and said the COLA computation does not take into account vacancies or frozen positions. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO MOVE A 1.8% COLA FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES TO CONSENT AGENDA NEXT WEEK. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating this was a decision package in the 2021 budget. Ms. Neill-Hoyson agreed it was part of 2021 budget and did not require action separate from approving the budget. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed, explaining the significance of the motion would be to let staff and the Mayor know the Council supports the non-represented employee compensation included in the budget so there was no lingering question. If the numbers were already included in the budget, approval on the Consent Agenda next week would not be binding on the ultimate budget determination. Mr. Turley clarified the COLA is included in the assumptions of salaries and benefits in the budget, not as a separate decision package. As this was already included in the preliminary 2021 budget, Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Mayor has already considered this expenditure. She encouraged Councilmembers to support non- represented staff by approving this 1.8% COLA. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that Mayor Nelson recommended a 2% COLA and that was included in the budget. If the motion is a 1.8% COLA that is a differential of 0.2%. Mayor Nelson agreed he recommended 2%. Ms. Neill-Hoyson explained 1.8% is the inflation level for the first half of the year but 2% was recommended in the event of any fluctuations by year end. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO AMEND TO MOVE APPROVAL OF A 2% WAGE ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES IN 2021 TO NEXT WEEK’S CONSENT AGENDA. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING YES. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PRESENTATION OF CAPITAL DECISION PACKAGES FOR 2021 PROPOSED BUDGET( Acting Finance Director Dave Turley introduced this item. Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed Public Works & Utilities Department 2021 Capital Decision Packages:  Phase 12 Water Line Replacement: Capital DP #47 (Water Fund – 421) o $467,944 Design phase for 2022 water main replacements. Selection based on age, pipe type, pipe size, pressure and/or flow issues. Total cost estimated at $3,100,000 Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order about where this information was in packet. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Mr. Turley’s response to her question that last week’s presentation is in the packet. This week’s presentation is new information and is not included in the packet. Mr. Turley agreed these slides will be in next week’s packet. Mr. Williams continued:  2021 Waterline Overlays: Capital DP #48 (Water Fund -421) o $227,000 Cost to repair pavement damage caused by 2020 waterline replacements 6.2.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 16  Swedish and 76th Ave Waterline Replacement: Capital DP #49 (Water Fund 421) o $10,000 close-out costs for this project. Substantial completion in 2020  Dayton 3rd to 9th: Capital DP #50 (Water, Sewer, Storm 421, 423, 422) o $9,000 close-out costs for this project. Substantial completion in 2020. Total cost approx. $7.5M  Phase 11 Waterline Replacements: Capital DP #51 (Water Fund 421) o $2,074,050 for construction in 2021 of Phase 11 Waterline replacement package o 6,200 feet of watermain replacement in 2021  Phase 7 Sewer Replacement: Capital DP #52 (Sewer) $11,000 Water $1,000 Sewer $10,000 o Close out of Phase 7 Sewer replacement project. Substantial Completion in 2020. Total Cost approx. $2,400,000  Phase 2 Storm Replacements/Rehabs: Capital DP #53 (Storm Fund 422) o $1,500,000 To construct Phase 2 Storm Pipe replacement and rehabilitation projects. Design on-going in 2020. Total cost (design/construction) approx. $2,000,000 (est. pending)  Phase 3 Storm Replacements (design): Capital DP #54 (Storm Fund 422) o $300,000 to design the phase 3 stormwater piping replacement and rehabilitation projects for construction in 2022  175th St. Slope Repair: Capital DP #55 (Storm Fund 422) o $130,000 design of a permanent fix for a section of 175th where road base is slowly failing. Possible remedy is either a soldier pile or keyed-block retaining wall  Willow Creek Daylighting Channel Alignment – new alternative: Capital DP #56 (Storm Fund 422) o $80,000 develop an additional alignment for the daylighting of Willow and Shellabarger Creeks and compare its impacts, benefits, and costs of other alternatives previously developed. Goal – be immediately ready to enter detailed design as soon as a property transfer is completed.  Stormwater Pavement Overlays: Capital DP #57 (Storm Fund 422) o $50,000 to repair damage done to streets from previous Stormwater piping projects  Elm Way Walkway (design): Capital DP #58 (Storm Fund 422 and REET1) o $150,800 design of new sidewalk section on Elm Way (between 8th & 9th Ave). High priority on short walkway list (2015) $95k – REET1, $55.8 – Storm Fund 422  Seaview Infiltration Facility – Phase 2: Capital DP #59 (Storm Fund 422) o $116,100 ($17,925 after grant funds) Design only. The project will double the capacity of the infiltration system at Seaview Park to reduce erosion in Perrinville Creek. 75% grant funded. Total project cost estimated at $742,000  Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects: Capital DP #60 (Storm Fund 422) o $50,000 Opportunity fund to pursue rain garden cluster projects and State grants in the Perrinville Creek basin to reduce peak flows and enhance groundwater recharge.  Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project (Phase 1): Capital DP #61 (Storm Fund 422) o $40,000 Design of Phase 1 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project. Grant support has been requested at 75% grant and 25% match. Phase 1 to address treatment of storm runoff from SR104 into the marsh.  Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh: Capital DP #62 (Storm Fund 422) o $450,000 Proposed carry-forward of 2020 funding as a set aside for design of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project should property issues get resolved in 2021. Some of this funding could also be used to prepare grant applications or for stakeholder outreach and public information. None of the funding would be spent without additional Council approval 6.2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 17  Phase 8 Sewer Replacement 2021: Capital DP #63 (Sewer Fund 423) o $1,666,683 Design in progress 2020. Construction Phase beginning Spring 2021. Total projected cost approx. $2,000,000  Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study: Capital DP #64 (Sewer Fund 423) o $124,500 Study will review current sewer line condition for mains on the west and south sides of the lake and looking at alternatives to increase capacity, reduce maintenance, and improve reliability and accessibility. Total cost estimated at $300,000. To be completed in 2022.  2021 Sewer Overlays: Capital DP #65 (Sewer Fund 423) o $30,000 Sewer Fund Pavement repairs in areas where Sewer lines have been replaced in previous years.  Citywide CIPP SS Phase 3: Capital DP #66 (Sewer Fund 423) o $463,710 Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP) Phase 3 for sewer pipes that are subject to root intrusion, I&I, and/or damage of certain types that can be repaired using this trenchless technology  Phase 9 Sewer Replacement (2022 construction): Capital DP #67 (Sewer Fund 423) o $323,148 Design of Phase 9 (2022) Sewer replacements  2021 Pavement Overlay Program: Capital DP #68 (REET 1, REET 2, Street Fund 112) o $800,000 2021 Street paving program. $300k REET 1, $400k REET 2, $100k Fund 112  2020 - $1,200,000  2019 - $1,500,000  2018 - $1,500,000  76th/220th Intersection Improvements: Capital DP #69 (CMAQ Grant and TIF) o $300,000 Design Phase. 75%/25% grant of $702,000. o Left turn lanes, protective/permissive phasing, new sidewalks, ADA ramps, bike lanes, streetlights, utility upgrades, undergrounding, total cost approx. $8.3 million  76th Ave. W Overlay: Capital DP #70 (Street Construction Fund 112 & REET 1) o $360,000 design of pavement overlay on 76th Ave W. from 196th to OVD (Perrinville). Federal grant $645,000 ($105k design, $545k construction). Partnered with Lynnwood  Federal Overlay 84th Ave SW: Capital DP #71 (Fund 112 & REET 1) o $5,000 Closeout of 84th Ave. federal grant-funded overlay between Five Corners and 220th. Total Project cost approx. $1,200,000. Contractor has defaulted. We will keep Council apprised on further developments.  Highway 99 Revitalization Phase 1: Capital DP #72 (Fund 112 & REET 1) o $873,048 2021 Funding to complete on-going design of the HWY99 Median project to improve safety and reduce high-angle accidents as the first step in the overall revitalization project ($183M). Overall median project cost approx. $7,500,000  Citywide Bicycle Improvements: Capital DP #73 (Fund 112) o $256,000 For continued design in 2021. Funding from a Sound Transit grant of $1.85 million. Construction to occur in 2022.  Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements: Capital DP #74 (Federal grant, Street 112, REET 1, Storm 422) o $1,591,535 Design complete. Project will be advertised for construction bids this week. Construction will begin in spring 2021. Includes 9 separate improvements. Combination of RRFBs, HAWK signal, and a new traffic signal.  2021 Pedestrian Safety Program: Capital DP #75 (REET 2) o $20,191 Installation of pedestrian safety improvements at key locations. Options include RRFB’s, adding missing sidewalk segments, curb bulb-outs at intersections, stop sign flashers, and added signage and striping o Pedestrian traffic fatality statistics  5,375 pedestrians were killed and 69,000 were injured in traffic crashes in 2015 6.2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 18  Over half of pedestrian fatalities occurred at night  8 out of 10 pedestrian fatalities occurred outside of intersections  21% of children under age 14 who were killed in traffic crashes were on foot  2021 Traffic Signal Upgrades: Capital DP #76 (REET 2) o $30,000 Vehicle detection upgrades at intersections, vehicle head/pedestrian head upgrades and other signal-related upgrades. Improvements proposed at SR-524 @ Olympic View Dr., SR-524 @ 80th Ave. W, SR-104 @ 236th St. SW, and 100th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW  Sidewalk Expansion & Maintenance Program: Capital DP #77 (REET 2) o $100,000 One-time increase in supply budget for Street Fund 111, primarily for buying ready-mix concrete at our nearest batch plat for use in our new concrete mixer. Will also include some additional concrete finishing hand tools  2021 Guardrail Program: Capital DP #78 (REET 1) o $20,180 Replacement of old, structurally deficient guardrails and Installation of new guardrails in locations where a significant grade change close to the travel lane exists.  2021 Traffic Calming Program: Capital DP #79 (REET 1) o $15,000 Placing radar feedback signs (permanent or mobile), curb bulb-outs, additional striping, signage (plain or activated) or other techniques to slow vehicle traffic. o If DP is approved, will increase traffic calming from $18k to $33k in 2021. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser reviewed Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services 2021 Capital Budget Decision Packages:  Parks 2021-2026 CIP/CFP o Methodology  Finish big projects - Waterfront Redevelopment - Civic Park  Maintain Current Assets - Playgrounds - Trails & Bridges - Athletic Fields - Greenhouse Replacement  Prepare for Future Large Projects - Marsh Restoration - Marina Beach Park - 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor - Land Acquisition  Fund 125 & 126 o Greenhouse Replacement: $100,000 (DP #80)  One of three greenhouses required for the flower basket and corner park program  The only climate controlled greenhouse, its failure would result in loss of all plant material for flower baskets and corner parks  Funding - $50,000 – Fund 136 (Parks Trust) - $50,000 – Fund 125 (REET 2)  Fund 125 – Ongoing (DP #18) o Park Improvement & Capital Replacement Program: $55,000  In prior budgets, each project was identified by park site. Simplifying this year by combining  Life-cycle major maintenance to prolong usage and/or increase capacity: - Resurfacing - Replacement 6.2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 19 - Upgrading  Funds 125, 126, 332 o Civic Park Development $6,030,315 (DP #82) o $6.03M in each 2021 & 2022  Design Complete  Permit Review Complete  Rebid in January 2021  Groundbreaking spring 2021  16 Months to Complete16 months to complete o Funding sources:  $3.47M in Grant Funding  $3.7M Bonds  $1.35M Park Impact Fee’s  $1.38M REET Funding  $1.86 GF Carryforward  $400K Donations  Fund 332 Fishing Pier Repair: $54,425 (DP #83) o Carryforward of unused funds from WDFW o Bid spring/summer 2020 Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. ACTION ITEM 1. MOVING COUNCIL FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Paine recalled Council discussed this last week. The agenda memo includes several questions: 1. Do we do this? 2. If so, when does this change start and for how long? 3. And if so, when and what times do we want to have our committee meeting? At the 10/20 meeting, the majority of those who were supportive of a time shift preferred option A. Options for individual Council Committee meetings include but are not limited to: A. Stagger Committee meetings via Zoom so that the public may watch all three and that Directors/staff can attend. For example, one committee meeting from 4-5pm, the next from 5- 6pm and the third from 6-7pm, followed by the regular Council meeting at 7pm. B. Two committee meeting days--one from 5-6p and the other from 6-7pm--with the third committee meeting held on the next Tuesday followed by the regular Council meeting at 7pm. C. Three Tuesdays a month, Committee meetings would be held prior to the regular Council meeting. (Con: Council would not be able to meet in executive session except for one meeting per month.) Councilmember Buckshnis said she received another complaint from a citizen about using Zoom. She wanted to ensure the Council vetted the issue and had sufficient time to have all their questions answered. Citizens are used to the current format and there are only two committee meeting nights left this year. The extended agenda does not have that much on it. She summarized that was her opinion because she continues to hear complaints from citizens about the Zoom process. Council President Fraley-Monillas said people will have to learn to deal with the Zoom process because it likely will continue for another year. Moving forward with a change to committees now is probably the 6.2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 20 best way to ensure citizens are hearing what is occurring in committees. She encouraged Councilmembers to consider Option A, staggered committees so the public can watch the meetings. Councilmember Olson said she was leaning toward this change and doing it for a longer period of time to avoid another change. She recommended making a change now through December 2021. She agreed with Council President Fraley-Monillas, finding staggered committees a better option. She found Option B to be the worst option because Councilmembers have too many meeting conflicts and she wanted to be able to attend committee meetings as a spectator. Councilmember Distelhorst preferred Option A both for scheduling for residents who are used to Tuesday nights and Councilmembers who have cleared their schedules on Tuesday nights. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Councilmember Paine for her work and added her support for the change and her preference for Option A. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested whatever the Council chose to do, it should only be for this year. When 2021 starts, the Council will have a lighter schedule and the Council could maintain the third Tuesday for committee meetings and hold them 7-8 p.m., 8-9 p.m. and 9-10 p.m. in a staggered format. Mayor Nelson observed a majority of Councilmembers agreed with the change, which was the first question Councilmember Paine posed. The next question is the format and for how long. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she can set it up for the November and December meetings. It will be up to the next Council President to determine Council committee assignments. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THIS METHODOLOGY TO ADD ONE MORE NIGHT OF REGULAR MEETINGS ON THE SECOND TUESDAY AND MOVE TO A ZOOM FORMAT FOR THE REST OF YEAR USING OPTION A. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification whether through the end of the year was through 2020. Councilmember Paine clarified her intent was through the end of 2021. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled when the Council adopted the ordinance regarding the Zoom format, it was not tied to a date but rather OPMA, the governor order or the ability ability to meet in person. He asked it would make sense to sync this change to that instead of a calendar date. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled when the Council began meeting on Zoom in March the motion did not establish an ending date, just until further notice. He said that would be true with regard to the Zoom aspect. With regard to the meeting times, he sought clarification whether committee times envisioned in Option A were temporary for COVID purposes or whether the Council envisioned that as a long term change as it would affect how the ordinance to amend the code was drafted. Councilmember Paine asked if Mr. Taraday wanted to know which committee would meet at which time. Mr. Taraday explained the current code states committees are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 7 p.m. Clearly that will change and Tuesday at 7 p.m. will be a regular Council meeting. He asked if the Council was establishing a new regular meeting time for committees or would all the committee meetings be special meetings without establishing a regular time. Councilmember Paine preferred to make a permanent change and when the Council no longer met virtually via Zoom, the Council could evaluate whether to continue committee meetings or not. She felt meetings were much faster when the Council met in person and she agreed it was difficult for the public to provide audience comments via the Zoom process. Adding an additional regular meeting will make things more efficient. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 21 Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council pursue Option A with meetings 4-5 p.m., 5-6 p.m. and 6-7 p.m., followed by the regular Council meeting at 7 p.m. until future notice as a long term change would be the easiest for citizens. When the Council returns to meeting in person, it can be reconsidered. If the committees meet at those times, the meetings can be taped and citizens can watch them later. She acknowledged there would always be citizens who disliked the change, but it was important for Council to be able to get their work done. Councilmember Buckshnis said committees should not be special meetings because then the agenda cannot be changed and the Finance Committee often adds items. She pointed out the Personnel Committee does not meet often; it needs to be clear to citizens when no meetings are scheduled. She also noted some committees such as the Parks and Public Works (PPW) Committee often last longer than an hour Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order about the motion on the floor. Councilmember Paine restated the motion: DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MAKE IT PERMANENT TO MOVE TO A STAGGERED ZOOM MEETINGS TIME ON TUESDAYS AND START AT 4 AND CONTINUE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE AND REEVALUATE WHEN THE COUNCIL RETURNS TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained her point of order, Councilmembers should speak to the motion, not “woulda shoulda coulda” and backstory stuff can be worked out as the Council moves forward. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken and Councilmember Buckshnis was allowed to continue. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated with staggered meetings, some committees last longer than one hour and some committees rarely meet. She was unsure if a one hour limit could be set for each committee, recalling the PPW Committee meetings often last longer than an hour. She questioned establishing a time for each committee in an ordinance. Mr. Taraday said there are advantages to establishing regular meeting times. It would be necessary to establish which committee meets at 4 p.m., at 5 p.m. and at 6 p.m. With regard to a committee being unable to complete their business in the allotted hour, there would need to be a provision for that. One possibility would be the committee continues to the same time the next day, but that may not work for all Councilmembers. He sought Council direction on how to handle overflow time. City Clerk Scott Passey said he can host Zoom meetings for the committees any time before 7 p.m., but needs to be in Council Chamber at 7 p.m. to stream the regular meetings. Council President Fraley-Monillas said what is done now will be relevant into the future. There are issues now with committee meetings that run longer or shorter. She suggested for meetings that run longer than an hour, there may be issues related to organizational skills. Continuing a meeting to the following Tuesday may be a possibility. She suggested these issues could be worked out as the Council moved forward versus trying to work them out at a Council meeting. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that more than one meeting could be streamed at the same time so there could be one Zoom channel for each committee meeting. Mr. Passey said it was his understanding the City has one Zoom account that staff uses; he was unsure running multiple meetings at the same time would be possible. There would need to be a separate post for each meeting, someone to run each meeting, meetings would need to be recorded and the public would need to be able to attend. The meetings would not be livestreamed from the Council Chambers on the City’s website, they would be attended via Zoom only. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 22 Councilmember L. Johnson suggested 3:30-4:30 pm., 4:30-5:30 p.m., and 5:30-6:30 p.m. so the 5:30-6:30 p.m. committee meeting would have a break before the 7 p.m. meeting and to provide Mr. Passey time before he needs to be in Council Chambers to host the Council meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis said it has nothing to do with organizational skills, it is related to the items on the agenda. There are often numerous items on the PPW Committee agenda. She suggested holding committees on different nights although she acknowledged Councilmember s have other commitments. She suggested having meeting concurrently and having the audio on the website as has been done in the past. Mr. Passey said the assumption is if the Council can meet virtually, there is no reason the public cannot attend virtually as well. Councilmember Buckshnis said Finance Committee meetings have also exceeded one hour. Committee meetings are a time for council, staff and the administration to go through things and they should not be rushed in order to meet a one hour deadline. Councilmember K. Johnson did not support making this a permanent change and preferred to make a change only for this year. She reiterated the Council’s schedule will be lighter next year and the Council would be moving from three regular meetings to four regular meetings plus committee meetings. She preferred to solve the problem for this year and worry about next year later. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Paine, anticipating any issues could be worked out and if it didn’t work, it could be changed. That was how the Council moved to committee of the whole during the pandemic; it was just a motion and not a long process. She supported the motion, preferring to change the process if it didn’t work. The Council is wasting a lot of time discussing “shoulda woulda coulda” when there are a lot of other things to discuss. Councilmember Olson suggested considering a hybrid, having the PPW Committee during regular meetings since that seems to last the longest and have the other committee meetings prior to a regular Council meeting. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. 10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Nelson advised written reports are added to the Council meeting packets as reports become available. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported the Council will meet on Monday, November 2 next week due to the election on Tuesday, November 3. As South County Fire Chief Hovis mentioned tonight and as Snohomish Health District Medical Director has said, Mayor Nelson emphasized COVID-19 numbers are increasing. This is the third time the numbers are going up and they are going up at as fast a rate as the first time. Considering that the first time people weren’t wearing masks or social distancing, the current rate of increase is exponentially higher. There are not a lot of options for governments to take at this time; it is up to each person to socially distance and wear a mask. No one wants to take additional measures and there are few options besides shutting things down. If things continue to get worse, that is the only option that has effectively 6.2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 23 stop the spread of the virus. On behalf of the entire committee, he implored the public to wear masks, socially distance, stay home when possible and limit social gatherings. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mayor Nelson. She was in Norfolk, Virginia, the largest naval base in the world, and had not seen one person without a mask. They are in Phase 3 and their numbers are going down. Snohomish County’s numbers are increasing and flu season is coming. She agreed everyone needed to wear a mask. She urged citizens to vote and to verify that their ballot had been counted. Councilmember Paine expressed her appreciation to staff for their budget presentations. She liked the approach and the detail and how smoothly and rapidly their presentations have been made. She encouraged the public to enjoy Halloween in a very safe way. She wished everyone a good night and to stay safe. Councilmember Olson said she has enjoyed the “We Choose Kindness” sign campaign and it was a delight to feel the goodwill in the community that emanated from the signs. She was surprised there was some pushback and a counter campaign, “We Choose Change,” like kindness wasn’t something that everyone could embrace in solidarity. It made her realize how multifaceted and difficult this year has been for so many, the sadness, angst, stress, anger and pain. She assured she understood and was with those people and the community. She hoped people saw the “We Choose Kindness” signs for the good behind the message and felt the kindness they represent during this difficult time. With regard to the Flood Management Ordinance, Councilmember K. Johnson said she voted to approve it tonight because it is absolutely necessary for those who live in flood prone areas. However, she found it very alarming that so much of the developed waterfront area was now in the flood zone. If the City does not do a good job of comprehensive planning in that area, it will spend millions to safeguard the buildings that have been built and to control flooding that will inevitably increase due to climate change and sea level rise. A lot of construction occurred before the National Environmental Policy Act and before the State Environmental Policy Act were adopted. Many of the incremental decisions are negatively affecting the environment, specifically the Edmonds Marsh. The City needs to do a more comprehensive plan, maybe not in 2021, and include it in the list of projects to study as well as work with the Port and all property owners on the waterfront. Council President Fraley-Monillas congratulated Cindi Cruz on her retirement. She encouraged citizens to vote by Tuesday. She encouraged the public to stay home on Halloween, commenting the risk was too high to have children out. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she chooses change. Edmonds has had a lot of discrimination and issues over the last 2-3 years. The change she chose was to take a good hard look at what we’re dealing with as privileged white people. She encouraged others to choose change in their lives and look at where other people stand. Councilmember Distelhorst encouraged the public to vote, wear a mask, vote, stay home and don’t go out on Halloween, instead watch Episode 1 of the Mandalorian, vote, and take care. Councilmember L. Johnson reminded voters have one week to get their ballots in so please vote. She encouraged the public to socially distance and wear a mask. Echoing what South County Fire Chief Hovis said, she urged people to stay home as much as possible. First responders, frontline workers and healthcare workers can’t stay home, but for those who have the ability and privilege to stay home, it is something they can do for the community and to make it easier for frontline workers, first responders and healthcare workers. She cares about her community and although she and her kids are restless and it’s not 6.2.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 24 easy, staying home is something they can do for the community. She encouraged others to join her in staying home. Student Representative Roberts echoed previous sentiments, commenting now is a time to care and look out for each other including wearing masks, socially distance, and stay home for Halloween. There are plenty of Halloween activities such as virtual costume parties and celebrations. Over the past two weeks there has been a dangerous increase in COVID cases in Snohomish County, 1,000 cases in a 2-week period and as of a week ago, 80% of the Snohomish County ICU beds are full. We cannot do this to our frontline workers, we have to consider their lives and stop putting pressure on them to continually put their lives on the line taking care of these patients. He urged the public to take safety precautions whenever possible; it is a community effort and we are all in this together. Student Representative Roberts urged the public to vote; online and mail-in voter registration closed yesterday, but in person registration is available at the Snohomish County Elections office in Everett. He urged registered voters to make a plan to submit their ballot on or before November 3. He urged voters to take into consideration youth and the future of the country and vote for what is best for all of us. With everything that’s happening, he urged people to take time for themselves. Two people he knows personally have recently been diagnosed with major diseases which serves as a reminder to live every day to its fullest and not take anything for granted. He urged the public to be kind to everybody. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 25 Public Comment for 10/27/20 Council Meeting: From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 6:04 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.WIlliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for October 27, 2020 City Council meeting - Landau/Task Order No, 09-13 The attached Technical Memorandum from Landau clearly states: “In order to construct the wall as proposed, a temporary cut slope will be needed that would extend south beyond the property line requiring permission from the adjacent property owner, Mr. Ken Reidy.” Later in the Technical Memorandum, Landau states: “In general, technical alternatives for wall construction include either deviating the wall to avoid impacting the outbuilding structure or, as proposed, constructing a temporary sloped excavation and restoring the impacted neighboring property after wall completion to the satisfaction of both affected property owners.” Permission required from Reidy! Restoration after wall completion! As all know, I strongly opposed the TCE during the September 16, 2008 Council Meeting, which is a little different that granting permission. Restoration!?! – instead of restoration I now have a 12.5’ setback where only a 5’ setback is required. Following are my Public Comments for the October 27, 2020 City Council meeting: Please appreciate, former City Attorney Scott Snyder told the 2009 City Council right before its VOTE on 3/17/09 that: The City will be utilizing the right -of -way construction process to balance the property owners' interests and review construction mechanisms, provide for bonding and insurance for constructing the wall as well as consider whether there are any options to removing a portion of Mr. Reidy's shed. Much of what Snyder represented involved something called “Peer Review”. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 26 The attached City Staff notes dated 3/17/09 clearly state: “We will have Peer review”. What exactly is “Peer review”? I encourage all elected officials to research what it is, when it is supposed to be done and who pays for it. Laudau Associates performed the Peer review under an agreement with the City of Edmonds for On-Call Geotechnical Engineering Services known as Task Order No, 09-13. Please see Landau’s Technical Memorandum attached and please note that it is dated October 1, 2009. The City’s Engineering Division stamped it RECEIVED on October 7, 2009. By the time October 1, 2009 rolled around, the City had issued five (5) different Order to Correct violations related to Mr. Reidy's shed. The City had also approved Thuesen’s Civil Plans on August 13, 2009. Oh, and please don’t forget, a telephone conference took place on July 31, 2009 involving Scott Snyder and City Staff. Meeting notes contain the following: “Non-conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered.” So much for grandfathering, Peer review and balancing the property owners' interests!!!! Please read Landau’s Technical Memorandum attached. The Technical Memorandum verifies that there were indeed options to removing a portion of Mr. Reidy's shed! There was even an option that “will likely result in some damage to the lean-to structure and remaining slab, requiring restoration to the satisfaction of both property owners”. Does anybody ever wonder why the City didn’t require restoration of Reidy’s structure and concrete slab???? Isn't that a basic requirement when the City obtains Temporary Construction Easements? When a City government is so far gone that it is willing to issue multiple code enforcement orders and approve Civil Plans long before the City receives a Peer review Technical Memorandum, what is an Edmonds family supposed to do? Is the only option to go to court because nobody in 6.2.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 27 Edmonds City government has the will to correct historical wrongs? Where is that willpower and why is it absent? Please review our Peer review policies promptly and update our laws if necessary. Should City Staff be held accountable if they take action prior to receipt of Peer review Technical Memorandums from entities the City has contracted with, such as Landau Associates? Thank you. 6.2.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 28 6.2.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 29 6.2.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 30 6.2.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 31 6.2.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 27, 2020 Page 32 6.2.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-27-2020 (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #244638 through #244728 dated October 29, 2020 for $484,488.25 (re-issued check #244705 $200.00) and wire payments of $442.85 & $417.67. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payments. 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. Attachments: claims 10-29-20 wire 10-28-20 wire 10-29-20 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 6.3 Packet Pg. 38 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24463810/23/2020078126 MARSH USA INC 920059793493STORAGE TANK LIABILITY INSURANCEStorage Tank Liability Insurance WWTP -423.000.76.535.80.46.00 1,727.00Total :1,727.0024463910/29/2020065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 38336WWTP: 10/20/20 PEST CONTROL SERVICEPest Control Service423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.4% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.59Total :80.5924464010/29/2020077610 ALBA PAINTING & COATINGS FS17FS 17 - PAINTING BUILDINGFS 17 - PAINTING BUILDING001.000.66.518.30.48.00 26,000.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,704.00PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING - PAINT &PUBLIC SAFETYPUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING - PAINT &001.000.66.518.30.48.00 39,950.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 4,154.80Total :72,808.8024464110/29/2020074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 6474323SEPT PREMIUMSFIRE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,213.23LEOFF PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,147.77OCTOBER PREMIUMS6516156FIRE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,213.23LEOFF PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 7,800.03NOVEMBER PREMIUMS65585321Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24464110/29/2020(Continued)074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INCFIRE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,213.23LEOFF PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 7,800.03Total :27,387.5224464210/29/2020069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991953453FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMSFACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5610.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.07PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1991962733PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.1610.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.36FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1991962734FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5610.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.07PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1991967966PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 3.01PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 11.4310.4% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 1.1910.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 1.1910.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.18PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 11.432Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24464210/29/2020(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESPUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 11.43PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 11.43PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 11.4010.4% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3110.4% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 1.1910.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1.19FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1991967967FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.56FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.9910.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.99PARKS MAINT: STAFF CITY TEE SHIRTS22813992PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1,272.2710.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.24.00 132.32Total :1,635.3924464310/29/2020073834 BATTERIES PLUS P31935248WWTP: PO 411 AAA & 3V LITHUM BATTERIESPO 411 AAA & 3V LITHUM BATTERIES423.000.76.535.80.31.00 25.5510.4% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.66Total :28.213Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24464410/29/2020076930 BLACKFIN TECHNOLOGIES NW INC 201003WATER & SEWER - CONFIGURE & COMMISSIONWATER & SEWER - CONFIGURE & COMMISSION421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,750.00WATER & SEWER - CONFIGURE & COMMISSION423.000.75.535.80.41.00 1,750.00Total :3,500.0024464510/29/2020074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1201213FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 692.0 GALLONSFLEET - AUTO PROPANE 692.0 GALLONS511.000.77.548.68.34.12 736.41Total :736.4124464610/29/2020072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 9262 9268 YOGA9262 9268 YOGA/PILATES INSTRUCTION9262 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 105.009268 YOGA/PILATES ONLINE INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 97.509265 YOGA INSTRUCTION9265 YOGA9265 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 750.00Total :952.5024464710/29/2020078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 9273 9276 TRAINING9273 9276 PERSONAL TRAINING CLASS INSTRU9273 CIRCUIT TRAINING ONLINE CLASS001.000.64.571.27.41.00 16.509276 STRENGTH TRAINING CLASS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 16.50Total :33.0024464810/29/2020018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 94766395STREET - GRAVELSTREET - GRAVEL111.000.68.542.61.31.00 447.5010.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.61.31.00 44.77STREET - 3/8 AEA94789856STREET - 3/8 AEA4Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24464810/29/2020(Continued)018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY111.000.68.542.61.31.00 341.2510.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.61.31.00 34.13Total :867.6524464910/29/2020073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 22025854METER USAGE/CONTRACT CHARGEScontract charge and meter usage001.000.31.514.23.45.00 580.8510.4% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.45.00 60.42PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT 001-0522025855PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 263.45P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT 001-05721022025861P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 120.78PARK MAINT IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT 001-22025862PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.576.80.45.00 82.15COUNCIL CANON COPIER MONTHLY LEASE & USA22025865Monthly contract001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.44Color Meter Usage001.000.11.511.60.45.00 5.2510.4% Sales Tax001.000.11.511.60.45.00 3.35B/W Meter Usage001.000.11.511.60.45.00 0.52Total :1,143.2124465010/29/2020077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 011STATE LOBBYIST OCTOBER 2020State Lobbyist October 2020001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,750.00Total :3,750.005Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24465110/29/2020078035 CB PACIFIC INC #IP1020122370WWTP: PO 389 PEC,6,F1,CI,NBR,CR,1C0*NT &PO 389 PEC,6,F1,CI,NBR,CR,1C0*NT & 6"423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,496.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 149.7410.4% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 171.17Total :1,816.9124465210/29/2020076718 CHASE, BARBARA BChase Oct 2020 TREE BOARD EXPENSESReimb for tree board expenditures~001.000.62.524.10.49.00 132.45Total :132.4524465310/29/2020077306 CHECK RIDE DRIVER TRAINING SHAWSHAW - CLASS A CDL TRAINING & DRUG TESTSHAW - CLASS A CDL TRAINING & DRUG TEST423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4,450.00Total :4,450.0024465410/29/2020078124 CHETS ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION BLD2020-1115 REFUND: BUILDING PERMITRefund of 80% for building permit fees001.000.257.620 80.00Total :80.0024465510/29/2020070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 8498310300732547 PUBLIC WORKS - DIGITAL CABLEPublic Works - 7110 210th S SW -111.000.68.542.90.42.00 9.19Public Works - 7110 210th S SW -421.000.74.534.80.42.00 9.19Public Works - 7110 210th S SW -423.000.75.535.80.42.00 9.19Public Works - 7110 210th S SW -511.000.77.548.68.42.00 8.81Public Works - 7110 210th S SW -001.000.65.518.20.42.00 1.916Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :38.2924465510/29/2020070323 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS24465610/29/2020075860 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO S009978193.001 WATER - METER BOXWATER - METER BOX421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4,318.0210.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 449.07Total :4,767.0924465710/29/2020077245 CRASH DATA GROUP INC INV 9616INV 9616 - EDMONDS PDCDR SOFTWARE RENEWAL001.000.41.521.71.35.00 1,250.00Total :1,250.0024465810/29/2020070753 CREA AFFILIATES LLC 190220-94TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PROFESSIONA4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR125.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,455.00Total :4,455.0024465910/29/2020068654 DIJULIO DISPLAYS INC 9276PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTSPM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS125.000.64.576.80.48.00 3,089.0710.4% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.48.00 321.26Total :3,410.3324466010/29/2020064531 DINES, JEANNIE 20-4040CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 10/13 & 10/city council meeting minutes 10/13 and001.000.25.514.30.41.00 723.60Total :723.6024466110/29/2020077916 ED MCCARTHY PE PS 20077FLOWER BASKET POLE ARTWORKPROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT: FLOWER127.200.64.573.20.41.00 2,400.00Total :2,400.0024466210/29/2020038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 03REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR CO7Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24466210/29/2020(Continued)038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTERREIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR CONNECT001.000.39.565.10.41.00 8,000.00REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR CO04REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR CONNECT001.000.39.565.10.41.00 5,500.00REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR CO05REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR CONNECT001.000.39.565.10.41.00 5,500.00Total :19,000.0024466310/29/2020008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST /WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST001.000.64.576.80.47.00 80.19EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST001.000.64.576.80.47.00 93.85LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET2-26950LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 112.21PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N /001.000.64.576.80.47.00 134.82LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.88SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 87942-37180SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER 8794001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.98LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.88Total :600.8124466410/29/2020078138 ERIN & GARRETT BROWN 2-23425#0188868-OC-SMA UTILITY REFUND#0188868-OC-SMA Utility refund due to8Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24466410/29/2020(Continued)078138 ERIN & GARRETT BROWN411.000.233.000 307.17Total :307.1724466510/29/2020009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH9107982021 PRELIM BUDGET2021 prelim budget001.000.62.558.60.41.40 156.80INV EDH911082 - ACCT 14126500 - EDMONDSEDH911082UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD001.000.41.521.10.41.40 18.20ORDINANCE NO. 4197EDH911254ordinance no. 4197001.000.62.558.60.41.40 43.40Total :218.4024466610/29/2020073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA 42273DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM O&M ANDDISTRIBUTION SYSTEM O&M AND421.000.74.534.80.49.00 500.00Total :500.0024466710/29/2020074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 44348E8GA.SERVICES THRU 9/27/20E8GA.Services thru 9/27/20423.000.75.594.35.41.00 5,005.60E8FC.SERVICES THRU 9/27/2044349E8FC.Services thru 9/27/20422.000.72.594.31.41.00 5,782.50Total :10,788.1024466810/29/2020012199 GRAINGER 9684854970PM SUPPLIES: PRIMERPM SUPPLIES: PRIMER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 91.6210.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.52Total :101.1424466910/29/2020078131 GROW WITH US INC 10282020growwithusCARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANTCARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT9Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24466910/29/2020(Continued)078131 GROW WITH US INC142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.00Total :8,000.0024467010/29/2020074804 HARLES, JANINE 527292PHOTOGRAPHY - OCTOBER 2020Photography for October 2020001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :200.0024467110/29/2020074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2019-230TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance October 2020120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Total :1,866.0024467210/29/2020078046 HOMAGE SENIOR SERVICES EHS083120HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIEF FUND CAREHOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIEF FUND CARE142.000.39.518.63.41.00 3,935.34HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIEF FUND CAREEHS093020HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIEF FUND CARE142.000.39.518.63.41.00 22,671.61HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIEF FUND CAREEHS101520HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIEF FUND CARE142.000.39.518.63.41.00 16,234.92Total :42,841.8724467310/29/2020067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1010018PM SUPPLIES: CAULK, SEALANTPM SUPPLIES: CAULK, SEALANT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 117.5210.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.99PM SUPPLIES: GAS LEAK DETECTOR1010070PM SUPPLIES: GAS LEAK DETECTOR001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.9810.2% Sales Tax10Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24467310/29/2020(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.55PM COVID SUPPLIES: BUCKET, PUTTY, BOLTS,2026651PM COVID SUPPLIES: BUCKET, PUTTY,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 77.3910.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.89PM SUPPLIES: WRENCHES, PRUNER, TAPE MEAS2520560PM SUPPLIES: WRENCHES, PRUNER, TAPE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 96.6610.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.86PM SUPPLIES: LIGHTBULBS, COUPLING, CARRY3020024PM SUPPLIES: LIGHTBULBS, COUPLING,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 95.9910.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.79PM SUPPLIES: CLAMPS, HOOKS, WEED & FEED3072597PM SUPPLIES: CLAMPS, HOOKS, WEED & FEED001.000.64.576.80.31.00 82.6210.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.43PM SUPPLIES: FLASHLIGHT, COVER ROUNDS3072640PM SUPPLIES: FLASHLIGHT, COVER ROUNDS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.0910.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.38PM SUPPLIES: SEALANT, CAULK, BUCKET5027547PM SUPPLIES: SEALANT, CAULK, BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.31.00 130.6210.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.32PM SUPPLIES: CAULK, SEALANT54239PM SUPPLIES: CAULK, SEALANT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 101.9211Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24467310/29/2020(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES10.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.40PM SUPPLIES: HOOKS, SEALANT, CAULK7025980PM SUPPLIES: HOOKS, SEALANT, CAULK001.000.64.576.80.31.00 123.7810.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.63CEMETERY SUPPLIES: RATCHET WRENCH, WD-408025860CEMETERY SUPPLIES: RATCHET WRENCH, WD-40130.000.64.536.50.31.00 57.9510.2% Sales Tax130.000.64.536.50.31.00 5.91PM SUPPLIES: PLIERS8025861PM SUPPLIES: PLIERS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.9510.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.30PM SUPPLIES: CAULK, SEALANT, PUTTY, SILI9025696PM SUPPLIES: CAULK, SEALANT, PUTTY,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 150.2410.2% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.32Total :1,261.4824467410/29/2020061013 HONEY BUCKET 0551771595FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HONEY BUCKETFRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 240.35Total :240.3524467510/29/2020073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3414813AT-A-GLANCE JULIAN REFILL CALENDARAt-A-Glance Julian refill calendar001.000.31.514.23.31.00 57.8610.4% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.0212Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :63.8824467510/29/2020073548 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED24467610/29/2020014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10078762 PM SUPPLIES: MOTOR TUNE-UPPM SUPPLIES: MOTOR TUNE-UP001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.8510.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.17PM SUPPLIES: BRAKE CLEANER, ELECTRICAL T300-10078763PM SUPPLIES: BRAKE CLEANER, ELECTRICAL001.000.64.576.80.31.00 181.6310.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.89Total :223.5424467710/29/2020076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC W3X8610011WWTP: 8/22-10/6/19 FOR TO 1.2019 & 6.2018/22-10/6/19 FOR TO 1.2019 & 6.2019423.000.76.535.80.41.00 3,294.00Total :3,294.0024467810/29/2020015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 836005WWTP: PO 179 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITEPO 179 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,759.14WA Hazadous Substance Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.53 26.3110.4% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.53 390.95Total :4,176.4024467910/29/2020078139 JEFF & TAMI RILEY 2-238075#500105675-KD UTILITY REFUND#500105675-KD Utility refund - received411.000.233.000 395.35Total :395.3524468010/29/2020066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC 7409E175PO - FRONT BUCKET SEATE175PO - FRONT BUCKET SEAT511.100.77.594.48.64.00 300.9513Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24468010/29/2020(Continued)066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC10.4% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 31.30Total :332.2524468110/29/2020017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09092020-02 AUGUST 2020 - CAR WASHESAUGUST 2020 - CAR WASHES511.000.77.548.68.49.00 5.07INV 10132020-01 - SEPT 2020 - EDMONDS PD10132020-01SEPT 2020 CAR WASH CHARGES001.000.41.521.22.48.00 106.47SEPT 2020 CAR WASHES - FLEET10132020-02SEPT 2020 CAR WASHES - FLEET511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.14Total :121.6824468210/29/2020077874 LACY & PAR INC 78229DEV SVCS: PROF SERVICESHousing Commission Mailing: Deliver to001.000.62.524.10.41.00 36.00Housing Commission Mailing: Postage001.000.62.524.10.41.00 880.26Housing Commission Mailing: Data001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,078.2310.0% Sales Tax001.000.62.524.10.41.00 107.83Total :2,102.3224468310/29/2020078132 LASHES BY LOUIE LLC 10282020lashesCARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANTCARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.00Total :8,000.0024468410/29/2020073968 MAGER, SARAH 2005664.009REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVIDREFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVID: #8334001.000.239.200 170.00Total :170.0014Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24468510/29/2020073460 MALAN, LINDA 2005661.009REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVIDREFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVID:001.000.239.200 98.00Total :98.0024468610/29/2020077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC TE28815E7MA.SERVICES THRU 10/10/20E7MA.Services thru 10/10/20332.000.64.594.76.41.00 184.63E7MA.Services thru 10/10/20126.000.64.594.76.41.00 104.04E7MA.Services thru 10/10/20125.000.64.594.76.41.00 156.33Total :445.0024468710/29/2020068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0251307E182PO - PARTS/ FACEPLATE & FILLERE182PO - PARTS/ FACEPLATE & FILLER511.100.77.594.48.64.00 51.48Freight511.100.77.594.48.64.00 14.7910.4% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.89E182PO - PARTS0251483E182PO - PARTS511.100.77.594.48.64.00 525.0210.4% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 54.61Total :652.7924468810/29/2020072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 20-2775.00-7 E0GA.SERVICES THRU 9/30/20E0GA.Services thru 9/30/20423.000.75.594.35.41.00 52,256.85Total :52,256.8524468910/29/2020067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 5915230PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELSPM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.8815Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24468910/29/2020(Continued)067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS10.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.45.00 22.76Total :241.6424469010/29/2020064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0593656-INWATER - MESH VESTSWATER - MESH VESTS421.000.74.534.80.31.00 149.2510.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.52WATER - HARD HATS0595245-INWATER - HARD HATS421.000.74.534.80.31.00 115.5010.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 12.01Total :292.2824469110/29/2020024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0738977-INFLEET - FILTERSFLEET - FILTERS511.000.77.548.68.34.40 21.6410.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.25FLEET - FILTERS0741708-INFLEET - FILTERS511.000.77.548.68.34.40 64.3210.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.40 6.69FLEET - FILTERS0743817-INFLEET - FILTERS511.000.77.548.68.34.40 28.2710.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.94Total :126.1124469210/29/2020025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 754PLANNING: PROF SVCSPlanning Board Minutes (10/14/20) $41816Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24469210/29/2020(Continued)025690 NOYES, KARIN001.000.62.558.60.41.00 456.00Total :456.0024469310/29/2020076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 69215108DOT CERTSWATER - DOT RECERT (KUHNHAUSEN)421.000.74.534.80.41.00 103.00WATER - DOT RECERT (ROCHFORD)421.000.74.534.80.41.00 103.00HEP VACCINE - SANCHEZ001.000.41.521.10.41.00 98.00Total :304.0024469410/29/2020072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3685-496045 UNIT 66 - PARTS (RETURNED)UNIT 66 - PARTS (RETURNED)511.000.77.548.68.31.10 37.0910.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.89UNIT 66 - PARTS RETURNED3685-496438UNIT 66 - PARTS RETURNED511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -37.0910.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -3.89UNIT 66 - PARTS RETURNED3685-497660UNIT 66 - PARTS RETURNED511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -29.1210.5% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -3.06UNIT 329 - PARTS/ IGNITION COIL3685-498649UNIT 329 - PARTS/ IGNITION COIL511.000.77.548.68.31.10 75.2510.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.83UNIT 101 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER3685-498872UNIT 101 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.7017Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24469410/29/2020(Continued)072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS10.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.80Total :59.4024469510/29/2020060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19014768SEWER/ STATION 8 - BATTERYSEWER/ STATION 8 - BATTERY423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.9210.4% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.72Total :7.6424469610/29/2020069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 12271122UNIT 138 - PARTS/ IDLER (WILL CALL)UNIT 138 - PARTS/ IDLER (WILL CALL)511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.118.7% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.45FLEET - PARTS/ FILTER12290374FLEET - PARTS/ FILTER511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.18Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.8810.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.93Total :178.5524469710/29/2020071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS 2020-28INV 2020-28 - EDMONDS PD- CEBAN/STANLEYSUMMER WT JUMPSUIT - CEBAN001.000.41.521.22.24.00 540.00SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT - STANLEY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 540.00Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 91.80Total :1,171.8024469810/29/2020028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0V80044WWTP: PO 421 CNDUIT, LEVS, OUTLET18Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24469810/29/2020(Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY PO 421 CNDUIT, LEVS, OUTLET423.000.76.535.80.48.00 310.9410.4% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 32.34WWTP: PO 423 SPLICE KITS, 3M BSV10Q(1=250W07030PO 423 SPLICE KITS, 3M BSV10Q(1=25) #10423.000.76.535.80.48.00 75.8410.4% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.89Total :427.0124469910/29/2020068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2020-0572Q3 SUBSCRIPTION FEESQ3 SUBSCRIPTION FEES001.000.22.521.10.49.00 809.00Total :809.0024470010/29/2020046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / MEFRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 770.67YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 876.61OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 69.06FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 80.78CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 653.21FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 315.09FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /20001767634319Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 57Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24470010/29/2020(Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGYFLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W511.000.77.548.68.47.00 179.68SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 81.03PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 8.16PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 31.01PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 31.01PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.01PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 31.01PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 30.99CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 170.41WWTP: 9/22-10/21/20 METER 000390395 2002200234124189/22-10/21/20 METER 000390395 200423.000.76.535.80.47.63 374.27Total :3,734.0024470110/29/2020078130 QUAN YIN ACUPUNCTURE LLC 10282020quanCARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANTCARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.00Total :8,000.0024470210/29/2020030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 27621INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-WEAVERINSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-WEAVER130.000.64.536.20.34.00 150.0020Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 58Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :150.0024470210/29/2020030780 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC24470310/29/2020062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000053980STORM - STREET SWEEPINGSSTORM - STREET SWEEPINGS422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,971.50Total :1,971.5024470410/29/2020075734 RENEE COX/ BHCC 08/06/2008/06/20 - 2ND QUARTER PEER SUPPORT INVOPEER SUPPORT - 2ND QUARTER 2020001.000.41.521.10.41.00 475.00PEER SUPPORT (CISM) TRAINING 10/08-10/0910/11/20PEER SUPPORT TRAINING 10/8/20001.000.41.521.40.49.00 1,000.00PEER SUPPORT TRAINING 10/9/20001.000.41.521.40.49.00 1,000.0010/13/2020 INVOICE - 3RD QUARTER 2020 PE10/13/2020CRITICAL INCIDENT DEBRIEF 9/29/20001.000.41.521.10.41.00 312.50Total :2,787.5024470510/29/2020078098 REPORTING SOLUTIONS PLUS 102039DIVERSITY COMMISSION CART CAPTIONING 10/Diversity Commission CART captioning001.000.61.557.20.41.00 200.00Total :200.0024470610/29/2020078140 RICHARD & KAREN ANDERSON 2-03975#20-277-DJ UTILITY REFUND#20-277-DJ Utility refund411.000.233.000 243.00Total :243.0024470710/29/2020077249 S&P GLOBAL RATINGS 11402125WWTP: RATING SERVICE ON THE CARBON PROJE RATING SERVICE ON THE CARBON PROJECT423.000.76.535.80.41.00 21,375.00Total :21,375.0024470810/29/2020067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC 13288INV 13288 - CUST EE0065 - EDMONDS PDPROP CHARGE STANDARD SMOKLESS21Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 59Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24470810/29/2020(Continued)067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC001.000.41.521.40.31.00 718.00K01 BATON001.000.41.521.40.31.00 534.00K01 ROTATING BAND001.000.41.521.40.31.00 147.00K01 BATON REPLACEMENT END CAP001.000.41.521.40.31.00 50.00Freight001.000.41.521.40.31.00 75.00Total :1,524.0024470910/29/2020066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 51REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.29.00 5,475.00Total :5,475.0024471010/29/2020060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/45479730 FLEET - SHOP SUPPLIESFLEET - SHOP SUPPLIES511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.8210.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.27Total :24.0924471110/29/2020075628 SNO CO DEPT OF EMERG MGMT I000534289Q3 & Q4-2020 EMERGENCY COMM & DISPATCH SQ3-2020 Emergency Communication &001.000.39.525.60.41.50 14,865.00Q4-2020 Emergency Communication &001.000.39.525.60.41.50 14,865.00Total :29,730.0024471210/29/2020075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3197PUBLIC DEFENSE - SEPTEMBERSEPT. CONTRACT001.000.39.512.52.41.00 29,548.42Total :29,548.4222Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 60Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24471310/29/2020066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000533921E4FD.LAKE MGMT & WATER QUALITY SERVICESE4FD.Lake Mgmt & Water Quality Services422.000.72.531.90.41.20 2,968.50Total :2,968.5024471410/29/2020037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.60YOST POOL200260271YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,238.31TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 1200348233TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 36.30LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 1200468593LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 243.95MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER200493146MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 1200638609OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 142.87SEAVIEW PARK200714038SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.21SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET200739845SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.44LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME200865202LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 62.73SEAVIEW PARK201197084SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 30.86FISHING PIER RESTROOMS20123682523Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 61Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24471410/29/2020(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1FISHING PIER RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 102.14PINE ST PARK201327111PINE ST PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.60TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 1000201572898TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 46.85TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 1201611951TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.49TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 1201751476TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 44.72TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 1000201782646TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.46TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 1201907862TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 29.87TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 10004202289120TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 79.46TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)202807632TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 17.99STORMWATER PUMP STATION - 51 W DAYTON ST222721177STORMWATER LIFT STATION - 51 W422.000.72.531.90.47.00 19.49Total :2,236.0824471510/29/2020037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT SHD-01 JAN-DEC 2020HEALTH DISTRICT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTPer Capita contribution per Interlocal001.000.39.562.00.41.50 20,615.00Per Capita contribution per Interlocal24Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 62Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24471510/29/2020(Continued)037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT019.000.39.518.63.41.50 21,555.00Total :42,170.0024471610/29/2020078121 STONE, RACHEL 2005662.009REFUND: LEAP REGISTRATION FEEREFUND: LEAP REGISTRATION FEE: #9255001.000.239.200 300.00Total :300.0024471710/29/2020074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 8195SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR OCTOBER 2020Social media services for October 2020001.000.61.557.20.41.00 550.00Total :550.0024471810/29/2020071666 TETRA TECH INC 51622710E8CC.SERVICES THRU 7/24/20E8CC.Services thru 7/24/20112.000.68.542.30.41.00 161.82E8CC.Services thru 7/24/20126.000.68.542.30.41.00 40.45E8CC.Services thru 7/24/20422.000.72.542.30.41.00 382.17Total :584.4424471910/29/2020078123 TRAUTMANN, ANDREA MARIE Trautmann, AndreaBUSINESS LICENSE REFUND FOR ANDREA M. TRbusiness license refund for andrea001.000.257.620 75.00Total :75.0024472010/29/2020077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 113671E20FC: RAIN GARDEN & STORM DUMP FEESE20FC: RAIN GARDEN - DUMP FEES422.000.72.594.31.41.00 397.90STORM - DUMP FEES422.000.72.531.10.49.00 99.50Total :497.4024472110/29/2020075506 US BANK 5819203EDMLTGO19City of Edmonds Limited Tax General25Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 63Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24472110/29/2020(Continued)075506 US BANK126.000.39.592.75.89.00 489.04EDMLTGOREF125819204City of Edmonds Limited General001.000.39.592.18.89.00 211.65City of Edmonds Limited General126.000.39.592.75.89.00 85.89City of Edmonds Limited General423.100.76.592.39.89.00 2.46EDMWATREF115819205City of Edmonds Water and Sewer421.000.74.592.34.89.00 183.00City of Edmonds Water and Sewer422.000.72.592.31.89.00 87.00City of Edmonds Water and Sewer423.000.75.592.35.89.00 27.00City of Edmonds Water and Sewer423.100.76.592.39.89.00 3.00EDMWATSEW135819206City of Edmonds Water and Sewer Revenue421.000.74.592.34.89.00 105.00City of Edmonds Water and Sewer Revenue422.000.72.592.31.89.00 18.00City of Edmonds Water and Sewer Revenue423.000.75.592.35.89.00 177.00EDMWATSEW155819207City of Edmonds WA Water and Sewer421.000.74.592.34.89.00 90.00City of Edmonds WA Water and Sewer422.000.72.592.31.89.00 60.00City of Edmonds WA Water and Sewer423.000.75.592.35.89.00 150.00Total :1,689.0424472210/29/2020078125 VARLEY, JANE 2005665.009REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVIDREFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVID:26Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 64Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24472210/29/2020(Continued)078125 VARLEY, JANE001.000.239.200 75.00Total :75.0024472310/29/2020075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11970541FAC MAINT - SUPPLIESFAC MAINT - SUPPLIES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 727.2810.4% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 75.64Total :802.9224472410/29/2020074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 2012633INV 2012633 - EDMONDS PDAUG & SEPT RANGE FEES001.000.41.521.40.41.00 81.5010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.40.41.00 8.50Total :90.0024472510/29/2020077299 WINCAN LLC 4278YEARLY MAINTENANCE FOR WINCANYEARLY MAINTENANCE FOR WINCAN422.000.72.531.90.49.00 4,370.00Total :4,370.0024472610/29/2020078122 WOOLSEY, AJ 2005663.009REFUND: PROGRAM CANCELLATION: COVID SHUTREFUND: PROGRAM CANCELLATION: COVID001.000.239.200 695.00Total :695.0024472710/29/2020070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 20-EDM00010 OCT-2020 RETAINERMonthly Retainer001.000.36.515.33.41.00 21,250.00Total :21,250.0024472810/29/2020011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-007-4989SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINESEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.12TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-916627Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 65Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount24472810/29/2020(Continued)011900 ZIPLY FIBERTELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.71TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES423.000.75.535.80.42.00 302.17TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.87TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.90TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.04TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.35CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250001.000.66.518.30.42.00 74.20FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES001.000.66.518.30.42.00 139.91FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 139.91LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.42Total :1,067.60Bank total : 484,688.2591 Vouchers for bank code :usbank484,688.25Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report9128Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 66Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 6:55:44AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount29Page:6.3.aPacket Pg. 67Attachment: claims 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/28/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 8:55:54AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1028202010/28/2020062693 US BANK 0091US BANK - SEPTEMBERWATER/SEWER MANAGER JOB POSTING421.000.74.534.80.41.00 299.00CUSTODIAN POSTING - INDEED001.000.22.518.10.41.40 25.86HR OFFICE SUPPLIES001.000.22.518.10.31.00 65.86SAFEWAY - SUPPLIES001.000.22.518.10.31.00 7.99CUSTODIAN POSTING - INDEED001.000.22.518.10.41.40 44.14Total :442.85Bank total : 442.851 Vouchers for bank code :usbank442.85Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:6.3.bPacket Pg. 68Attachment: wire 10-28-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) 10/29/2020Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:12:30AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1029202010/29/2020076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO Nov 2020ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - November001.000.39.542.64.45.00 417.67Total :417.67Bank total : 417.671 Vouchers for bank code :usbank417.67Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:6.3.cPacket Pg. 69Attachment: wire 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 E0AA STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 E0CA STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 E0DB STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 E0DA STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 E0AC STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 E0AB STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 E0CC STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)i052 E20CB STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design s022 E9FA STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 E0DC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction)c551 E0MA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design)c536 E0MA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 E0NA STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 E0JA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 E0FB SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 E0GA FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 E0FA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)i055 E20CE UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)i044 E9DC PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STR E0AB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR E0AC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STR E0CA i042 2020 Overlay Program STR E0CC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STR E0DA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force STR E0DB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STR E0DC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STM E0FA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM E0FB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR E0GA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR E0JA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK E0MA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) PRK E0MA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) GF E0NA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK E0MA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM E0FA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM E0FB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR E0GA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR E0JA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK E0MA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program STR E0CA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR E0AA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STR E0AB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR E0AC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STR E0DB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STR E0DC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STR E0CC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design STR E0DA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF E0NA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 E0NA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction)c551 E0MA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design)c536 E0MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)m103 E7MA STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design s022 E9FA STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 E0FB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 E0FA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 E0AA STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 E0CA STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 E0DB STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 E0DA STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 E0AC STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 E0AB STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)i052 E20CB Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 E0DC STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)i055 E20CE STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)i044 E9DC STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 E0CC STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 E0GA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 E0JA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 10/27/2020 6.3.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-29-20 (Approval of claim checks and wire payments.) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 2021 COLA Adjustment for non-represented employees Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Per City policy, the Mayor has provided a recommendation for the non-represented employees annual cost of living adjustment. The Mayor recommends a 2% wage adjustment. Council was provided information at the 11/27/20 Council meeting as to the basis for this recommendation. A motio n was made and approved to place the 2% annual cost of living adjustment for non-represented employees on the consent agenda for the next Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Approve a 2% wage adjustment for non-represented employees for the 2021 calendar year as provided in the 2021 budget. Narrative The 2% annual wage adjustment for non-represented employees has been included as part of the annual budget and is reflected in the budget numbers. 6.4 Packet Pg. 78 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Authorization for Mayor to sign an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On July 1, 2008, and September 7, 2010, Council approved a similar Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to be implemented by the appointed City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum. Both of these ILAs were one year agreements. The ILA approved in 2010 for calendar year 2011 included funding for a Federal lobbyist approved by City Council. On January 23, 2012, Council approved a version of this ILA with an end date of December 31, 2013 that included $1,600 to pay for Edmonds’ portion of the Forum administration costs but did not include a $10,000 contribution toward the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts. On April 3, 2012, Council approved this ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts. On January 21, 2014, Council approved the First Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts. On January 26, 2016, Council approved the Second Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts. On March 12, 2017, Council approved the Third Amendment to the ILA that included an extension of the ILA to December 31, 2020. On October 13, 2020, staff presented this item to Committee of the Whole and it was forwarded to the consent agenda for approval. On October 27, 2020, Council pulled the item for further discussion and placed this on the November 2nd consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the amendment. Narrative The current ILA will expire on December 31, 2020. This Fourth Amendment to the ILA will: · Make it effective January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 (3-years) · Authorize funding for Forum Administrative Support up to $4,800 per year, which will be split amongst the member jurisdictions. ($1,600 to Edmonds) · In order to take advantage of the specialized technical skills possessed by Snohomish County, allow for the County to contribute in-kind services (i.e., lake monitoring/management, community stewardship, and tax district development) to supplement or replace their financial contribution. 6.5 Packet Pg. 79 · Replace the existing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the extended term. Currently, the Forum has three official member jurisdictions, the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park, and Edmonds. This Fourth amendment will build on the work done by the Forum members and the Forum’s lobbyist (currently not under contract). Over the past 3 years, progress has been made on the recurrent flooding issue that affects Edmonds’ residents located on the south shore of Lake Ballinger. Staff have started working on an invasive plant issue which affects the use of much of the Lake Ballinger near shore area: · Edmonds continued to operate a web-based early warning system so anyone with an internet connection can check the lake level at any time. · Mountlake Terrace continued making progress on the Ballinger Park Master Plan, a $13 million project situated on the previous site of the Ballinger Park Golf Course. The Plan includes habitat, stormwater and flood-related improvements. · Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace are using grant funds from Washington State Department of Ecology to continue developing an invasive aquatic weed management plan. Eurasian watermilfoil, a non-native invasive aquatic plant, has infested most of the shoreline of Lake Ballinger and in locations has precluded the safe use (swimming and boating) of the near shore area of the lake. Non-native lilies have also begun to infest both the inlet and outlets of the lake. The City Attorney has approved this Fourth Amendment to the ILA. Fiscal Impact The 2020 City budget has $13,600 for Lake Ballinger Associated projects in the Stormwater Utility Fund. The Councils of Lake Forest Park and Mountlake Terrace have indicated approval of this ILA amendment. If the Edmonds City Council approves the amendment to the ILA, our costs will be capped at $1,600 per year for Forum Administration. If additional jurisdictions join the Forum (such as Snohomish County, Shoreline, or Lynnwood), the cost per year will be less. Attachments: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA Original Interlocal Agreement 6.5 Packet Pg. 80 Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 1 Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement For Governmental Jurisdictions within the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Including the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County The Interlocal Agreement for Governmental Jurisdiction within the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed (“ILA) was entered into in 2008; a First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Third Amendment were subsequently entered into. Together, the ILA and the three prior amendments thereto shall be referred to as the Agreement. This Fourth Amendment to the Agreement (“Fourth Amendment”) is entered into 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. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Agreement, expires on December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, The Agreement, by its terms, may be extended for such additional terms as the Member Jurisdictions may agree in writing; and WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to extend the Agreement for an additional three-year term commencing January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 (“extended term”); and WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to provide for a replacement of Exhibit C1 (“Capital Improvement Plan”), Exhibit D3 (“Operating Fund Allocations”), and Exhibit E3 (“Service Provider Operating Fund Allocations”) for the extended term; and WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth in this Fourth Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, the Member Jurisdictions agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms when used herein shall have the same respective meanings as are given such terms in the Agreement, unless expressly provided otherwise in this Fourth Amendment. Section 2. Extension of Term. The Member Jurisdictions acknowledge and agree that the term of the Agreement shall be extended by an additional three-year term, commencing 6.5.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 2 January 1, 2021 and remain in effect through December 31, 2023 (“New Term”), unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions in the Agreement. Section 3. Replacement of Exhibit C1, Exhibit D3 and Exhibit E3. Member Jurisdictions acknowledge and agree that Exhibit C1, Exhibit D3 and Exhibit E3 to the Agreement shall be replaced respectively with new Exhibits, Exhibit C2 (Capital Improvement Plan), Exhibit D4 (“Operating Fund Allocations”) and Exhibit E4 (“Service Provider Operating Fund Allocations”), which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 4. Method and Duty to File Fourth Amendment. Member Jurisdictions shall, upon execution of this Fourth Amendment to the Agreement, post this Fourth Amendment on its official website in accordance with RCW 39.34.040 and RCW 39.34.200. Section 5. Counterparts. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute the same instrument and, collectively, constitute the entire Fourth Amendment. Section 6. Conflict; No Further Modification. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Fourth Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Fourth Amendment shall prevail. Section 7. Remaining Terms of Agreement. Except as specifically set forth in this Fourth Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement and Exhibits shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. Section 8. Effective Date of Amendment. This Fourth Amendment shall become effective upon the day the second Member Jurisdiction executes this Amendment, as authorized by each jurisdiction’s legislative body. Section 9. Terminating Section - replaced by Section 2, Extension of Term. 6.5.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member Jurisdictions hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment 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: _________________ Approved as to Form: CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE By: By: Title: Title: Date: ___________ Date: _________________ Approved as to Form: CITY OF LYNNWOOD By: By: Title: Title: Date: ___________ Date: _________________ 6.5.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 4 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: _________________ 6.5.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 5 EXHIBIT C2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 6.5.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 6 Description Goal Issues Projected Outcome Project Status (09/2020) Projected Planning Level Cost Potential Funding Options Project Lead Agency Upgrade/Replace Culverts on McAleer Creek Enhance and replace 1 culvert at Perkins Way on McAleer Creek in Lake Forest Park TBD Grant Lake Forest Park Reduce 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.Project has not been initiated Model the Lake Ballinger system from Hall Lake to Lake Washington Calibrate and consolidate existing modeling information sufficient to develop calibrated hydraulic and hydrologic model for Lake Ballinger for the purpose of determining flooding impacts under various control scenarios during large storm events (for example: and determine flood plain elevations for Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger during a 100-year flood; simulate impacts to LFP property owners if the restricting culvert under 1-5 is modified to allow more flow, weir elevation changes, other scenarios.) TBD Grant, Forum Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds Answer questions, accurately reflect existing conditions during flood events Requires H&H model calibration by qualified consultant; cost currently unknown. Give accurate guidance to cities with development and redevelopment in the affected flood plain. Lake Ballinger to Lake Washington may be served by 2013 ACE memo. MLT to complete H&H model of Hall Lake to Lake Ballinger in 2021 (cost estimated to be $200K for MLT portion) Ballinger Park Hall Creek Restoration Develop passive use park, enhance environmentally sensitive areas, create stream meanders, increase stream channel capacity and improve quality of water entering Lake Ballinger. $6M Partnership with USACE Mountlake Terrace Improve habitat quality in creek, riparian areas, around ponds. Add boardwalk to protect sensitive areas and provide access. Add educational signs. Cost Improved habitat for birds, reptiles, amphibians, and some mammals; fulfills vision of Ballinger Park Master Plan of wilder contemplative side of park Feasibility study completed (2020). Design/engineering to be completed in 2021, construction to occur in 2022. Habitat Inventory Aquatic life baseline, watershed study TBD Grant, Forum All Gain understanding of baseline habitat and biological use of Hall Creek, Lake Ballinger, and McAleer Creek Cost, difficulty in finding biological indicators that are diagnostic Useful biological baseline of watershed system.Project has not been initiated Mathay-Ballinger Park Regional Infiltration Facility Project Green stormwater infrastructure project to treat and infiltrate much of the Edmonds runoff to Lake Ballinger including a major portion of the highly urbanized Highway 99 corridor. $3-5 million Grant/Edmonds Edmonds Reduce stormwater impacts on lakes including pollution, temperature and quantity (each to varying degrees). At planning phase; construction still several years out. Project is anticipated to reduce pollutants flowing into the lake, help reduce mitigation temperature impact form stormwater sources, and reduce stormwater impacts on the Lake level. Feasibility study completed; engineering & design to be completed in 2021; construction scheduled for 2022 Lake Management Invasive Weed Control Manage invasive plant species in Lake Ballinger to promote good water quality, lower temperatures, and encourage a diverse plant community $80K Ecology grant, MLT & Edmonds in-kind contribution of labor and resources Mountlake Terrace Implement Integrated Aquatic Plant Control Plan Cost, particularly ongoing maintenance costs Improved use of Lake Ballinger for recreation, improved habitat and water quality Herbicide treatment carried out in 2019, bottom barrier installation completed in 2020 Lower McAleer Creek Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Capital Improvement Plan (September 2020) Upper McAleer Creek/Lake Ballinger/Hall Creek Action or Project Project Information 6.5.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 7 EXHIBIT D4 OPERATING FUND ALLOCATIONS 6.5.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 8 Table 1 Service Provider Operating Fund Allocation 2021-2023 Allocation shall be equal percentage for each (current) Member Jurisdiction Jurisdiction % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Original members 5 members 4 members 3 members Edmonds 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33% Snohomish County* 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% Lake Forest Park 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33% Mountlake Terrace 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33% Lynnwood 16.67% Shoreline 16.67% 20.00% *Provided however, that Snohomish County, in its discretion and at its election, may provide mutually agreed in-kind contribution of services in lieu of its percentage share of the financial operating fund allocation as set forth in D4 and E4. Snohomish County shall, within thirty (30) days of becoming a Member Jurisdiction and no later than September 1 of each calendar year thereafter during the duration of this Agreement or extension thereof shall advise the other Member Jurisdictions of its election to provide in-kind contribution of services. In the event Snohomish County elects to provide in-kind contribution of services, the remaining Member Jurisdictions shall share equally Snohomish County’s financial operating fund allocation. 6.5.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 9 EXHIBIT E4 SERVICE PROVIDER OPERATING FUND ALLOCATIONS 6.5.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 10 Administrative Support Service Provider Needs Listing The Forum wishes to retain the City of Mountlake Terrace as the Administrative Support Service Provider. The Forum has suggested quarterly meetings at a minimum for the current agreement period with other meetings held as needed. The Service Provider needs listing allows for four quarterly meetings and up to four additional meetings per year. Duties Hours per quarter Hours per year Manage and update email list for Forum 0.5 2 Edit and send out agenda 1 3 Arrange room reservations and provide materials for meetings 1 4 Take notes at meetings 2 8 Produce minutes for meetings 4.5 18 Maintain Forum records 1 4 Totals 10 40 Additional duties may be added as needs develop. Provider Support through the City of Mountlake Terrace Administrative Support for 2021 $1,600 Administrative Support for 2022 $1,600 Administrative Support for 2023 $1,600 This listing assumes services are provided at 10 hours a quarter are allocated for a total of 40 hours for each of the 2021, 2022, and 2023 calendar years. Each Member Jurisdiction’s cost percentage of the Administrator Support Provider is listed in Exhibit D4 Table 1. 6.5.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 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. A. 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 designated representatives of Eligible Jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become Member Jurisdictions 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 Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 19 6.5.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 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 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. Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 20 6.5.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 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, 2013; 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. 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 Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 21 6.5.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 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. 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 Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 22 6.5.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 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, 2011 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 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 Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 23 6.5.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 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 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. Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 24 6.5.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. Third Amendment to lnterlocal Agreement Page 25 6.5.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) 6.5.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Original Interlocal Agreement (ILA for Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Zachor & Thomas serves as the City’s Prosecuting Attorney firm under Amendment No. 4 to the parties’ 2013 Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement. The City Council approved Amendment No. 4 in late 2019 to extend the Legal Services Agreement through December 31, 2020. This one-year extension was provided to allow the City time to assess the services provided before committing to a longer term agreement. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that the City Council consider the information provided during the PowerPoint presentation (slides included here for reading in advance) and provide guidance on moving forward with the City’s prosecuting attorney legal services. Narrative City staff, with the assistance of the Office of the City Attorney, has gathered feedback on Zachor & Thomas’ performance in 2020 and will be providing a presentation on that feedback and the Mayor’s recommendations for moving forward at the meeting. Attachments: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation 7.1 Packet Pg. 108 Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT STEPS 7.1.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. Currently working under Amendment No. 4 to the parties’ 2013 Professional Services Agreement, which expires December 31, 2020 After RFP process, City provided one-year extension to allow time to evaluate performance before deciding on a longer-term agreement Payment under Amendment No. 4 structured with a base fee of $21,250 per month for certain enumerated tasks Work outside that scope of work is extra, and billed at different hourly rates depending on the task To date, the City has not been billed for work above the base fee amount for any month in 2020 7.1.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Prosecuting Attorney RFP Process City advertised RFP in May 2019 and received two submissions Proposals were evaluated by Screening Committee, headed by consultant Marilynne Beard of MMB Consulting, during Summer of 2019 (City was without an HR Director at that time) Committee concluded both proposers were qualified to provide services At October 22, 2019 regular City Council meeting, two Councilmembers expressed concerns about Zachor & Thomas, and Council agreed to one- year extension of the current legal services agreement 7.1.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Proposed Areas for Improvement Feedback from the Court and Police Department had raised the following as areas for improvement for Zachor & Thomas: Communications Quality of work Continuity of the prosecuting attorney appearing on behalf of the City Quality of supervision of newer attorneys With Amendment No. 4, Zachor & Thomas declined to commit Yelena Stock as the City’s named prosecuting attorney, but agreed to assign Ms. Stock and James M. Zachor as the City’s two supervising attorneys, who carry an active caseload and supervise newer attorneys 7.1.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Performance Appraisal City’s ability to fully evaluate Zachor & Thomas’ performance in 2020 has been limited because the Covid-19 pandemic has limited court appearances this year to just a few months. City reached out to the following individuals for input on Zachor & Thomas’ performance in 2020: Judge Coburn Acting Chief Lawless and Assistant Chief Anderson Bob Boruchowitz, Public Defense Legal Services Assessor, and Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director, Snohomish County Public Defenders Association 7.1.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Feedback on Performance Based on the somewhat limited opportunity to observe, the following feedback on Zachor & Thomas’ performance in 2020 was provided: Yelena Stock has appeared most of the time in court, has been prepared, and appears to be providing good supervision to newer attorneys Communications, case flow, charging and continuity have been smoother Communications with defense counsel is better, and delivery of documents requested during discovery has improved due to Zachor & Thomas’ implementation of a new database Improvement could still be made on responsiveness via email Staff turnover and operating short-handed are still a concern 7.1.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Additional Feedback Feedback provided to the City on its criminal legal services by Ms. Kyle and Mr. Boruchowitz also addressed issues of: Potential for collecting and reporting data on diversity of defendants Potential for changing City’s practice of “Direct Filing,” which is the filing of charges by Law Enforcement Officers without the Prosecuting Attorney first reviewing those charges Potential for implementing Pre-filing Diversion Program for DWLS 3 (Driving with License Suspended in the third degree) charges, or other possible alternatives to prosecuting these cases In 2020, some Councilmembers have begun to consider a DWLS 3 diversion program 7.1.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Recommendation for Next Steps Mayor Nelson’s recommendations on next steps are as follows: Offer Zachor & Thomas another one-year extension to the 2013 Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement, to allow the City sufficient time to assess the quality of services provided on an ongoing basis; In Spring of 2021, advertise another Request for Proposals for Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services to reassess the market for such services; and Allow the City Council the opportunity in 2021, if desired, to discuss the pros and cons of a DWLS 3 diversion program and the City’s direct filing practices. 7.1.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Guidance from City Council DWLS 3 work accounts for approximately 1/3 of Zachor & Thomas’ current workload, so a diversion program could reduce these costs by potentially $7,000 per month in base fee work Zachor & Thomas has stated that, if the City moves away from direct filing, it would require a 40% increase to its base fee (an increase of $8,500 per month) If the Council decides to implement a DWLS 3 diversion program and/or move away from direct filing, a one-year contract extension will allow the City the opportunity to negotiate for prosecution services that are in line with the Council’s possibly changing priorities We are seeking City Council input and/or approval to move ahead with the Mayor’s recommendations 7.1.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting Questions? 7.1.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Prosecuting Attorney Services Presentation [Revision 1] (Prosecuting City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Extension of Interim Finance Director Appointment Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Dave Turley has been appointed as the Interim Finance Director and his 6 month appointment will expire on 11/19/20. Staff Recommendation Approve Extension of Dave Turley as Interim Finance Director for 6 months or until a hire is made, whichever comes sooner. Narrative Per Policy and Edmonds City Code, the Mayor is requesting an extension of this appointment as the City is currently in the process of interviewing candidates for this position. Panel interviews of 3 candidates occurred on 10/28, these will then be followed by the Mayor's interview and then Council interview and background checks. While this process is moving forward it cannot be guaranteed that a hire will occur prior to the expiration of Mr. Turley's interim assignment on 11/19/20. The Mayor is requesting to extend Dave Turley's appointment for 6 months or until such time as a hire is made, whichever comes sooner. . 8.1 Packet Pg. 119 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Consideration of the Planning Board's recommendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi-Family Residential - Medium Density.” Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Preparer: Brad Shipley Background/History The Planning Board held a public hearing on Aug. 26th and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposal. The City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on September 22nd and voted to extend the public hearing to October 6th to allow time to address concerns about how future development may impact the Perrinville Watershed under the proposed land use. City staff and the applicant provided a response to these concerns on Oct. 6th, which included updated documents from the applicant and clarification on how city staff reviews stormwater mitigation for projects. The City Council voted to table the Oct. 6th public hearing for a date to be determined. On Oct. 20th, the City Council set Nov. 2nd as the new date to consider the proposal. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends City Council uphold the Planning Board’s recommendation to make the Comprehensive Plan map change from “Neighborhood Business” to “Multi-family Residential - Medium Density” and schedule adoption with all related comprehensive plan changes later this year. Note: Since Comprehensive Plan amendments can generally be updated only once per year and there are other Comprehensive Plan amendments under consideration for this year, all tentatively approved amendments will be brought back to the City Council for final approval at the end of year. Narrative The City Council is considering a privately initiated application to amend the Comprehensive Plan map for the subject site, located in Perrinville neighborhood. If approved, the property-owner would be able to proceed with a rezone application to a medium density, multi-family zoning designation. During the September 22nd public hearing, concerns were raised regarding how future development allowed under this proposal and a subsequent rezone could potentially affect the Perrinville Watershed. Perrinville Creek has been degraded over the last 60 years as a result of older patterns of development and inadequate stormwater regulations. Regulations for stormwater management were significantly improved in 2017. All projects over a certain size are required to go through an analysis of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to determine which stormwater management techniques are feasible with the goal to keep pollutants out of stormwater and decrease high volumes of runoff. Bernard Knoll, P.E., updated the Geotech report to clarify on-site infiltration is feasible based on the underlying soil types. 8.2 Packet Pg. 120 The issue is not whether the property stays undeveloped--the property can be developed with either commercial or single-family uses by-right today. Rather, the question is whether the proposed Map designation is appropriate for the subject site and if it meets the criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments. The applicant is proposing the amendment to provide a development option that avoids building on the steep slope that runs along the eastern third of the site. Avoiding the slope would be difficult if the site is developed with detached single-family homes (which is allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan Map and zoning). The site sits eight feet above the street and is not appropriate for commercial development without significant grading. The purpose of this proposal is to change the land use designation to allow for a more environmentally sensitive development type while meeting the Comprehensive Plan goals to provide a variety of housing types. Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. F.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities. F.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use element. From the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element) D.2. Encourage the provision of a variety of types and styles of housing that will support and accommodate different citizens’ needs and life styles. The diversity of people living in Edmonds should be supported by a diversity of housing so that all citizens can find suitable housing now and as they progress through changes in their households and life stages. (From the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Community Sustainability Element) See attachments, which address stormwater issues. Staff finds the proposal meets the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest to provide a range of housing types. Furthermore, any development under the proposed designation must meet environmental standards, including for stormwater and critical areas. For example, development under the existing designation would generally be allowed to have more impervious surface than if it were developed under the proposed designation. The proposal is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city because the Map amendment would not allow a type of development that reduces the environmental quality of the area., compared to what is possible now. Another Comprehensive Plan Map amendment criterion can be met because the proposal maintains the appropriate balance of land uses and is physically suitable for development. Attachments: Staff Report w/ Attachments Planning Board Minutes Excerpt_2020.08.26 City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments Memo from Edmonds Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson 8.2 Packet Pg. 121 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT• PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY RE PORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: From: Date: File: August 19 2020 AMD2019-0008 Public Hearing: Wednesday August 26, 2020 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers/ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA I. INTRODUCTION A. SUMMARY This proposal seeks to change the comprehensive plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi-Family Residential - Medium Density." The property -owner has indicated that they are interested in to developing the site with townhomes, but the current zoning design ation of "Neighborhood Business" does not allow multi-family residential as a primary use. If this amendment is approved, the property -owner will be able to apply to rezone their property to either Multi-Family Residential - 2.4 (RM -2.4) or RM -3. B. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Hans Korve, DMP Inc. 2. Site: Two vacant parcels (00370800300701 and 00370800300702) totaling 1.04 acres (Attachment 3). 3. Request: To change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi Family - Medium Density" 4. Review Process: Legislative "Type V" actions - final decisions are made by City Council after reviewing Planning Board's recommendation. 5. Major Issue: Compliance with ECDC 20.00 (changes to the Comprehensive Plan). 8.2.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 2 | Page II. FINDINGS A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), found in Chapter 43.21C RCW, is a state law that requires the City to conduct an environmental impact review of any action that might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The review includes the completion of an environmental checklist by the City. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on August 11, 2020 (Attachment 10). The appeals period expires August 26, 2020. If no appeals are filed by this date, the SEPA determination is final. B. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire District, Public Works Department, and the Building Division. No comments were received from the Fire District, Public Works Department, or the Building Division. Engineering requested a traffic study be provided with any future rezoning of the properties (Attachment 7). C. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of this report, four residents provided public comments (Attachment 9) in response to this application. All four were against the proposal. A summary of their concerns are as follows: • Desire for new commercial development instead of housing; • Fear of losing privacy; • Desire for open space for wildlife; • Concern over increased soil erosion caused by traffic. D. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Section 20.03 of the ECDC, a notice of the public hearing was posted on the City of Edmonds’ website, published in the Everett Herald, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. All legal requirements for public notice have been satisfied (Attachment 8). E. SETTING 1. Proposed designation and development of the site. Proposal is to change the comprehensive plan map designation for the subject parcels from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi-Family Residential – Medium Density” This is a non-project action; no development is proposed with this application. If approved, the applicant has indicated they would like to develop the site with townhomes. 2. Current designation and development of the site. Current comprehensive plan designation of site is “Neighborhood Commercial.” Property is zoned “Neighborhood Business” (BN). The site is undeveloped. 8.2.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 3 | Page 3. Designation and development in the vicinity. Comprehensive plan land use designation in the area include the following: Single Family – Resource, Single Family – Urban 1, Single Family – Urban 3, Open Space, Neighborhood Commercial, and Multi Family – Medium Density. The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including: a post office, local retail shops and services, professional offices, restaurants, multi-family residential, and single family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit, fee-simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. 4. Previous proposals in the vicinity. Staff review of city records found two rezone applications from nearby Perrinville properties that were approved in the 1980’s. These rezones involved similar land use exchanges as this application—multi-family and neighborhood business. In 1985, a rezone from “Neighborhood Business” (BN) to “Multi-Family Residential” (RM-3) was approved for a 2.2-acre parcel on 76th Ave. W. One year later, Perrin Village was developed—which consists of five four-unit multi-family buildings. In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United States Postal Service to expand their facilities. F. ZONING COMPLIANCE A zoning change is not required as a condition of the proposal. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if the following findings are made: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and in the public interest? The comprehensive plan mentions “Perrinville” four times, but does not outline a specific vision for the area. The neighborhood is generally recognized in the comprehensive plan as an area that “includes commercial activities.” There is one goal policy in the Transportation Element which identifies Perrinville: Goal 5: Create a complete and connected system that offers efficient transportation options Policy 5.11 Explore future funding for a city-based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown. Source: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, 2017. p. 233 8.2.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 4 | Page The Land Use Element provides the following goals and policies for residential development: Residential Goal B. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage sustainable high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. B.2.a Location Policies. B.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. B.2.b Compatibility Policies. B.2.b.i RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. B.2.b.ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. B.2.b.iii The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. B.2.c. General Design Policies. B.2.c.i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. B.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. Source: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, 2017. p. 67-68 Most of the multi-family residential housing policies above are design-related and addressed during design review. One housing policy touches on locating multi-family uses near collector or arterial streets. Olympic View Dr. and 76th Ave. W., are both classified as either collector or minor arterial depending on the direction. North and west directions are classified collector and southern and eastern directions are minor arterial (Attachment 5). Staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? 8.2.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 5 | Page In 1962, while still under Snohomish County jurisdiction, the subject site was rezoned from an unknown zoning designation to “Neighborhood Business”—the county equivalent to Edmonds’ BN zone. Edmonds annexed land that contained the subject site in 1982. The subject site has remained vacant in the 58 years since the property was rezoned by Snohomish County for commercial use. No records were found during staff review that indicate any past expressed interest in developing the site prior to this proposal. Residents have indicated that they would like to see business options expanded in the area. Small businesses located within largely residential communities help encourage healthy activities, such as walking and biking, and provide third places for neighbors to come together. Small businesses often rely on local residents for survival. The spread out nature of single family development works against the interest of small businesses by limiting the pool of potential customers and increases to traffic as customers tend to choose driving once a walk exceeds ten minutes or fails to stimulate their senses. Additionally, the proposal could provide much needed “missing middle” housing options for the community. Staff finds the proposal to be in the public interest, and an improvement to the health, safety, and welfare of the city. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? There is a small shift (1.04 acres) from commercial to residential land uses; however, the shift does not disrupt the balance of land uses within the city. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses. Office and day-care uses are allowed under RM zoning as primary conditional uses. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The site has access to utilities in 76th Ave. W. right-of-way. Edmonds has a service agreement with Lynnwood to receive sewage from nearby Edmonds properties. Recent upgrades to Lynnwood’s sewer system has increased its capacity and there are no issues with connecting to their facilities (Lester Rubstello, Lynnwood Deputy Public Works Director, personal communication, August 18, 2020). Subject site’s 76th Ave. W. frontage is on left side of image. Pedestrian safety and comfort improvements along 76th Ave. W. could improve neighborhood walkability. 8.2.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 6 | Page Regarding compatibility with adjoining land uses, small-scale, multi-family development provides a transition between single family residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Bulk zoning standards and landscaping requirements provide assurances that a level of privacy can be maintained between different uses. III. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan B. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city. C. The proposal would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. D. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use. IV. RECOMMENDATION A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi-Family – Medium Density.” V. PARTIES OF RECORD Torino, LLC. | 19707—44th Ave. W., Suite #207A, Lynnwood, WA, 98036 Hans Korve | 726 Auburn Way N., Auburn, WA, 98002 Andrew Koehn | 18219 76th Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 Solana Gothard | 18303 76th Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 Willow Gothard | 18303 76th Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 Lark Gothard | 18303 76th Ave. W., Edmonds, WA, 98026 City of Edmonds VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Narrative 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Map 5. Street Classification Map 6. Notice of Complete Application 7. Engineering Memorandum, dated April 6, 2020 8. Public Notice requirements 8.2.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 7 | Page 9. Public Comment Letters 10. SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) 11. SEPA Checklist 12. Wetland Verification Letter, Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc., dated February 10, 2020 13. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Ages Engineering, LLC., dated August 27, 2018 8.2.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) City of EdmondsLand Use Applicationolr:n lLl gol zotl,uu ú -7. oç<----------------Hpanruc DATE¡ HE N STAT.F ! PB ! ADB t]CCÈ^lF:r,:n# /¡ntpZoprow| zoNnREC'DBY B¿-,A rr qRECEIPT #n-IARCHITECTUn¡T DBSIcN REVIEwC oN¿pRBHsN s rvp PI-RN Alr¿pxorr¿BNrN CoNUTIoNeT UsB PERMITn Honp occupeuoNN FORMAL SUBDIVISIoN¡ SHONT SUBDI\TSIONn LorlnrEAorustuENtn Pre¡¡Npo R¡stp¡¡¡rw- DEvslopÀ4BNrN Or.rICNr STREET Mep AMENDMENTn,é.¡¡nSTN¡BTVACATIoNR¡zoNnSsonBrrNpPpnvrtVARIANCE / REASoNABLE USE EXCEPTIoNOrrmR:o Ptø¿sn worE THAT ALL INFqRMATIqN qqNTAINED ryITHTN THE AnnLICATIqN IS A paBLIC REczRD .PRopERry ADDRESS on LoclrroN / ß 3 xY 7{fl d,. ¡t ) , PN * Oo3hcg- oo1\- csoT-<t(Pno¡ncr NAME (IF APPLTCABLE)i¿t'öz4PRoppnry OwNER¡rn¿ L|¡-PUoNB#Aonn¡ss7h¿z)E-MAILI¡\ , (¿r^Fax#TAXACCOIJI.{T#-ôô-o(-oLsnc. 1Ø m¡p. z*RNG. ?DESCR]PTION oFORUsn (ArrACH COVERLETTERASl4Yt/) - z,DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ETTACH COVER LETTER ASAppr,IcaNrAoon¡ss/v\PHONE #L/7f U7q 3zqòE-M¡,n- ln<-,Frx# zç\ 333 ZzorsCoNracrPpnsoN/Acpxr pnoNp#ADDRESSE-ManFex#The undersigned applicant, and his/herlitsheirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees torelease, indemni$;, clefend and hold theCity ofEdmonds harmless from any and a1l damages, including reason¿Lble attorney'sfees, arising from any action or infiaction basedwhoie or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete informationfurnislred by the applicant,hislherlits agents orBy my signature, I certifu that theexhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of rny knowledgeand that I am authorized to file thisthe behalf of the owner as listed belowSIGNATURE oF APPLICANT/AcpNTDArE /Z*Zø -,r/Property Owner's AuthorizationT,,certify under the penalty of perjruy under the laws c,f the State ofWashington that the followingis a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for thesubject land use application,and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonrls to enter thesribject properfy for the purposes ofandto this applicationSIcNerun¡ o¡'OwtrBR1Questions? Callr @25) 77 l-0220D¡lrr, /2Revised on B/22/1 2B - Land Use ApplicatíonPage I of IATTACHMENT 18.2.aPacket Pg. 129Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ATTACHMENT 2 8.2.aPacket Pg. 130Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.aPacket Pg. 131Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.aPacket Pg. 132Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.aPacket Pg. 133Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.aPacket Pg. 134Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.aPacket Pg. 135Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) SP S-2001-4176TH AVE W(MEADOWDALE EDMONDS ROAD)21SP 217 (5-79 )1897ADMIRALTY ACRESV.12 /P .48BLOCK 34321SP S-12-86OLYMPIC VIEW DRNORTH 8.2.aPacket Pg. 136Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 376.170 1:9,028 Zoning Map 752.3 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 RSW-12 RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 RM-2.4 RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 OR WMU BP BN FVMU BC BC-EW CG CW MP1 MP2 ATTACHMENT 38.2.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 376.170 1:9,028 Comprehensive Plan Map 752.3 ReZones PRD RoW Comprehensive Plan Retail Core Arts Center Corridor Downtown Mixed Commercial Downtown Convenience Downtown Mixed Res Downtown Master Plan Shoreline Commercial Planned Residence-Office Single Family Urban1 Single Family Urban2 Single Family Urban3 Single Family - Resource Single Family - MP Multi Family - Medium Den Multi Family - High Densi Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Planned-Neighborhood Mixed Use Commercial Corridor Development Edmonds Way Corridor Medical Master Plan Development Public Open Space ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINES <all other values>ATTACHMENT 48.2.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment ATTACHMENT 58.2.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION January 27, 2020 Hans Korve 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Subject: COMPLETE APPLICATION, CLARIFICATION REQUESTED –COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (AMD20190008) Dear Mr. Korve: Thank you for submitting the required documentation and application fees for the above- referenced application; your application is complete according to ECDC 20.02.003. However, while the application is technically complete, additional information or clarification is required. Please address all comments by providing updated documents, as appropriate: Wetland Report. The wetland verification report prepared by Mark Heckert, of Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc., is inconsistent in its language. Please revise the language in the report so explanations regarding field observations, wetland and stream determinations, and findings and conclusions are consistent. Field Observations. This section mentions an area at the NW corner of the site as “identified to have potentially hydric vegetation”; however, the next sentence states “Sample data (attached) shows no indication of hydric soils or hydrology.” These sentences seem to be in conflict without further explanation. Additionally, no attachment was provided. Wetland and Stream Determination. The statement, as written, can be interpreted in different ways and appear to be in conflict. Do the sample plots contain hydrophytic vegetation or not? Additionally, no information was provided regarding the stream across the street. Please explain the nature of this stream as it is within the boundaries of study and provide a statement regarding whether the street creates an interrupted buffer per ECDC 23.40.220.C.4. ATTACHMENT 68.2.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Findings and Conclusions. Again, the statement is in conflict. It states both, “…no area within 300 ft. of the site” met the criteria for wetland and “One area within 300 ft. of the site exhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as a wetland.” As the process moves forward, the City may request additional information, if needed. The City will proceed with the associated public notice requirements once hearings are scheduled with Planning Board and City Council. However, please keep in mind that a complete response to this information request must be received within 90 days or the application will lapse for lack of information (ECDC 20.02.003.D). If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Brad Shipley Associate Planner 8.2.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) City of Edmonds Date: April 6, 2020 To: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: AMD2019-0008 – Comp Plan Amendment Torino LLC – 183xx 76th Ave W Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. The subject site fronts on 76th Ave W, north of Olympic View Drive. 76th Ave W, at this location, is a collector street and sidewalks exist on both sides of the street. With any future rezone application, a traffic study that analyzes existing transportation conditions compared with potential transportation conditions will be required. The study should include analysis of nearby, effected intersections as well as road network. Please coordinate with Bertrand Hauss, City Transportation Engineer, on specific scope of the analysis. Thank you. MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT 78.2.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - File Number AMD2019-0008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for a property identified below from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi Family – Medium Density. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. Name of Applicant: Hans Korve (applicant for Torino, LLC.) Location: Vacant, unaddressed lot due north of the northeast corner lot at Olympic View Dr. and 76th Ave W. Tax parcel id #00370800300701 and #00370800300702. See attached Vicinity Map. File No.: AMD2019-0008 Date of Notice: August 11, 2020 Comments on Proposal Due: August 26, 2020 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at http://edmondswa.gov/public-notices- text/development-notices.html under the development notice for application number AMD2019-0008, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. City Contact: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, (425) 771-0220, brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/93282361794 Meeting ID: 932 8236 1794 Dial by your location (253)215-8782 US (Tacoma) *SEPA NOTICE ON REVERSE SIDE*ATTACHMENT 88.2.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) *NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REVERSE SIDE* STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. Date of Issuance: August 11, 2020 SEPA Appeal Deadline: August 26, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 – 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. VICINITY MAP 8.2.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ADJACENT PR O PER TY OW NER S LI ST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. 1/ I I I ' / .. I -·-······· I l....----- ('K._ gnature of Applicant or Applicant's Representa · e di\ . '3 0 day of 'De (fhu he,✓ Subscribed and sworn to before me this bf )-<()~VE; HAN S 6\ P-N O L.D . ,~CJ/ 9- Notary Public in and for' the State of Washington Revised on 9/30/11 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Page2 o/2 8.2.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) _0 0 4 3 4 6 0 0 0 1 0 6 04 U S P O S T A L S E R V IC E 8 4 9 C H ER R Y A V E S a n B ru no , C A 9 4 0 9 9 _0 0 3 7 0 8 0 0 2 00 8 0 0 U S P O S T A L S E R V IC E 85 0 C H ER R Y A V E S an B r u no , C A 9 4 0 99 _00 8 22 6 0 000040 0 J A H E D M A H M O U D 1 82 1 8 7 6 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 80 26 0 08 2 260000 0 3 0 0 LA R S O N , K U R T 1 8 21 6 7 6T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 02 6 _00 3 7 0 8 00 3 0 0 5 0 3 WI L S O N , R I CH A R D 1 8 2 2 3 7 6T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 80 26 _0 0 3 70 8 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 1 G OT H A R D , B R UC E 1 8 3 0 3 76T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 80 26 _0 0 4 77 6 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 2 L O P E Z , D O N 7 52 5 R ID G E W A Y E D M O ND S , W A 9 80 26 _0 04 77 6000 0 3 3 0 0 F U R N ES S D 7 53 2 R I D G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 80 2 6 _0 0 3 7 0 8 0 03 0 0 7 0 5 C A S E , K E N N ET H 7 6 0 1 R ID G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 _0 0 477600004 8 00 B U TL E R , J U L E S 7 5 2 0 1 84 T H P L S W ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 02 6 _01 11 6 9 0 000 0 10 0 T R I S T A R P R O P . IN V S T . L L C 7 5 3 3 O L Y M PIC V IE W D R ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 _0 0 3 7 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 P O P E , J A M ES & A LI S O N 1 8 2 0 9 76 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 26 _0 0 3 7 0 80 0 3 0 0 5 0 2 K O E HN , A ND R E W 1 8 2 1 9 7 6 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 26 _0 0 3 7 0 8 0 0 3 0 06 0 2 P Y G OTT , K IM B ER L E Y 1 8 3 0 7 7 6 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 98 0 26 _0 0 4776 0 000310 0 D IS B E N N E TT , K E NN E T H 7 5 3 1 R ID G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 _00 3 7 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 3 C A S E , K E N N E T H 7 6 0 1 R ID G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 802 6 _0 0 4 3 4 6 0 0 0 10 5 0 2 T S A O , Y U E H C H IN G 7 60 5 R ID G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 26 _004 77 6 000049 0 0 T O M LI N , A M Y 7 5 3 0 1 8 4 T H P L S W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 _0 04 3 4 6 0 0 0 10 5 0 5 P E RR IN V IL L E P A R T N ER S L L C 1 84 0 1 76 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 26 _0 03 7 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 1 H IC K S , S T E P H E N J 1 8 21 1 7 6 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 _00 3 7 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 6 00 E N E Y ,S C O TT 1 8 3 0 1 7 6 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 80 2 6 _0 0 37 0 8 0 0 3 00 6 0 3 K N IG H T O N , D O U G LA S 1 8 3 0 9 7 6 T H A V E W E D M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 _0 0 4 77 6 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 H IR S T G A R Y F A M IL Y T R U S T 75 3 0 R ID G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 802 6 _0 0 3 7 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 4 C A S E , K E NN E T H 7 6 0 1 R ID G E W A Y E D M O N D S , W A 9 80 26 _0 0 4 3 4 6 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 K E E F E ,B A R B A R A 76 0 7 R IDG E W A Y ED M O N D S , W A 9 802 6 _0 1 1 1 6 9 0 0000 2 0 0 J A C K Y P R O P ER T IES L L C 75 3 3 O L Y M P IC V IE W D R ED M O N D S , W A 9 802 6 H a n s K o rv e - D M P 72 6 A u b urn W a y N A u b u rn , W A 9 80 0 2 O m n i a H o m e s 11 23 M a p le A v e W . S u it e 2 2 0 R e n t o n , W A 9 8 0 5 7 8.2.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) FIL E N O .: A M D 2 0 19 -0 0 0 8 A PP LI C A N T : H a n s K or v e , D M P -ln c., o n b eh alf o f p ro p e rty o w n e r DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF APPLICATION On the 11th day of August, 2020, the attached Notice of Application was posted in compliance with ECDC 20.03.002 at the subject site of the above-referenced application. I, Brad Shipley, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 11th day of August, 2020, at Edmonds, Washington. 8.2.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) FIL E N O .: A M D 2 0 19 -0 0 0 8 A PPLI C A N T : H a n s K or v e , D M P -IN C , o n b eh alf o f p ro p e rty o w ne r DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 11th day of August, 2020, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300-feet of the property that is subject of the application referenced above. The names were provided by the applicant. I, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 11th day of August, 2020, at Edmonds, Washington. 8.2.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington} County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and 1s of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 192 l, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH905676 AMD2019-0008 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of l issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/11/2020 and ending on 08/11/2020 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The a $119.09. is ~/~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds w LEGALADS I 14101416 BRAD SHIPLEY 8.2.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' Classified Proof :,~,~~),.• ••• ~., __ .. ~ •• ·, •'••·,_, ,·: ' '' ), 1_ ', ·,)· ~ •• ~,~,( CITY OF EDMONDS Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Delermination - File Number AMD2019-0008 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING g~~~~~t~~~~~:'~f~~aAA::ed;~i~l~ca~~~s fg~o~o~i:;,i~~ya~d~nniJ~~ below from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi Family - Medium Density. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision mode by the City Council following a publlc hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. N a m e of A p p lica n t: H an s K o rv e (app licant for Torino, LLC.) Loc'8tion: Vacant; unaddressed lot due north of the northeast co rn e r lo t at Olympic View Or. and 76th Ave W. Tax parcel id #00 3 70 800300 70 1 an d #003 70 800 300 70 2. See attached Vicinity M a p . File N o .: A M D 2 0 19 -000 8 D a te of N o lice : A u g ust 11, 20 20 Cor nirienison P ro po sal D ue : A ug ust 26 20 20 (see pub lic hearing information below}. Any person has the right to comment on this application during pu bllc comment period, receive notice and paruclpate In any hea rln ~s. and req ue st a copy of the decision on the application. T h e City may ac ce p t public comments at an y tim e prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecislon hearing, If any, ~~c::i~~ ~r1~:~cr~i~ci~edr~i\~itnn~ 8~~7i~~5 or~~~~r~daf~~~~~Jl1~ ECOC 20.06.020 have standing to Initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at htlp://edmondswa.gov/public•notices-texVdevelopment- notices.html under the development notice for application number A M D 2 0 19 -Q 00 8 , by em ailin g t11e C ity co n ta ct listed be low , or by ca lling the C ity o f E d m ond s at 425 -77 1-0 22 0 . P lea se refer to th e app lic a1i o n num be r for all Inq uirie s. A co p y of the sta ff repo rt will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. C ity C on ta ct: B ra d S h ip le y , A ssociate P lann er, (42 5 ) 77 1-0 2 20 , brad .sh lp le y@ e d m ond sw a.g ov P U B LI C H EA D u e to C O V ID -19 , a virtual Planning Board on Wednesda Au ust 26 Join the Zoom meeting at:' ttps://zoom.us M e e tin g ID : 932 82 36 179 4 Dial by your location (253 ) 2 15 -878 2 U S (T a co m a ) S T A T E E N V IR A C T S E P A N O T IC E D E E R IG N I IC A NC Lead Agency: The S E P A lea d agency for th e proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issue d a Determination of Nonsignificance {DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the abo ve project. Dale of Issuance: August 11, 2020 SEPA Appeal Deadline: August 26 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be filed In writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee lo the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 - 5th A v e . N , E d m o nd s, W A 980 20 . Y IC IN IT Y M A P Proofed by Sheppard, D icy, 08/12/2020 08: 12: 18 am Page: 2 8.2.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) C l a s s i fi e d P r o o f {i; C lty of F.dmoncl.a AM D2019·00 08 r. .ff'~ i~-~~·······--·· Published: August 11, 2020. ti-•----- .- ...... - ,-- 7'\I j_ ~==--?-= "J: t nm_· 0 l""i:,:"···. . -._:.:;~.-~; .. ~~~~I=:= EDH905676 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 08/12/2020 08:12:18 am Page: 3 8.2.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) From:Willow Gothard To:Shipley, Brad Subject:Opposed to Application Number AMD2019-0008 Date:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 11:15:28 AM My name is Willow Gothard. I am a 31 year old, life-long resident of the Perrinville neighborhood in Edmonds. I am opposed to the approval of application number AMD2019- 0008. Our family home is situated directly adjacent to the corner lot in question at Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave West. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi-Family - Medium Density would severely impact the privacy of our backyard, and that of our neighbors. We deeply value our peace and quiet, and our privacy in this neighborhood, and many of us consider it our "reason for living here." We also have concerns regarding the erosion of the sandy loam soil beneath our residential roads, creating dangerous caverns. Several years ago a neighbor unknowingly stepped straight through the road into one of these. The news got around, and each of us have taken pains to reduce the frequency of heavy trucks and vehicles driving our residential streets. Any additional traffic to this area on a regular basis will only increase the risk of acceleration of this sub-street erosion. Please keep us in mind, and say no to application AMD2019-0008. Thank you for your time, Willow Gothard ATTACHMENT 98.2.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) From:Lark Gothard To:Shipley, Brad Subject:Opposition to Proposed Land Use Date:Sunday, August 16, 2020 2:53:33 PM I am writing this in hopes that my opposition to the "Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map" for the corner lot at Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W. will be heard. Our neighbor, Andrew,suggested we send e-mails opposing this plan before the public hearing on August 26th. Our family would be drastically affected should apartment buildings be permitted to be built in that space! We just love our home's privacy and serenity, two things which would disappear with this new construction. We just love living in Edmonds, Perrinville in particular, and truly hate the ramifications with which we must face if this proposed land development should take place! We would very much be in favor of preserving the single family zoning of this area. Perrinville is a UNIQUE SETTING WHERE THE WILDERNESS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COEXIST! We want to KEEP it this way!!!! Don't force your longtime family residents to flee Edmonds! Initially, when deciding to call Edmonds our "home", we were attracted to the arts, the music, the "vibe" of a small arts town. Hence, we have adapted our lifestyle to reflect these values. We are Artists, Musicians, Authors, Woodworkers. We really just love the perception of an arts community which has nurtured and supported us to create beautiful and inspirational things. I'm afraid that a multi-family development next door may compromise these endeavors. Thank you for listening, Lark Gothard 8.2.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) From:Solana Gothard To:Shipley, Brad Subject:Please Oppose Amendment Date:Sunday, August 16, 2020 1:36:51 PM Hello, I'm emailing to let you know that I am opposed to the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan Map for the corner lot at Olympic View Dr. and 76th Ave. W. If that land was to be developed, it would affect the privacy of quite a few homes in the neighborhood. It's also a place where wildlife passes through frequently, and I hope that can be protected. My neighbor Andrew said that instead of a petition, emails opposing this plan before the public hearing on Aug. 26th could help. Thanks! Solana Gothard 8.2.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) From:Andrew Koehn To:Shipley, Brad Subject:AMD2019-0008 question Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:34:36 AM Hello Mr Shipley, Our family recently received a letter regarding the AMD2019-0008 proposition to change an area of Perrinville from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi-Family-Medium Density. I was hoping you could help clarify what that new designation means exactly. I’m assuming the intention is to build apartments on that lot. As we have watched the Perrinville shops become more thriving over the last few years, I was excited to see that the lot had been sold hoping it would expand to some additional businesses in the area, especially since I live within sight of the area in question. I would like to voice my opinion against this change as I’m sure some of my neighbors would as well. The letter said we have the right to comment on the application but no guidance as to how to do so. Since I have no experience in these matters, I was hoping you could give me some guidance as to what would be a productive way to weigh in on this hearing. I figured a neighborhood petition would be a good tool, would resident names/signatures be enough information or would they need to provide contact info, etc? Once collected, where/who should I turn a petition in to? Or in these days of social distancing is it better to just have people email their comments in, and if so should they just email them to you? Thank you very much for your time and guidance. -Andrew Koehn 425 210 1560 akoehn117@gmail.com 8.2.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Proponent proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation for properties identified below from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi Family-Medium Density. Proponent: Hans Korve, DMP, Inc. (for Torino, LLC) Location of proposal, including street address if any: Property is undeveloped and does ntot have a street address. Tax parcel ID #00370800300701 and #00370800300702. See attached Vicinity Map. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36. 70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 26, 2020. xx Project Planner: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds I 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I 425-771-0220 Date: August 11, 2020 xx xx Signature:~ ( r,,._ ...,,,_"-'A-•..-') You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than August 26, 2020. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. Posted on August 11, 2020, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). xx Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available by request. Please email brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov to receive a copy. Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: Page l of2 SEPA DNS_AMD20190008 8/10/20.SEPA ATTACHMENT 108.2.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) xx Gary Kriedt, Senior Env. Planner King County Transit Division xx Environmental Review Section Attn.: Env. Planning & Real Estate, Department of Ecology MS KSC-TR-0431 P.O. Box 47703 201 South Jackson St. Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Seattle, WA 98104-35856 Email: SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov xx City of Shoreline xx COMCAST Attn.: Permit Services Manager Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 17500 Midvale Avenue North 1525 751h St. SW Ste 200 Shoreline, WA 98133-4905 Everett, WA 98203 xx Edmonds School District No. 15 xx Washington State Dept. of Transportation 20420 68th Avenue West Attn: Ramin Pazooki Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. xx Community Transit PO Box 330310 Attn.: Kate Tourtellot Seattle, WA 98133-9710 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 xx Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW xx Olympic View Water & Sewer District P.O. Box 48300 8128 228th St. SW Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Edmonds, WA 98026 xx DNR SEPA Center xx Department of Archaeology & Historic P.O. Box 47015 Preservation Olympia, WA 98504-7015 PO Box 48343 SEPACENTER@DNR.WA.GOV Olympia, WA 98504-8343 xx Puget Sound Regional Council xx Puget Sound Energy Attn.: S.R.C. Attn: David Matulich 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1G Seattle, WA 98104-1035 Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich@.Qse.com xx Snohomish County Planning & Development Services xx M. L. Wicklund 3000 Rockefeller Snohomish Co. PUD Everett, WA 98201 PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 xx Snohomish County Public Works 3000 Rockefeller MIS 607 Everett, WA 98201 xx Hans Korve 726 Auburn Way N xx Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Auburn, WA 98002 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 Attachments: Vicinity Map SEPA Environmental Checklist pc: File No. AMD20190008 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of2 SEPA DNS_AMD20l90008 8/10/20.SEPA 8.2.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) , ... #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONM ENT AL CHECKLIST PLANNING DEPARTMENT Omnia Homes Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF: PROCESSING APPLICATION# RECEIVED BY DATE FEE ---- -- ----- ---- A. STAFF REVIEW DETERMINED THAT PROJECT: . / Meets the categorically exempt criteria . Has no probable significant adverse environmental impact(s) and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. Has probable, significant impact(s) that can be mitigated through conditions. EIS not necessary. Has probable, significant adverse environmental impact(s). An Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. An Environmental Impact Statement for this project has already been prepared. B. COMMENTS: _ C. TYPE OF PERMIT OR ACTION REQUESTED: --------------- Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone D. ZONING DISTRICT: ------------------------ BN to RM- 2.4 ATTACHMENT 118.2.a Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) C ity o f E d m o n d s Pla n n in g D e p a rt m e n t E n v iro n m e n ta l Ch e c k lis t - P a g e 2 T O B E C O M P L E T E D B Y A P P LIC A N T : A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Name of Project Omnia Homes - Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone 2. Name of Applicant: Hans Korve - DMP Mailing Address:726 Edmonds Way N. Edmonds 98002 Contact Person: Hans Korve Telephone:253-333-2200 (Note that all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant listed above.) 3. Applicant is (owner, agent, other): Planner 4. Name of Legal Owner: Torino, LLC Mailing Address:19707 -44th Ave. W. #207A, Lynnwood, 98036 5. Location. Give general location of proposed project (street address, nearest intersection of streets and section, township and range). The project site is located at 183XX 76th Ave W .. with Parcel Numbers 003708-003-007- 01 and -02. The project is entirely within the Northeast¼ of Section 18, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, WM, 6. Legal description and tax identification number a. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet): See EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto b. Tax identification number: 003708-003-007-01 and -02 7. Existing conditions: Give a general description of the property and existing improvements, size, topography, vegetation, soil, drainage, natural features, etc. (if necessary, attach a separate sheet). The subject property is rectangular shaped parcel, totaling 1.05 acre in the BN zone. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Neighborhood Commercial. There are no existing structures on the parcels. The applicant proposes to amend the comprehensive plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi-Family - Med. Density. An associated Rezone Application is also attached which proposes to replace the existing Neighborhood Business (BN) designation with a more compatible RM- 2.4 Multi Family. Site coverage consists predominantly of scattered trees and thick underbrush. The property fronts 76th Ave W. From the street frontage, the site rises approximately 6' to 8' before leveling off in the center. The eastern half of the site contains a significant slope, which is proposed to remain unaltered. All necessary utilities and storm water facilities will be constructed to serve the new lot after approval of the proposed alterations. Please refer to the existing condition map and geotechnical report for additional information. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 2 8.2.a Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) C ity o f E d m o n d s P la n n in g D e p a rt m e n t E n v iro n m e n ta l C h e c k lis t - P a g e 3 8 . S ite A re a :1 .0 5 acres 9. Project description: Give a brief, complete description of the intended use of the property and the size of the project and site. (Attach site plans as described in the instructions): The applicant proposes to amend the comprehensive plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Multi-Family - Med. Density. An associated Rezone Application is also attached which proposes to replace the existing Neighborhood Business (BN) designation with a more compatible RM- 2.4 Multi Family. Following approval of the alterations, the Applicant proposes a unit lot subdivision of 6 zero-lot- line townhomes on the west side of the property. In support of the project, the Applicant proposes to construct a joint use driveway and utilities as required to serve this plat. Frontage improvements will be required along 76th Ave W .. The proposed townhomes will take primarily access from the new circular Joint Use Driveway behind the structures. The access is proposed to a one way loop, entering from the south side of the property and existing from the north edge onto 76th Ave W. 10. Schedule: Describe the timing or schedule (include phasing and construction dates, if possible). Application (Comp Plan)Submittal December 2019 Final Action October 2020 Unit Lot Subdivision November 2020 Engineering Submittal April 2021 Site Grading August 2021 Final Plat November2022 11. Future Plans: Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Rezone and Unit Lot Subdivision. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 3 8.2.a Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' C ity of E d m o n d s Plan ning O e pa rt rn ent E n v iro n m enta l Che c klist - Pa ge 4 12 . P e rm its/A pp ro v a ls: Li st all perm its or app rovals fo r this pro ject from lo cal, state , federal, or other ag enc ie s fo r w hich yo u ha ve app lie d or w ill app ly as requ ired fo r you r pro posal. D AT E A G E N C Y P E R MIT TY P E SU BM ITT E D * NUMBER STA T US ** Ed m on d s S E P A Thre sho ld D ec, 2019 Ed m o nd s P rim Pla t N ov 20 20 S ta te D O E N P D E S E d m o n d s C ivil Ed m o nd s S an itart se w e r E d m o n d s W ater Ed m on d s F in a l ~la t 13 . E n viro n m e nta l In fo rm a tion : Li st any enviro n m ental info rm atio n you know ab out that has be e n prepared , or w ill be pre pa red , dire ctly related to this pro p osa l. T h e fo ll o w ing in fo rma tio n w ill b e pre pa re d and sub m itted und e r se p a rate cover: • G eo te c h R e po rt • W e tla nd R e po rt 14 . Do yo u kno w w he ther ap p licatio n s are pe nd ing fo r gove rn m ental appro va ls? No O m n ia H o m e s C o m p P la n & R ezo ne 18 -43 0 4 8.2.a Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 5 ) 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site contains a minor slope along west property edge. The center of the site is relatively flat with a significant slope along the eastern half of the site. (Refer to the attached site survey) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The eastern portion of the property has an approximate slope of 40-60% along the east side of the site. This area of steep slopes is proposed to remain undisturbed. No buffer is required. A 15' BSBL is recommended from the toe of the slope. Please refer to the attached Geotech report for additional information. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to The geologic Map of Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles Washington. James P Minard (1983), the majority of the on-site soil as Advance Outwash (Qva). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) maps the soil in he vicinity of the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (3) soils that from at 15 to 30 percent slopes. Please refer to the attached geotechnical report for additional details. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. No signs of accelerated soil erosion or deep-seated soil movement we observed during the site reconnaissance. No development is proposed on the eastern slope. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No detailed grading information is available at this time. All work will be limited to the area of the proposed development. No work on the eastern portion of the site is proposed. More specific information will be available during the Engineering design phase. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY / 5 8.2.a Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 6 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The Alderwood soils are classified as being moderately resistant to erosion when exposed. Some erosion could occur on-site as a result of construction activities; however, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will be employed to reduce erosion impacts. All construction during the wet season will comply with the adopted Surface Water Design provisions concerning site coverage techniques. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? There will be approximately 45% impervious surface. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. During construction, the contractor will follow an approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting City of Edmonds standards. Typical measures, which may be employed, include the use of silt fences, straw bales, and temporary storm drainage features. Hydroseeding exposed soils and cleared areas after construction will also reduce the potential for erosion. All construction during the wet season will comply with the City of Edmonds Construction Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual concerning site coverage techniques. Only limited site work is proposed. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction: Emissions and dust particulates generated primarily by construction equipment will be produced during the construction phase of this project. The amount of emissions to the air will be minimal and will occur during the actual construction of the development. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY / / 6 8.2.a Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) C ity o f E d m o nd s P la nnin g D ep a rt m e n t E n v iron m e n ta l C h e c k lis t - P a g e 7 Long Term Air Quality: Long-term air impacts would be those typically associated with residential land uses. Sources of long-term emissions and odor could include vehicle emissions from increased vehicle use generated by the new residential units and emissions from wood burning fireplaces (if permitted). The additional vehicular emissions in these areas are not anticipated to concentrate and therefore are not anticipated to create a health hazard to the residents or surrounding areas. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. If particulates become suspended during construction, frequent watering of the site during the construction phase of the project would be used to help control dust and other particulates generated on the site. This will be accomplished in accord with City of Edmonds Construction Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Perrinville Creek is piped through the majority of the US Post Office property on the west side of 76th Ave. W. The proposed rezone and development will have no impact. 2) 3) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No - Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NA Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ ✓ / Ptc:tt,eJ,\JV•t.tG t'~~E lL I~ fi p fl/1.,1>}-•,,,. !¾-re.'-, CbO ~ r. 'fµ i·"-, $v• 6.)c:;;C.1 -$1''t€ \ t'-• r ,s f1,,,.-cru.rJ1t(.,(....7 SepA,_1t-·r.;;v g'1 1<.,.r,-1 A vc.; W. 7 8.2.a Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) . City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 8 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed at this time. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. The new townhomes will tie into an on-site storm water facility. Surface water runoff will be handled in accordance with acceptable City of Edmonds Design Standards prior to discharge from the approved storm water system. No groundwater extraction is planned at this time. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the site will be collected and infiltrated to the greatest extent possible. Overflow will discharge into the existing City system. More information will be available during civil design: Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY / / ./ / 8 8.2.a Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ) City of Edm onds Planning D epartm ent E nviro nm ental Checklist - Page 9 2) C ould w aste materials enter gro und or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Some pollutants normally associated with residential development could enter the surface water; however, the amount would be minimal since the on-site drainage will be designed in conformance with City of Edmonds Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual. d. Pro posed m easures to reduce or contro l surface, gro und, and runoff w ater im pacts, if any: The project will implement BM P's for water resource protection per Edmonds City Code, as applicable. In addition the storm water runoff will be addressed in conformance with City of Edmonds Construction Standards and the most recently adopted version of the Surface Water Design Manual. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation fo und on the site: _X_Deciduous tree: alder, m aple aspen, other __ X_Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, Hem lock, other _X __ Shrubs X_Grass Pasture --- ___ W et soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other ___ W ater plants: w ater lily, eelgrass, m ilfo il, other O m nia Hom es Com p Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATIO N FO R AG ENCY USE O NLY V 9 8.2.a Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' C ity of E d m o n d s P la n n in g D e p a rt m e n t E n v iro n m e nta l C h e cklist - P a g e 10 b . W ha t kin d a n d a m o u n t of ve g e ta tio n w ill be re m o v e d or alte red ? The eastern portion of the property associated with the steep slope contains some larger evergreen and alder trees. No development is proposed on the eastern slope. The western portion of the property is covered with typical second growth forest vegetation, consisting of fir, hemlock, and alder trees, and ground cover/brush. The western portion of the site will be cleared for grading and construction. c. Li st th re a te n e d or e nd a n g e re d sp e c ie s kno w n to be on or ne a r the site . None. d . P ro p o se d la n d s ca p in g , use of na tive pla n ts , o r other m e as u re s to pre se rve o r e n h a n c e ve g e ta tio n on the site , if an y : The proposed townhouse residences will provide new landscaping including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Native or naturalized vegetation will be utilized, where appropriate. Additional landscaping will be provided in the ROW planting strip. Additional planting along the eastern slope is also possible. 5. Animals a . C ircl e an y bird s an d a n im a ls w h ich ha ve be e n ob se rve d on or nea r the site o r are kn o w n to be o n or ne a r the site : B ird s : ha w k, he ro n , e a g le , songbirds, oth er: _ M a m m a ls : deer, be a r, e lk , be a v e r, other: _ F is h : ba ss , sa lm o n , tro u t, he rrin g , she llfis h , oth er: _ b . Li st a n y th re a te n e d or e n d a n g e re d sp e c ies kn o w n to be on or nea r the site . None. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EV A LU A T IO N FO R A G E N C Y U S E O N L Y ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 8.2.a Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 11 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NA d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The proposed townhome residences will provide new landscaping including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Native or naturalized vegetation will be utilized, where appropriate. Additional landscaping will be provided in the ROW planting strip. The eastern slope area will remain undeveloped. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. W hat kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the needs of the project and natural gas will be made available for the purpose of heating and other needs associated with residential living. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The residential buildings tliatwill be constructed as a result of this project will meet or exceed the applicable residential energy conservation/consumption requirements of the City of Edmonds and the Uniform Building Codes. (International) Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / 11 8.2.a Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) < City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 12 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. It is unlikely, under normal working conditions, that environmental health hazards would be encountered. All project-related construction will meet or exceed current local, city, state and federal laws. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. In the event that environmental health hazards are encountered or occur during construction, all appropriate precautionary measures will be employed. Any emergency situation would be addressed by the existing resources of the Fire district 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: State regulations regarding safety and the handling of hazardous materials will be followed during the construction process. Equipment refueling areas would be located in areas where a spill could be quickly contained and where the risk of hazardous materials entering surface water is minimized. On-site management will be equipped with mobile communication equipment at all times to contact emergency services in the event of an incident. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Normal traffic noise will not impact the proposed development. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during site development. Construction would occur during permitted construction hours and in compliance with the City of Edmonds noise standards. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY J ✓ ✓ ./ ✓ 12 8.2.a Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) C ity o f E d m o n d s P la n n in g D e p a rt m e n t E n v iro n m e n ta l C h e c k lis t - P a g e 13 3 ) P ro p o s e d m e a s u re s to re d u c e o r co n tro l n o ise im p a cts, if a n y : C o n s tru c tio n activ ity w ill be lim ited to p e rm itt ed co nstructio n h o u rs a n d co n s tru c tio n equ ip m e nt w ill no t be allow ed to id le fo r c o n tin u o u s p e rio ds o f tim e , w hic h w ill help to m itig ate th e im p a c ts o f p ote n tia l co ns truc tio n no ise . H o urs of o p e ra tio n w ill b e p os te d on-s ite 8 . L a n d a n d S h o re lin e U s e a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? S ite co v e ra g e is c o n s is te nt w ith se c o nd grow th fo rest ve ge tatio n , c o n s is tin g o f fi r, h em lo c k , and alder tree s , and ground cover/bru s h. P ro p e rtie s to th e no rth a n d ea s t are s ing le -fa m il y ho m e s . N e ig h b o rh o o d c o m m e rc ia l us e s are lo c a te d to the so uth and a U S P o s t O ff ic e is lo c a ted o n th e w est sid e of 76th A v e W . b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. T h e re d o e s no t a p p e ar to ha v e eve r b e e n any la rge sca le agricultural p ro d u c tio n . T h e s ite d o e s ap pe a r to h av e be e n us e d fr om grazing of p a s tu re a n im a ls . c. Describe any structures on the site. T h e site is u n d e v e lo p e d. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N e ig h b o rh o o d B u sin e s s (B N ) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N e ig h b o rh o o d C o m m ercia l g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N /A Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ ./ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ./ 13 8.2.a Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) City of Edmonds Planning Departm ent Enviro nmental Checklist- Page 14 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environm entally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The eastern slope has been classified as steep. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Assuming 1 new residences at 2.5 persons per house, 15 new residents will be housed. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. After approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, the project will be developed in accordance with applicable land use codes to ensure consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. 6 new middle-income housing unit will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Adherence to the comprehensive plan and growth management planning goals of the City would ensure that housing development is consistent with those policies stated in the applicable land use plan. Applicant's proposal will improve the housing stock in the City by allowing the property to be developed to its currently allowed zoning density. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY (o f'J!,W ~">• r,rctJC<!? ? ~-o? D':1 \! O ✓ / V / 14 8.2.a Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 15 ) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? It is anticipated that houses built on the site would conform to the City of Edmonds development regulations and be limited to a height of 35 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Development of the site would result in a change to the visual character of the site for the nearest existing residences and roadways to that of a townhome neighborhood. No significant views would be obstructed. The new homes will be elevated approximately 8' above 76th Ave W. The slope between the road and the homes will be vegetates. The pedestrian entrance and front patio will face the roadway. Vehicle access will be from the rear. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The new homes will be elevated approximately 8' above 76th Ave W. The slope between the road and the homes will be vegetates. The pedestrian entrance and front patio will face the roadway. Vehicle access will be from the rear. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare from the completed project is anticipated to be that typically generated by residences, mainly occurring during the evening hours, and associated with vehicle headlights, streetlights and residential unit lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not under normal circumstances. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c.~~a,~..,.-rt.-'1 , itt..,:- plW?'"?ICD (l..,W"t. ·l,. 6( ~ON ,r''- Pr U.,C> ~ '> ..r ;:; ,._O foo"f" ~1.41vP"'·'<.,.;, v p -, -, ✓ ✓ ✓ V 15 8.2.a Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) . City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 16 ' c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Installation of street trees along the street frontage will help to alleviate some of the light and glare created by city mandated streetlights, headlights and residential unit lighting from the adjacent properties. The proposal will only install those lights listed in the Edmonds Design standards. All street tree installation will be in accord with Edmonds Development standards. 12. Recreation a. b. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None .. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The Applicant proposes to pay any applicable park impact fee. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. To the best of our knowledge, there are no landmarks or evidence of any significant historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural resources known to be on or next to the site. Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ ✓ 5u,..", le w P,.., /L-1'- A "" 1> S 6v,-r ,-I""~? 'I Co111,,-J T'1 f' fl 11.,.fi... fr (t_(l; (;v I ·r,-1 ,,-., Pr ~v'\J'll'--Tei!-(1.... MIL-~ ....,, re: O ;-:Z- 111.:;: - " I ' ✓ ✓ ./ ,/ 16 8.2.a Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 17 ) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during construction or installation of improvements, work would be halted in the area and a state-approved archaeologist/historian would be engaged to investigate, evaluate and/or move or curate such resources, as appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed new lots will take access directly from the proposed circular Joint use driveway. Access to the project will be through 76th Ave W. The proposed circular driveway will be one way. Entering from the south and exiting from the north to maintain the closest possible alignment with the Post Office on the west side of 76th Ave W. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Community Transit Route #119 stops at the intersection of 76th Ave W. and Olympic View Dr. This is less than 300' from the proposed project. Residents will have easy access to the Ash Way Park & ride to the north and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center to the south. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed project will provide parking in private driveways, garages and an associated parking lot. The exact number is not known d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal will construct frontage improvements alogn 76th Ave W. as required. Access to the units will be from the rear through a private one-way driveway. No additional public ROW is required. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No O mnia Hom es Com p Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ ✓ ✓ 17 8.2.a Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ) City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 18 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 6 peak hour trip g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Applicant will construct all road improvements to the applicable City of Edmonds Standards and pay all appropriate traffic impact fees. The Client will also provide pedestrian improvements in accordance with the applicable standards. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The completed project would result in a minimal increased need for schools, police and fire protection as well as emergency medical service. School, traffic and recreation impacts fees will be paid to offset proposed impacts. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The project will be constructed with adequate water pressure, properly located fire hydrants and roadways constructed to allow adequate access for emergency service vehicles. Increased property valuation will result in increased taxes generated to support public services. The proponent will pay necessary school, traffic and recreation mitigation fees to offset the potential impacts to the various public systems. No unmitigated impacts will result from the requested incremental increase in project density. 16. Utilities a. Electricity, Natural Gas, Water, Telephone, Sanitary Sewer, Septic System, Refuse Service, Other Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EV A L U A T IO N F O R A G E N C Y U S E O N L Y ./ ✓ ✓ ✓ 18 8.2.a Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) . City of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 19 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the pro ject, the utilities pro viding the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. On-site sewer and water systems will connect to the existing systems in 76th Ave W. No sewer or water extension is required. On site storm water will overflow to the existing City system. Refer to the attached conceptual utility plan for more details. Water System - Sanitary Sewer System - Storm Water - Electricity: Natural Gas: Telephone: Refuse Service: C. SIGNATURE City of Edmonds City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Energy Century Link Republic Services The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead gency is relying on them to make its decision. Date: ~ 2e 2£;/f Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ 19 8.2.a Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) l . City of Edm onds Planning Depart m ent Environm ental Checklist - Page 20 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposed Comp Plan & Rezone would allow for the construction of townhouses rather than Neighborhood Business. Residential development generally creates fewer peak hour trips then commercial development. Storm water will be addressed by the same applicable code sections. There will be no likely increase in discharges to water, air or release of toxins Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: No increase is anticipated. Follow all applicable codes and ordinances. Construct roads and storm water facilities according to the applicable standards. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and subsequent rezone from commercial to residential will not have a negative impact on plants animals or fish. The applicable sensitive area, storm water and road standards are the same. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Follow the applicable codes and ordinances, Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVA LU ATIO N FO R AG ENC Y USE O NLY ✓ ,./ ✓ 20 8.2.a Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) , City of Edmonds Planning Department ... Environmental Checklist- Page 21 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The impact will be similar to any other residential development. Residential uses generally use less energy doing peak hour days and use more in the evening at off peak hours. This is generally the reverse of commercial uses. All structures will meet the applicable energy codes. Increased urban density supports transit use. New residents will be within walking distance of the adjacent commercial uses. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: All structures will meet the applicable energy codes. Tree preservation will be in accordance to the applicable code section. Construction of roads and storm water facilities will be in accordance with the applicable standards 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated ( or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and subsequent Rezone will have no additional impact on the environment. The eastern portion of the project will remain undeveloped under either designation. The amount of land developed will be identical under either designation. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The proposed development will provide a 15' BSBL at the toe of the slope as recommended in the attached Geotech report. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed alteration will have likely negative impact. O mnia Hom es Com p Plan & Rezone 18-430 E V A L U A T IO N F O R A G E N C Y U S E O N L Y ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ A WJ I:. j~l),.VIG'. ~'1' A e,o,-.p Y "AN I':> p G"c.,~s~ al\" IL-4') for-- ~ "b,;>,-.ie, j !fat; Pul- o yo ,S Pl' l- IN O ,.,, '-" I) g_.l? i) l'l ,. G Trl--€ ,'1 ~ ,r; "' ,- -r C) I~ i.! CH,.._ 11--1 6i 11,,(, I lt<-l '1 ,Z,otJ<ii- i> 'r ,t.,.>ffil'- T "'/ · 21 8.2.a Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) , cffy of Edmonds Planning Department Environmental Checklist - Page 22 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed Comp Plan /Rezone would increase the need for public services by increasing urban density. Increased urban density promotes Transit use. The subject parcel is an infill development and the extension of public services is not required. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Increased urban density promotes Transit use. All structures will meet the applicable energy codes. Traffic impact fees will offset any additional impacts to the public road netw ork. All other identified impacts will be offset by applicable impact fees. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no known conflicts Omnia Homes Comp Plan & Rezone 18-430 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ✓ ./ J 22 8.2.a Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ,..-,_l LEGAL DESCR'IPTION/TITLE REPORT NOTES P A RCE L A : LOT 7, BLOCK 3, ADMIRAL TY AORES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EAST 168 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPT THE SO U T H . 7 FEET TH EREO F. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOt.HSH, STATE OF WA S.,HI N GTON. PARCEL 8: THE SOUTH 7 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK .3, ADMIRAL TY ACRES, A C COR DJN G TO THE PLAT TH E R E O F RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PA GE 48, RECORDS OF SN OH O M ISH COUNTY, WAS H IN G TON . EXCEPT THEREFROM TI-IE EAST 168 FEET THEREOF. SIT U A TE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF W ASHUN GTON . LE G A L O E S C R IP T rON BAS E D ON AMENDMENT 1 TO A LTA COM M ITM EN T BY CHICAGO TITLE IN S UR AN C E COMPANY ORDER NO. 500071829 DATED AUGUST 31, 2018 AT t2: 00 A.M. TH ERE A RE NO EA SEM EN T OF R E CO RD P ER A LT A CO M M ITM E NT. E XH IBIT "A " 8.2.a Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc. February 10, 2020 Mr. Sunny Singh OMNIA Homes 1123 Maple Ave SW, Suite #220 Renton, WA 98057 Via email: hsgchomes@gmail.com RE: Critical Areas Designation (CAD) Parcel 00370800300701 XXX 76thAve. South,City of Edmonds, Washington Revised addressing City of Edmonds comments of 1/27/2020 Dear Mr. Singh, RECEIVED FEB 13 2020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Following your request Beaver Creek Environmental Services, Inc. (BCES) has completed an onsite wetland verification of the 1.0-acresite located on 76th Ave. South, inside the Urban Growth Area. Onsite assessment followed the established criteria and methods as defined within the Corps of Engineers (CoE) Wetland Delineation Manual - 2010 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (WMVC) Regional Supplement, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Rules. Site assessment encompassed the entire site. 171Hl1 Pl SW IUli,tl'f~W •~ ullt.:,i,, r 11\.' -, ~ ~11' 1v.•,11ir1s.w 1 811111 s I (,\V C".~ ,, > ·< l8i'U1MSW U!/111 Pl mv ., ~ Porrl11vlllo 'J. j '!::. o,,.,r,J.llt VI rh~ o, r~ ;; -~ ~ E f.l Sources: Esri, HERE; Garmin, l.JSGS, l~ 0 termap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Jap·ara,;,ME,TI, Esri China (Hong Kong~,,,.Eisri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community H;s,,, "' sw .. in Figure 1. Site Vicinity POB 731695 • Puyallup WA 98373 (253) 732-6515 MHeckert@q.com ATTACHMENT 128.2.a Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) King County Wetland Inventory and DNR Water Type map The King County Wetland Inventory mapand City drainage map was reviewed as a part of this assessment. This mapping resource identified no wetlands or streams on the project site. Perrinville Creek was identified offsite to the west of the site. I >, ., ,·, (•\ " '\ ~ o\l'''~'~ PROJECT SITE I .. .., I '0'/i 1 f Pl . . ( err111v1lle r,v.~·.v '.".',1i {; :...i· ,: ~a• .. J / I~ /lh Pl '6'.'i ,, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, lntermap; increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, r,TPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey.Esri.Japan, METI, Esri China1(lrlcirng,Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap ,, contributors, and the GIS User Community lllH•I r~1 6*.'i' Figure 3. King County Wetlands & S1rea111s Map - I in. = 500 Ji. 3 Sunny EdmondsCAD REV l 8.2.a Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Field Observations The parcel is vacant. The site is flat and rolling in the west and sharply elevated in the east. The site has been cleared and graded flat in the west portion. Veg in the flat area is Him alayan blackberryand Scottsbroom. Most of the area is bare ground. Plant comm unity is entirely initial regrowth from clearing and is upland. As identified at several sample plots throughout the site the soil was a sand and did not exhibit redoximorphic features. Field indicators of wetland hydrology were also absent. An area in the northwest corner of the site was purported in previous assessment to have potentially hydric vegetation .i.e. equisetum. The area was examined for wetland characteristics. Sample data (attached) shows no indication of hydric soils or hydrology. WETLAND AND STREAM DETERMINATION W etland condition is determined by sample plots which contain hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the CoE Manual. Based on these methods no wetland was identified on the site, andno wetland was identified on the adjacent sites. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Onsite assessment was completed on September 15,201 Bfollowing the methods and procedures defined within theCoE Manual, City of Edmonds Regs., and the WDNR Forest Practice Rules. This assessment identified thatNOarea within 300 ft. of the site boundariesexhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as "wetland". One area within 300 ft . of the site boundaries exhibited all three of the established criteria for designation as astream. Perrinville Creek occurs offsite approximately 80 ft. to the west, across 76th Ave. W. The standard buffer for this stream is truncated by the roadbed of 76th Ave. w. and is diminished by the road location. The stream is functionally detached from the project site and will not be impacted by development of this site. Thank you for allowing BCES the opportunity to assist with this project. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance please call me at 253 732-6515. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Heckert 5 Sunny EdmondsCAD REV I 8.2.a Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) I I I I I I I I I W+E I 00370800200800 00434605010604 I 00370800300600 00370800300601 SP2U EQUISTUM • I I I I I 00370800300702 t-- r---------------- 00370800300701 SP 1U SAND • 00434600010505 00370800300602 ,----- 00370800300704 I I I ' I I I I i I I / 00370800300603 I I I I I I I I I l I ----- 1----------- 1 I I I I I I I 00370800300703 ~ 00370800300705 004346Joo10502 Beaver Creek Environmental Services MHeckert@Q.com 253 732 6515 October 1, 2018 1 inch = 50 feet 0 10 0 •--======-----• Feet 25 50 Omnia Edmonds Site Parcel# 00370800300701 Wetland Map Not From Survey Locations by Garmin 64s GPS 8.2.a Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment SOIL Sampling Point: fil:..11L.. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) J_ Color (moist) _%_ ~ .....!,...QQ:_ Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 4/2 .1QQ__ --- sand backfill? I I --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --- --- ------ --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- "Ivne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: D Histosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (SS) D 2 cm Muck (A10) D Histic Epipedon (A2) D Stripped Matrix (S6) D Red Parent Material (TF2) D Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) D Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D Other (Explain in Remarks) D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) D Depleted Matrix (F3) D Thick Dark Surface (A 12) D Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 0 Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) D Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes□ No 1'81 Remarks: appears to be sand fill HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: PrimaJ:i Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a1212ll1) Seconda!Y Indicators (2 or more reguired) D Surface Water (A 1) D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA D Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 0 High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) D Saturation (A3) 0 Salt Crust (B 11) D Drainage Patterns (B10) D Water Marks (B1) D Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) D Dry-Season Water Table (C2) D Sediment Deposits (B2) D Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) D Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) D Drift Deposits (B3) D Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) D Geomorphic Position (02) D Algal Mat or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) D Shallow Aquitard (03) D Iron Deposits (BS) D Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) D FAG-Neutral Test (05) D Surface Soil Cracks (B6) □ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) □ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) □ Other (Explain in Remarks) □ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes□ No 1'81 Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes□ No 1'81 Depth (inches): _o_ Saturation Present? Yes□ No 1'81 Depth (inches): _o_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes□ Noi'81 (includes capillary frinqe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: does NOT meet wetland criteria US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 8.2.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ,.,. Ages Engineering, LLC A Geotechnical and Environmental Services, LLC P.O. Box935 Puyallup, WA. 98371 (253) 845-7000 www.agesengineering.con1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 76th Avenue West Residential 183xx 76th Ave W. Edmonds, Washington Project No. A-1435 Prepared For: Sunny Singh 1123 Maple Ave S\V, Suite 220 Renton, WA 98057 August 27, 2018 ATTACHMENT 138.2.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) " I Ages Engineering, LLC A Geotechnical and Environmental Services LLC P.O. Box935 Puyallup, WA. 98371 Main (253) 845-7000 www .agesengincerlng.com August 27, 2018 Project No. A-1435 Sunny Singh 1123 Maple Ave SW, Suite 220 Renton, WA. 98057 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report 761" Avenue West Residential J 83xx 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington PN: 00370800300701 Dear Mr. Singh, As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geotechuical study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction, Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain with 0.0 to 1.5 feet of disturbed native soils overlying medium dense to dense, native sand with trace amounts of silt consistent with Advance Outwash. We did not observe any groundwater seepage to the depths explored. In our opinion, the soil and groundwater conditions at the site are suitable for the planned development. The new structures can be supported on typical spread footing foundations bearing on the existing organic-free native soils observed immediately below surface grades, or on structural fill placed above these soils. We recommend a 15-foot building setback from the toe of the slope to the planned new structures. With the recommended building setback established, no ,;,· buffer is necessary. Detailed recommendations addressing these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are presented in the attached report. ,ve trust the information presented is sufficient for your I current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call . Respectfully Submitted, Ages Engineering, LLC . /'. / ... __ ,; Bernard P. Knoll, 11 Principal BPK:bpk Ages Engineering, LLC 253-845-7000 Page I 8.2.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 SCOPE 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Surface 2 3.2 Soils 2 3.3 Mapped Soils 3 3.4 Groundwater 3 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3 4.1 General. 3 4.2 Landslide 3 4.3 Seismic 5 4.4 Erosion 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 5.1 General 6 5 .2 Development in Potential Landslide Hazard Areas 7 5.3 Site Preparation and Grading 8 5.4 Excavations .- 9 5.5 Foundations 10 5.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors 11 5. 7 Lower level and Building Walls 11 5.8 Storm water l 2 5 .9 Permanent Slopes and Embankments 12 5.10 Drainage 13 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 13 7.0LIMITATIONS 13 Figures Site Vicinity Map Figure l Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 Geologic Map Figure 3 Appendix Site Exploration Appendix A Ages Engineering, LLC 253-845-7000 Page 2 8.2.a Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) P relim in a ry G eo tec h n lca l R e p o rt 76 th Avenue West Residential 183xx - 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington i.o PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of a residential development. Detailed building plans were not available at the time of our study. We discussed the planned development with the site owner. Based on these discussions, we understand the site will be divided into three residential lots. Each lot will be developed with a new single-family residence. The new residences will likely be two to three- story wood-framed structures with raised floors constructed over a crawl space. The attached garages will have slab-on-grade floors. The new residences will face 761h Avenue West. A steep slope up to the east exists along the eastern end of the site. Access to the site will be from 76th Avenue West. Storm water collected on the site will discharge to the existing City of Edmonds storm water system located adjacent the site. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the above stated site. If actual site conditions differ, the planned project design features are different than we expect, or if changes are made, we should review them in order to modify or supplement our conclusions and recommendations as necessary. 2.0 SCOPE On August 7, 2018, we excavated three hand-augured test holes to a maximum depth of7.0 feet below surface grades. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we developed geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the project. Specifically, this report addresses the following: o Reviewing the available geologic, hydrogeologic and geotechnical data for the site area, and conducting a geologic reconnaissance of the site area. o Addressing the appropriate geotechnical regulatory requirements for the planned site development, including a Geologic Hazard evaluation. Q Advancing three hand-augured test holes in the planned new development area to a maximum depth of 7.0 feet below surface grades. o Providing geotechnical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, subgracle preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on-site soils for use as structural fill, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control measures. o Providing geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of new foundations and floor slabs, including allowable bearing capacity and estimates of settlement. o Providing geotechnical recommendations for lower level building or retaining walls, including backfill and drainage requirements, lateral design loads, and lateral resistance values. Ages Engineering. LLC 253-845-7000 Page I 8.2.a Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) o Providing an evaluation of the steep slopes on the site. © Providing recommendations for site drainage. It should be noted that our work does not include services related to environmental remediation or design and performance issues related to moisture intrusion through walls. An appropriate design professional or qualified contractor should be contacted to address these issues. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The subject site is a rectangular-shaped residential parcel located at 183xx 76th Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The subject site is currently unoccupied. The site is bordered with existing residential lots to the east, a commercial building to the north and south, and by 76th Avenue West to the west. The location of the site is shown on the Site Vicinity Map provided in Figure l. The current site layout is shown on the Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. A steep slope up to the east exists along the eastern end of the site. The eastern sloping area slopes up to the east at surface inclinations ranging from 40 to 60 percent. A flat area extends from the toe of the slope to 76th Avenue West. The western end of the site adjacent 6711, Avenue West has a short slope down to the west. Site vegetation consists of blackberry and various low growing bushes along the cent er of the site. Along the western end of the site, and along the edges of the slope area, we observed typical deciduous and evergreen trees. 3.2 Mapped Soils According to The Geologic Map of Edmonds East and Part of' the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, James P. Minard (1983), the soil in the vicinity of the site is mapped as Advance Outwash (Qva). The Advance Outwash was deposited during the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation approximately 12,000 to J 5,000 years ago. The Advance outwash was deposited by meltwaters and streams emanating from the advancing glacial ice mass during brief periods of warming. These glacial deposits were consequently overridden by the glacial ice sheet and therefore will typically be found in a dense condition where undisturbed. The near surface soils at the site have been disturbed by natural weathering processes that have occurred since their deposition. No springs or groundwater seepage was observed on the surface of the site at the time of our site visit. A copy of the Geologic Map for the subject site is provided in Figure 3. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) maps the soils in the vicinity of the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (3) soils that form on 15 to 30 percent slopes. According to the NRCS the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam soils at the site are described as being formed as glacial drift or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits. The Alderwood soils are classified as having a "moderate" to "severe" potential for erosion when exposed. ·--- .. ,,......: .• ,, . ..,_. ~---------- Ages Engineering. LLC 253-845-7000 Page 2 - 8.2.a Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 3.3 Soils The soils we observed at the site generally consist of 0.0 to 1.5 feet of disturbed native soils overlying sand with silt consistent with Advance Outwash. In Test Hole TH- I and TH-2, located in the flat areas on the site, we encountered 1.0 and 1.5 feet, respectively, of disturbed native soils. Below 1.0 to 1.5 feet in Test Holes TH-1 and TH-2, and in Test Hok TH-3, we encountered native fine- to medium-grained sand with trace amounts of silt consistent with Advance Outwash. The Advance Outwash was medium dense and weathered in the upper portions. The dense unweathered Advance Outwash was encountered at a depth of 7 .0 feet below surface grades. Figures A-1 and A-2 present more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test holes. The approximate test hole locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. 3.4 Groundwater We did not encounter groundwater seepage in any of the test holes excavated on the site, However, we expect a water table exists beneath the site. The groundwater levels and flow rates will fluctuate seasonally and typically reach their highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (October through May). 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 General According to Chapter 23.80 in the City of Edmonds Municipal Code geologic hazard areas include "areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area: A. Erosion hazard; B. Landslide hazard; and C. Seismic hazard. [Ord. 4026 l (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 2, 2004)." 4.2 Landslide According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80.020, landslide hazard areas are defined as: "areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Within the city of Edmonds potential landslide hazard areas include: Ages Engineering. LLC 253-845-7000 Page 3 8.2.a Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 1. Areas of ancient or historic fa ilur es in Edm onds which include all areas w ithin the earth subsidence and lan dslide hazard area as identified in the 1979 report of Robert Lowe Associates and amended by the 1985 report of GeoEngineers, Inc., and further discussed in the 2007 report by Landau Associates; 2. Coastal areas mapped as class u (unstable), uos (unstable old slides), and urs (unstable recent slides) in the Department of Ecology Washington coastal atlas; 3. Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources; 4. Any slope of 40 percent or steeper that exceeds a vertical height of l O feet over a 25- foot horizontal run. Except for rockeries that have been engineered and approved by the engineer as having been built according to the engineered design, all other modified slopes (including slopes where there are breaks in slopes) meeting overall average steepness and height criteria should be considered potential landslide hazard areas); 5. Any slope with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than 15 percent; b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment; and c. Springs or ground water seepage; 6. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion; 7. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream-transported sediments; and 8. Any slopes that have been modified by past development activity that still meet the slope criteria." Based on our document research, we found no areas on the site mapped as areas of historic slope failures. The site is not located along a shoreline and therefore is not mapped by the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas. The United States Geological Survey and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps have not designated any areas as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides. The site does not have a stream running thru it, therefore 110 rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. We did not observe any areas with topographic expression of runout zones, such as fans and colluvial deposition at the toes of hillsides. The sites' eastern slope area exceeds 15 percent but have 110 groundwater seepage or springs, and do not have intersecting contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment. The sites' eastern slope area exceeds 40 percent and has a vertical height of over 10 feet for a 25-foot horizontal run. The sites' eastern slope area may have been cut to its current inclination by past grading activities on the site. Ages Engineering. LLL' 253-845-7000 J>age4 8.2.a Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) B a s e d o n th e c u rr e n t in cl in a t io n o f th e s it e s ' e a s te rn s lo p e a r e a e x c e e d in g 4 0 p e r c e n t, th e s it e is cl a s s ifi e d a s a la n d s l i d e h a z a r d a r e a . H o w e v e r , th e s it e is u n d e rl a in w it h m e d iu m d e n s e to d e n s e s a n d w it h tra c e a m o u n t s o f s ilt c o n s i s t e n t w it h A d v a n c e O u tw a s h t h a t w ill e x h ib it a r e la t iv e l y h ig h s h e a r s t r e n g t h a n d lo w c o m p r e s s ib ili ty , e v e n in a s l o p i n g e n v iro n m e n t. W e e s t im a t e th e fr ic t io n a n g le o f t h e n a t iv e A d v a n c e O u tw a s h s a n d s is a p p r o x im a te ly 36 -d e g r e e s . A n d b a s e d o n o u r s it e m e a s ur e m e n t s , th e s it e s ' e a s te rn s lo p e a r e a in in cl in e d a t a n ap p ro x im a te 3 5 -d e gr e e a n g le . B a s e d o n th e s e p a ra m e t e r s , th e s lo p e is c u rr e n tl y a t th e s o i ls fri c t io n a n g le . A s o il s fri c tio n a n gl e is b a s e d o n t h e p r in c ip le th a t w h e n a s o i l is g r a d u a ll y p il e d , th e n a t u ra l s id e s lo p e s o f th e p ile w ill b e r ep r e s e n ta t iv e o f th e s o i ls fr ic t io n a n g le . If p ile s s t e e p e r th a n th e fri c t io n a n g le a r e m a d e , a n d n o o t h e r fa c t o r a r e p r e s e n t, th e s o il w ill e v e n t u a ll y e ro d e u n t il it s s id e s lo p e e q u a l it s fri c tio n a n g le . T h e n a t u ra l c o h e s io n o f th e s o il w i ll in c r e a s e th e in te rn a l s tr e n gt h o f th e s o il a ll o w in g i t t o s t a n d s ta b l e a t a m u c h s t e e p e r c o n fi g u ra t io n . B a s e d o n th e s e fa c t o rs , w e e x p e ct t h e s it e s ' e a s t e rn s lo p e is s t a b le fr o m a g l o b a l p e r s p e c t iv e . P ro v id e d s u rfa c e w a t e r is c o n t ro ll e d o n th e s ite , a n d a ll s t ru c t ur e s a r e p ro v id e d w i t h p ro p e r s u b s u rf a c e d ra in a g e m e a s ur e s , th e p o t e n t ia l fo r a la n d s lid e t o o c c u r a t th is s it e s h o u ld b e c o n s i d e r e d v e ry lo w . 4.3 Seismic According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80.020, the City of Edmonds defines seismic hazard areas as, "In addition to liquefaction-prone areas described in subsection 2 above, seismic hazard areas are the following: a. Areas of the City subject to ground shaking from seismic hazards that are addressed by the Building Code (SMC Title 22). b. The Seattle Fault zone as delineated in Troost et al., 2005, The geologic map of Seattle, a progress report, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 2005-1252 or as the Director determines is more accurately mapped by the U.S Geological Survey, as set out in a Director's Ruic." The site is located north of the Seattle Fault zone. The site is located in an area underlain with medium dense to dense compact glacially consolidated soils. Liquefaction can be described as a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in pore water pressure. The increase in water pressure is typically induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine- grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the relative density and well-graded nature of the soils underlying the site, the risk for liquefaction to occur at the site should be considered negligible. The state of Washington has adopted the International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, per the (IBC) site class "D" can be used in structural design. This is based on the inferred range of SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts for the upper 100 feet of the site relative to hand excavation progress and probing with a ½-inch diam eter steel pro be ro d. The presence of glacially consolidated soil conditions were assumed to be representative for the site conditions beyond the depths explored. ----~-------~--~--- .. -~------------ Ages Engineering. LLC 253-845- 70()0 Page 5 8.2.a Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 4.4 Erosion According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 23.80.020, defines an Erosion Hazard Area as "those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter-rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also those areas impacted by shoreland and/or stream bank erosion. Within the city of Edmonds erosion hazard areas include: 1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soi ls that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c. Everett series ( 15 to 25 percent slopes); 2. Coastal and stream erosion areas which are subject to the impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water such as stream channel migration and shoreline retreat; 3. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils and springs or ground water seepage; and 4. Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include existing landslide deposits regardless of slope. The site is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam ( 15 to 25 percent slopes) which has a moderate to severe potential for erosion when exposed. Based on the USDA classification of the site, the sites' eastern slope area is classified as an erosion hazard area. No development is planned in the sloping eastern end of the site. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) measures must be in place prior to and maintained during construction activity at the site. In our opinion, the potential for erosion is not a limiting factor in site development. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. TESC measures, in accordance with the City of Edmonds, must be in place prior to beginning construction on the site. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMJVIBNDATIONS 5.1 General Based 011 our study, in our opinion, soil and groundwater conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed development. The new structures can be supported on conventional spread footings Ages Engineering, LLC 253-845-70(1() --------""""-------~-- Page 6 8.2.a Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) bearing on the existin g organic-fr ee nativ e site so ils, or on structur al fi ll p laced ab o v e th ese ex isting so ils. Fl oo r slab s an d pav em en ts sh ou ld be sim ilarly su p p o rt ed . T h e native so ils en co u n tered at th e sit e con tain a h ig h en o u g h p ercen tag e o f fi n es (sil t an d clay - size partic les) th at w ill m ak e th em diffi cu lt to com p act as stru ctu ra l fi ll w h en to o w et. A ccordin g ly , th e ability to use the so ils fr om site ex cav atio n s as stru ctura l fi ll w ill d ep en d o n th eir m oisture con tent and the prev aili n g w eath er co n d itio n s at th e tim e of co n stru ctio n . If gra d ing activ ities w ill tak e p lace dur in g th e w in ter seaso n , th e o w n er sh o u ld be p rep ared to im p ort fr ee-d ra in ing gra nu lar m ateri al fo r use as stru ctu ra l fi ll an d back fi ll. T h e fo ll ow ing sectio n s pro v id e detailed reco m m end atio n s reg ard in g th ese issu es an d o th er geo techni cal design co n sidera tions. T h ese reco m m en datio n s sh ou ld be in co rp o ra ted in to th e fi n al design dra w in gs an d co n stru ction sp eci fi catio n s. 5.2 Development in Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas According to ECDC 23 .80.070, the City of Edmonds does allow development on sites containing erosion or landslide hazard areas. The general requirement re as follows: 1. Minimum Building Setback. The minimum setback shall be the distance required to ensure the proposed structure will not be at risk from landslides for the life of the structure, considered to be 120 years, and will not cause an increased risk of landslides taking place on or off the site. A setback shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the setback shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Buffer Requirements. A buffer may be established with specific requirements and limitations. including but not limited to, drainage, grading, irrigation, and vegetation. Buffer requirements shall be determined by the director consistent with recommendations provided in the geotechnical report to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death, or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by activities within the buffer area, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional; 3. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion or landslide hazard area, minimum building setback and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; b. The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and Ages Engineering. LLC 253-845-7000 Page 7 8.2.a Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) c . S u c h a lte ra tio n s w ill n o t a d v e r s e ly im p a ct o th e r c ri tic a l a r e a s ; B a s e d o n o ur u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e p la n n e d d e v e lo p m e n t, th e site s ' e a s te rn s lo p e a re a w ill n o t b e d e v e lo p e d . T h e n e w d e v e lo p m e n t w ill b e in th e fl a t a re a s a lo n g th e to e o f th e slo p e . A c c o r d in g ly , to p ro te ct th e s ite fi :0 111 th e e ro s io n a n d la n d s lid e h a za r d a s s o c ia te d w ith th e e a s te rn s lo p e a re a , w e re c o m m e n d a B u ild in g S e tb a c k e q u a l to 15 .0 fe e t. W ith th e B u ild in g S e tb a c k e s ta b lis h e d , n o B u ffe r is n e c e s s a ry . 5.3 Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials including any existing structures, foundations or abandoned utility lines should be stripped and removed from the new development areas. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired grades. In order to achieve proper compaction of structural fill, and to provide adequate foundation and floor slab support, the native subgrade must be in a stable condition. Prior to placing structural fi!J, and to prepare the foundation subgrade, all exposed surfaces should be compacted with heavy vibratory compaction equipment to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. If excessively soft or yielding areas are present, and cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. If the depth to remove the unsuitable soil is excessive, using a geotextile fabric can be considered, such as Mirafi HP270 or an approved equivalent, in conjunction with structural fill. In general, a minimum of 18-inches of clean, granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative of Ages Engineering, LLC should observe the foundation subgrade compaction operations to verify that stable subgrades are achieved for support of structural elements. Our study indicates the native surface soils encountered at the site contain a sufficient enough percentage of fines (silt and clay-size particles) that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use the soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or the on- site soils become too wet to achieve adequate compaction, the owner should be prepared to import a wet-weather structural fill. For wet weather structural fill, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following gradation requirements: U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 6 inches 100 No.4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum? * Based on the¾ inch fraction Ages Engineering. LLL· 253-845- 7000 "~~--~- ·--~~---~--------- Page 8 8.2.a Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Prior to use, Ages Engineering, LLC should exam ine and test all m aterials to be im ported to the s ite fo r use as stru ctura l fill. Stru ctu ral fill should be placed in unifo rm loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and com pacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soils' laboratory maxi.mum dry density as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this same ASTM standard. In non-structural areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.4 Excavations General, The inclination for a safe and stable excavation slope cut is determined based on two factors, the current Washington State Safety and Health Administration (WSHA) regulations for confined spaces and global stability of the slope cut. Most often, the WSHA regulations are more conservative than the global stability requirements. According to WAC 296-809-099, a confined space is defined as: "A space that is all of the following: (a) Large enough and arranged so an employee could fully enter the space and work. (b) Has limited or restricted entry or exit. Examples of spaces with limited or restricted entry are tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers, vaults, excavations, and pits. (c) Not primarily designed for human occupancy." In the context of site excavation and grading, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries considers a confined space as a space in which a worker enters an excavation that is tall enough and/or narrow enough to inundate the worker and cause bodily harm if a cave-in occurs. This docs not include excavations that are less than 4.0 feet in depth. W,SHA Approved Slopes, All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lower level building and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, and/or federal requirements. Based on current Washington State Safety and Health Administration (WSHA) regulations, the existing near-surface loose to medium dense disturbed soils and the weathered medium dense Advance Outwash soils observed in the upper 7.0 feet below surface grades would be classified as Type C soils. The deeper dense native Advance Outwash soils observed below 7.0 feet would be classified as Type B soils. According to WSHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5: 1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope and the side slopes in Type B soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter from the toe to the crest of the slope. All Ages Engineering. LLl' 253-845-7000 Pagel) 8.2.a Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) e x p o se d slo p e fa ces sh o u ld be co v ered w ith a du ra ble rein fo rced p lastic m em bra ne during c o n stru ctio n to p rev en t slo p e rav elin g and ru tt in g du rin g p erio d s of p recipitation . T hese g u id el in es assu m e th at all su rfa ce lo ad s are kep t at a m in im u m distan ce of at le ast one half th e d e p th o f th e cu t aw ay fr o m the to p of the ex cav atio n slop e an d that sig n ifi cant seepag e is not p re s e n t o n th e slo p e face. F latt er cut slo p es w ill be necessary w here sign ifi can t ra vel ing or se e p a g e o ccur s. o r if co n stru ction m a terials w ill be stockp iled alo ng the slo p e crest. If these safe temporary slope inclinations cannot be achieved due to property line constraints, shoring may be necessary. Non -JV..\'HA App roved S lop es, Based on the composition and consistency of the site soils, stable slope cuts to provide adequate global stability can be steeper than WSHA standards in areas that are not considered confined spaces. Excavations into the native site soils that w ill not result in WSHA regulated confined spaces can be cut to an inclination of 0.5: 1. Some raveling of the gravel and cobbles exposed on the slope surface may occur at an inclination of 0.5: 1. Due to the potential for raveling to occur, and to prevent erosion, the slope face should be covered with durable plastic sheeting. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that Ages Engineering, LLC assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.5 Foundations The new residential foundations may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on the competent native organic-free soils or on structural fills placed above these native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of J .5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. We recommend designing new foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic. a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With the anticipated loads and this bearing stress applied, building settlements should be less than one-half inch total and one-quarter inch differential. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating th.is lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil :in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil and backfilled with structural fill, as described in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. Ages Engineering. LLC' 253-845-7000 -=---- ·-· ------------~---- Page 10 8.2.a Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) F o u n d a ti o n P a ra m eter S u m m a ry D e s c r i n n o n ,',D esig n V a lu e Net Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf Friction Coefficient 0.35 Lateral Resistance 300 ncf "Details regarding the use of these parameters arc provided in the section above. 5.6 Slab-On-Grade Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Grading" section of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slabs. The drainage material should be placed in one lift and compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it will not assist in uniform curing of the slab, and may serve as a water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Additionally, if the sand is too dry, it can effectively drain the fresh concrete, thereby lowering its strength. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided. 5.7 Lower Level and Building Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on below-grade walls, such as basement or retaining walls, will greatly depend on the quality of the wall backfill and the wall drainage. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Wall backfill below structurally loaded areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, drainage must be installed behind the wall. We recommend that wall drainage consist of a minimum 12 inches of clean sand and/or gravel with less than three percent fines placed against the back of the wall. In addition, a drainage collector system consisting of 4-inch perforated PVC pipe should be placed behind the wall to provide an outlet for any accumulated water. The drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year. The wall A ge; Engin eeri ng. LL C 253-845-70()() Pagel l 8.2.a Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) drainage material should be capped at the ground surface with I-foot of relatively impermeable soil to prevent sur fa ce intru sion into the dra inage zone. Alternatively, the 12-inch wide drainage layer placed against the back of the wall can be replaced with a Miraf GI 0ON Drainage Board, or an approved equivalent. If drainage board is used, the 4-inch perforated PVC pipe should be covered with at least 12 inches of clean washed gravel and the drainage board should be hydraulically connected to drainpipe and surrounding gravel. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and the wall drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls can be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 3 5 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of the wall foundation and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the "Foundations" section of this report. Lower Level Building and Retaining Wall Parameter Summary Description Condition *Design Value Earth Pressure Unrestrained 35 pcf E arth Pressure R estra ined Additional 100 psf Earth Pressure Surcharge Dependant upon magnitude ''Details regarding the use of these parameters are provided in the section above. 5.8 Storm Water The storm water collected in the roof and foundation drains should discharge off of the site to the existing City of Edmonds storm water system adjacent the site. 5.9 Permanent Slopes and Embankments All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finish,ed inclination of no greater than 2: 1 (Horizontal.Vertical). Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow in an uncontrolled fashion over the slope face. If it is necessary to direct surface runoff towards the slope, it should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a dosed conduit installed on the slope face, and taken to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill used for slope and embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. ln addition, if new fills will be placed over existing slopes of 20 percent or gr eater, the structur al fi ll should be keyed and benched into com petent slope soils. Ages Engineering. LLC 253-fJ45- 70(HJ Page 12 8.2.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) S.10 Site Drainage Surface, Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building area. All ground surfaces, pavements, and sidewalks should be sloped away from the structure. We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided, unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the strncture. Subsurface, We recommend installing a continuous drain along the lower outside edge of the perimeter building foundation. The foundation drain should be tightlined to an approved point of controlled discharge. The roof drain should not be connected to the footing drains unless a backflow device will be installed, or an adequate gradient will prevent back.flow into the footing drains. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to the point of discharge. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Ages Engineering, LLC should review the final project designs and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. If changes are made in the loads, grades, locations, configura- tions or types of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as necessary. \Ne should also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for expedient design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 7.0 UMH A TION§ We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Ages Engineering, LLC and is intended for the exclusive use of Mr. Sunny Singh and his authorized representatives for use in the design, permitting, and construction portions of this project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from others and our site explorations, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. ----~-----~----------- Ages Engineering. LLL' 253-845-70()0 Page 13 8.2.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) V ariations in subsurfa ce conditions are possible. The natur e and extent of w hich m ay not becom e evident until the tim e of constru ction, If variations appear evident, Ages Engineering. LLC should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. A contingency for unanticipated subsurface conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated during our exploration, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Ages Engineering, LLC 253-845-700() Page 14 8.2.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ' f'\ f!,, , - - LYNNWOOD .••-·-; 1.=-1•· ' ... l.YNNWOOD . ·, , .. ( :·. ' - ·. ' .. E-r,,v,or1r,s ·- " :: : •· ' EDMON[J5 v .. < .. ~· .. ' ~t~- ' .-t-•t· .. .-:f~ - :, " ·.; .. MOUNTLAKE ,,. ,:, if TER RA(E r,/,(,1.JrlnA.~E ,• ·• Tif<I<ACE I l ~ Approximate Site Location * Engineering, 1 -r C Site Vicinity Map f-\OPS ..1L . 76th Avenue West Residential - b""' p. 0. Box 935 l 83xx 76th Ave. W. Puyallup. WA. 98371 Edmonds, Washington Main (253) 845-7000 W\VW .ugesengineering.com Project No.: A-1435 I August 2018 I Flgure l 8.2.a Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) KE Y : APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFTEST HOLE TH-1 ♦ Ages Engineering, LLC P. 0. Box 935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 Main (253) 845-7000 www.agesengineeriug.com Exploration Location Plan 76th Avenue West Residential 183xx 76tl1 Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 August 2018 Figure 2 8.2.a Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) V ,,.,, ! 't I '' ,' \ . ·. ; - i. Y. ., .. \, •·avt ,.,,, I , ; t 'I I ' 11) ! I I') ,, I ., ·_: - 1•· '' I'. (, i ,, ' ',! /; '/;' j· ,'). .: i' { _,i• I ; I , ' . () (, ~ i ! ,,I ,_: ,.· I : 1 ... · .. /_. ,',I! ',, • : i I' I .. ;, . ' ... •.', 1 i ·', : J J, .·' ,;l,;, ,.t, 1'• f, ;~. 1' ' ._ .. ' .. 1 ·1, i ~ ' i• I ,, I' Ii I I ! i. I I ,., (0:Vl ·:; ~ •·! •' _:. ;i' i: '",: 'J i: j ~"' -'- I•' i J Approximate Site Location Ages Engineering, LLC P. 0. Box935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 Main (253) ll45-7000 www .agesengineering.com Geologic Map 7 61h A venue West Residential l 83xx 76tl' Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 August 2018 Figure 3 8.2.a Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) .. Approximate Site Location Ages Engineering, LLC P. 0. Box 935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 Main (253) 845-7000 www.agcsengiueering.com ECAMap 7 6111 A venue Residential 183xx 7611, Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington Project No.: A-1435 August 2018 Figure4 8.2.a Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) .. APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 76th Avenue West Residential Edmonds, Washington On August 7, 2018 we explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating three hand-augured test holes to a maximum depth of 3.0 feet below surface grades. The approximate test hole locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan provided in Figure 2. A geotechnical engineering representative from our office conducted the field exploration, maintained a log of each test hole and, classified the soils encountered, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A-1. The test hole logs are presented on Figure A-2. Representative soil samples obtained from the test holes were placed in sealed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test hole logs. Project No. A-1435 8.2.a Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) • UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL GW Well-Graded GRAVEL WITH < 5 % FINES GP Poorly-Graded GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GW-GM Well-Graded GRAVEL with silt WITH GW-GC Well-Graded GRAVEL with clay BETWEEN More than 50% SAND 15 % GP-GM Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt Of Coarse Fraction FINES COARSE Retained on GP-GC Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with clay GRAINED No. 4 Sieve GRAVEL Silty GRAVEL GM SOILS WITH> 15 % FINES GC Clayey GRAVEL SAND SW Well-Graded SAND WITH More than 50% < 5 % FINES SP Poorly-Graded SAND Retained on SAND No. 200 Sieve SAND SW-SM Well-Graded SAND with silt WITH SW-SC Well-Graded SAND with clay BETWEEN More than 50% SAND 15 % SP-SM Poorly-Graded SAND with silt Of Coarse Fraction FINES Passes SP-SC Poorly-Graded SAND with clay No. 4 Sieve SAND SM Silty SAND WITH>15% FINES SC Clayey SAND FINE ML Inorganic SILT with low plasticity GRAINED Liquid Limit CL Lean inorganic CLAY with low plasticity Less than 50 SOILS SILT AND OL Organic SILT with low plasticity CLAY MH Elastic inorganic SILT with moderate to high plasticity More than 50% Liquid Limit CH Fat inorganic CLAY with moderate to high plasticity Passes 50 or more No. 200 Sieve OH Organic SILT or CLAY with moderate to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: (1) Soil descriptions are based on visual field and laboratory observations using the classification methods described in ASTM D-2488. Where laboratory data arc available, classifications are in accordance with ASTM D-2487. (2) Solid lines between soil descriptions indicate a change in the interpreted geologic unit. Dashed lines indicate stratigraphic change within the unit. (3) Fines are material passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve. Aves Engineering, LLA:'. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) ,'::::;1..t.:', 76th Avenue West Residential l'. 0. Box935 Puyallup. WA. 98371 J 83xx 76tl1 A vc. W. Main (253) 845-7000 Edmonds, Washington www.ageseugineering.com Project No.: A-1435 I August 20lil I Figure A-1 8.2.a Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) ... ·• P.O. Box 935 Puyallup, WA. 98371 Oftice (253) 845-7000 Test Hole TH-1 nvrr. August 7, 20 I 8 ELEV: ~ Depth Soil Description Notes (feet) M% I Other 0 DISTURBED NATIVE SOIL: gray sand with silt and gravel, loose. - - Gray SAND, trace silt, fine- to medium-grained sand, moist, medium - dense. (SP-SM) 5- - Dense below 7 .0 Je er. Test Hole terminated al a depth of7.0 feet below surface grades. - No groundwater seepage encountered. LOGGED BY: BPK Test Hole TH-2 DAT.E: August 7, 2018 Depth Soil Description Notes (feet) M% I Other 0 - DISTURBED NATIVE SOIL: gray sand with silt and gravel, loose. - - Gray SAND, trace silt, fine- to medium-grained sand, moist, medium - dense. (SP-SM) 5- - Dense bel ow 7 .0 fee t. Test Hole terminated at a depth ol'7.0 foci below surface grades. No groundwater seepage encountered. IOGGEDRY: BPK EL.EV: Test Hole TH-3 DATE Auzusr 7, 2018 ~ ... Depth Soil Description Notes (feet) M¾ I Other 0 - - Gray SAND, trace silt, fine- to medium-grained sand, moist, medium dense 10 dense. (SP-SM) - - 5- Test Hole term inated at a depth of 4.0 feet below surface grades. No groundwater seepage encountered. LOGGED BY: BPK Fl EV Proj,s,tN,,., A-1345 8.2.a Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 0 510 20 30 u L;;J----,1 SCALE 1" = 30' --··· · .. ·•; It~iTE i. · ::~-:SHL6. ~1?T!?N ... ··- .'i:~E.._. "j: 188TH STSW -·---···.! _.:3: \ '- . . .4 .,.-::· -· . (,. · .. 1 .· .· · 1-~ ·I. : ) . .i"/:~ . .; . /?·. l_ ... /\ I / 183XX 76TH AVE. W. EDMONDS, WA 98026 003708-003-007-01 & 003708-003-007-02 45,668 SQFT (1.05 AC) IN_ .K 003 D~01 - LT 7 LESS S 7FT ALSO l-------'-'51VE DESIGNATION -NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL / -f. :/.'ON t -MUL Tl FAMILY - HIGH DENSITY 1 ...•. ,!GNATIONS :-:·J· ... / .. '. VICINITY MAP I NTS 1 / .. -BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) -RM-2.4 MULTI FAMILY I' ,, 5 .. w > ~ .... ·-··-~ "' W-POBLETE, INC. IRN WAY N. llNGTON 98002 O. FAX: 253-333-2206 OMNIA HOMES 1123 MAPLE AVE W, SUITE 220 RENTON, WA 98057 ,\NEERING - SURVEYING LAND PLANNING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / REZONE EXHIBIT l---=w_C::.:J::::M_+,,=cc1'-"cc~c--"30,:_',.,-l-cc,---,-=~-j ..,,_1_ 10.£rn'\l~-4.lOlIJU),'{OSS>IORTIW\IMC\~ .<PPl7(},fIJ ASP O.WQEC. 27, 2019 ,/OD/ 18430 OF_l_ 8.2.a Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Staff Report w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 8 Board Member Cheung agreed that the amendment is inconsistent with Criteria 1. Changing the Comprehensive Plan for just two properties is for a private interest rather than the public interest. He is also worried about setting a precedent for changes in other areas of the City. THE CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CLOUTIER, MONROE, CHEUNG AND CRANK VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Board Member Rubenkonig said she agrees with the explanation provided in the Staff Report to support staff’s recommendation. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board’s recommendation will be presented to the City Council f or a public hearing (date to be determined), and notices will be sent out to all parties of record. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM “NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL” TO “MULTI-FAMILY – MEDIUM DENSITY” FOR TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND 00370800300702) (FILE NUMBER 4869) Mr. Shipley explained that the proposal seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Multi -Family Residential – Medium Density (RM- MD). The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including a post office, local retail shops and services, professional offices, restaurants, multi-family residential and single-family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit, fee-simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. The property has been zoned BN for many years, which allows for low-density, strip-mall type development. The height limit is 25 feet, and the setback requirement is 25 feet. The proposed RM-MD designation would allow either RM-2.4 or RM-3 zoning. Mr. Shipley said the Perrin Village property was rezoned from NB to Multi -Family Residential (RM-3) in 1985 and is currently developed with five, 4-unit buildings. In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United States Postal Service to expand its facilities. Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The Comprehensive Plan does not mention a specific vision for the Perrinville area. The neighborhood is generally recognized as one that “includes commercial activities.” However, there is one goal policy in the Transportation Element that identifies Perrinville. Goal 5(B)(2)(a)(1) states that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. Both Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W are classified as either collector or minor arterial streets, depending on the direction. If the proposal had been for property located on a local street, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The site was rezoned to BN in 1962. While he understands the desire for more commercial development, the site has been zoned as such for 50 years but hasn’t been developed yet. The amendment offers potential to add to the “missing middle” housing type. The applicant’s current intent is to develop the site with 6 or 7 townhomes. Any development along this section would require streetscape improvements to improve walkability and provide some type of connection from the site to the street. All of these could be seen as in the public interest and consistent with the health and safety of the City’s citizens. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? The proposal would result in a slight shift (about 1 acre) from commercial to residential land uses. However, the shift would not disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses, and office and daycare uses are allowed in the RM zone as primary conditional uses. 8.2.b Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Planning Board Minutes Excerpt_2020.08.26 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 9 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designated an d the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The applicant is trying to protect the slope as much as possible rather than maximizing the land’s full development potential. Recent upgrades to the Lynnwood sewer system have increased its capacity and there are no issues with connecting to their facilities. All other utilities are available to accommodate the requested land use, as well. Mr. Shipley recommend that, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments the Staff Report, the Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the change in designation from NC to RM -MD. Board Member Monroe said the application mentions that the property is not a suitable site for a commercial zone because it isn’t easily accessible to the ground level. He asked if that is a requirement of the BN zone. Mr. Shipley said it is not a requirement. There is a slope at the street front, so the view might be difficult for commercial development at the top. Again, he reminded the Board that the site has been zoned BN for 50 years, but hasn’t been developed. If the zoning was appropriate, it is likely it would have been developed by now. Board Member Monroe asked what zoning the applicant is interested in. Mr. Shipley reminded him that zoning is not part of the current issue, but the applicant has indicated a desire for RM-2.4. However, it is not likely that the site will accommodate that amount of density. Board Member Monroe asked if any other properties in the vicinity are designated as RM -MD, and Mr. Shipley said no. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the surrounding properties are designated either NC or single - family (RS). Board Member Monroe asked if there is a City policy that RM zoning is appropriate when adjacent to commercial zoning. Mr. Shipley said RM is generally viewed as a transition zone between RS and commercial. In this case, the RM would create a transition zone between the commercial and RS zones. Hans Korve, Applicant, said staff summarized the application well. He referred to Comprehensive Plan Policy A.2, which states “parcels of land previously zoned for commercial use that are now identified as unn ecessary or inappropriate should be reclassified for other uses.” As staff indicated, the property has been zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) for 50 years, and no one has found it suitable for commercial uses for the reasons stated in the application. Hav ing a commercial business that is 8 feet above the street level isn’t attractive, and that’s likely why the property has been undeveloped for 50 years. Mr. Korve shared a preliminary site plan, noting that only about half of the property would be develo ped due to the slope in the back. The proposal is to construct fee -simple townhomes, where individual units would be separated from 76th Avenue by the 8-foot elevation change. Individuals in the homes will look over the traffic on 76 th Avenue. The units will be separated from the BN development to the south and north, as well as the backyard of the one single -family residence, via a landscaping buffer. He noted that a property owner in the area voiced concern about the loss of privacy, but it is importa nt to note that only one unit would be next to the backyard to the north. The impact would be the same as one two -story house, and the landscape buffers would adequately address this concern. Mr. Korve said the site plan honors the natural topography o f the site, which is consistent with one of the Comprehensive Plan goals. If the property were developed for a commercial use, a lot of grading and a large retaining wall would be needed . This would be quite costly. He expressed his belief that the proposed land use designation change represents the best use of the property. While many people talk about retaining the character of the single -family neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan talks about the need for affordable housing for a variety of people i n the community. Multi-family development on the subject property would provide “missing middle” units that would be owner -occupied, and the Comprehensive Plan goals support the proposal. Andrew Koehn, Edmonds, said the applicant’s proposal answered many of he and his wife’s concerns. They were worried about height and ownership and parking on 76 th Avenue, which gets fully parked out when the mail service is in operation. In his experience, apartment overflow can have a significant impact , too. He said he is pleased with the type of development the applicant is proposing, and they support the proposed amendment. Alexey Ancheyev, Urban Design Group, said his company specializes in the architectural part of the development, and he agreed that the proposed development would serve as a good transition between the single -family and commercial zones. He asked to share some alternative ideas for the proposed development. However, Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that the 8.2.b Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Planning Board Minutes Excerpt_2020.08.26 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 10 focus of the hearing is on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which doesn’t involve the future site design. Mr. Ancheyev said the change will make the site design even better. Rather than two access points, the updated plan would have just one, and the seven units would be located towar ds the back of the lot with the backyards facing the slope. The project would be separated from 76th Avenue by landscaping. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Monroe asked why RS-R zoning wasn’t considered for the subject parcels. He recognized that the property hasn’t been developed under its current zoning over the past 50 years, but he was concerned about skipping right to RM-MD. He appreciates the need to create housing to serving the “missing middle,” but he also underst ands that the City can meet its population requirements with infill. Mr. Shipley answered that single -family residential development wouldn’t require the applicant to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. They could achieve the same densit y doing single- family, but the applicant is seeking a different construction type that results in lower construction costs per unit. The Ci ty has more options for single-family homes, which occupy about 75% of the City’s total land area. The proposal wou ld provide a different housing type that is not readily available in the City. It would also improve the streetscape, increase walkability and result in more people to support the local businesses. Board Member Monroe asked how the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods would benefit from the proposed change. Board Member Crank pointed out that the proposed change would result in a more diverse community, and not just more housing. Mr. Shipley said there are a number of reasons why someone might c hoose to live in a townhome versus a single- family home. Chair Robles added that providing a variety of housing options is important so that people can live in the communities they serve, and the price point of townhome development would better meet that objective. Board Member Monroe cautioned that it is important to apply the rules consistently throughout the City. If the Board recommends approval of the proposal, they would be sending the message that other areas that are adjacent to commercial zones could also be changed to RM-MD. He suggested that the property owners in Perrinville may get a little shell shocked when the multi-family project in Lynnwood is finished, particularly since there is no proposal to improve 76 th Avenue. Board Member Crank said she is excited to see that the “missing middle” is finally being addressed. There have been community discussions about this need for a number of years. The last two density projects in Edmonds, at Westgate and off of 239th Street, have been rentals. It is good to see ownership housing being proposed in Edmonds as opposed to rental. Projects of this type help to add to the diversity of the community. Edmonds will continue to grow, and this type of medium - density project makes sense. Perrinville might be a good model for creating an urban village where people can shop where they live because there are already retail businesses in the area. She said she supports the proposed amendment as presented. Board Member Cheung agreed with Board Member Crank. He supports the proposed change, which would encourage a developer to add more housing in the area, and it likely makes more economic sense to develop townhomes as opposed to single-family homes. He said he believes that townhome development would fit with the character of the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Cloutier referred to Board Member Monroe’s question about why the applicant is proposing RM -MD as opposed to NC. He pointed out that all of the City’s othe r neighborhood commercial districts have a transition from commercial, to multi-family, to single family for exactly the reasons stated by Board Member Crank and discussed on multiple occasions by the Board. People want to live close to where they can sho p, and multi-family residential development provides enough density to support a transit center. Typically, it is not desirable to locate single -family homes next to commercial businesses, and multi-family creates a better transition. Board Member Rubenkonig thanked the applicant for the fine presentation included in the Staff Report. A lot of the information the Board Members were seeking was already provided by the applicant. He was also very careful to address the concerns expressed by the public. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, if Edmonds were prairie land, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps would have fewer conflicts. But there are a lot of topographical changes throughout the City. Hearing about the 6 to 8 -foot change in elevation helped her look at the site differently. It makes a difference in terms of how you approach a commercial area. 8.2.b Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Planning Board Minutes Excerpt_2020.08.26 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 11 She acknowledged that the current proposal is only related to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but it is possible that the applicant will have to stabilize the slope on the east side of the property. If so, that would be a good thing for Perrinville. This area was formerly a gravel pit and is subject to landslides, and stabilizing the steep slopes is always in the best inte rest. She recognized that is not a reason to support the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, but the Staff Report lays out a number of reasons for why she supports the staff recommendation to change the designation to RM -MD. Board Member Monroe acknowledged that the application presented by the applicant was impressive. However, there is no guarantee that is the project that will ultimately get built. The Board should not base its recommendation on the site plan that was presented. He said he would vote against the proposal. Mr. Shipley responded that, if the applicant wanted to develop the site under the current BN zoning, they could build single -family homes based on the RS-6 standards. The fact that they are going through this extra effort speaks volumes to the thought they have put into the project. Board Member Monroe agreed that the project makes sense, but he is worried about the next project that comes along. What if the Board doesn’t li ke it and arbitrarily recommends denial? The City should do its best to match the zoning to the surrounding area. VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO MULTI- FAMILY – MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND 00370800300702). BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CRANK, RUBENKONIG, CHEUNG AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER MONROE VOTING IN OPPOSITION. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that the September 9th agenda will include a report on development activity in the City, a public hearing on the updated Flood Hazard Ordinance and a discussion on Development Code work pertaining to the Tree Code. The September 23rd agenda will include a presentation and disc ussion on climate goals planning and more discussion on electric vehicle charging infrastructure. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles thanked the Board Members and the public for participating in the meeting. He liked the contrast between the two public hearing issues, which provided a lot of thought and forward looking on the part of the Board. The decisions are not made lightly and require the Board to look at changes that might come up in the future based on decisions that are made now. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the public hearings didn’t start with the script that is typically read by the Chair to explain the rules and procedures. She was concerned that, often enough at the beginning of a hea ring, there is a question asking if any Board Member feels he/she should recuse themselves from the meeting. Prior to the meeting she reviewed the list of those that were noticed within 300 feet of both proposals . She knew five of them, but none of them contacted her to discuss her point of view. She didn’t feel it was necessary to disclose that information. She cautioned that it is importan t for the Board to review issues in a very non-prejudicial manner, only looking at the information presented in the Staff Report. She commented that the Board Members aren’t technically allowed to visit sites, either. The Board Members can only consider the information that is available for everyone else to look at. Mr. Chave said that is true for quasi-judicial hearings. For example, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved and the applicants decide to proceed with rezone applications, the quasi-judicial rules would apply. The Chair would provide a brief introduction explaining the rules and procedures for the hearing, and people would be invited to disclose any communications they had had that might disqualify them from participating in the process. However, there is a lot more flexibility with Comprehensive Plan amendments, which are legislative action s. For legislative actions, the Board can visit site, and they aren’t required to disclose communications they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing. Board Members can step aside if they don’t feel they can make an objective decision, but it is not required. Board Member 8.2.b Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Planning Board Minutes Excerpt_2020.08.26 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 16 MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR TWO UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM “NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL” TO “MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY.” Associate Planner Brad Shipley relayed this Comprehensive Plan amendment, AMD2019-0008, submitted by a private citizen is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from ‘Neighborhood Commercial’ to ‘Multi Family – Medium Density.’ He displayed an aerial map, identifying the property north of the northeast corner of Perrinville. He displayed a Comprehensive Plan Map that identified designations in the area including Neighborhood Commercial; the parcels are surrounded by Single Family – Resource and there is Single Family – Urban 1 and Multi-Family – Medium Density on 76th Avenue West. Mr. Shipley reviewed:  Compatible Zoning Classifications Plan Map designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Units/Acre Multi Family – Medium Density Multi family RM-2.4, RM-3.0 <18 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial BN or equivalent based on Neighborhood plan  Existing zoning in the area is primarily BN o BN promotes strip mall type development with large setbacks and parking in front and maximum height of 25 feet  Proposal is for Multi-Family - Medium Density  Previous Similar Proposals in area o Perrin Village rezone (across the street to the south), 1985  Rezone from “Neighborhood Business” (BN) to “Multi-Family Residential” (RM-3) was approved for a 2.2-acre parcel on 76th Ave. W o Post Office rezone, 1987  Rezone from “Multi-Family Residential” (RM-3) to “Neighborhood Business” (BN) was approved for a 1.2-acre to allow for expansion of Post Office  New Development in Area o Perrinville Townhomes  42 fee-simple townhomes under development in Lynnwood  Review Criteria 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? o Comprehensive Plan does not outline a specific vision for Perrinville o Residential goals and polices state that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets  Map of functional classifications of streets in the area - Subject site fronts on a collector street with minor arterials south and east from the Perrinville intersection 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of t he City? o Subject site was rezoned to ‘Neighborhood Business’ in 1962 o Land containing subject site annexed in 1982 o After nearly 60 years, the site remains undeveloped o Opportunity to build ‘missing middle’ housing types 8.2.c Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 17  Existing BN zone allows for RS-6 development  Applicant envisions 6-7 townhomes o Opportunity to provide needed improvements to the existing streetscape 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? o Total shift of 1.04 acres from commercial to multi-family residential land use o Shift of land use General Land Use Acres Percent of Total Parks 67 1.2% Commercial 105 1.8% Multi-Residential 229 3.9% Open Space 418 7.2% Mixed Use 667 11.5% Single-Residential 4324 74.4% o RM zoning allows office 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? o Preliminary plans show six to seven fee-simple townhomes o Recent upgrades to Lynnwood sewer system in area provide enough capacity to handle new development o Potential developer working to avoid the slope  Staff Recommendation o Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi-Family –Medium Density.” Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the homes were expected to be regular income homes, low income or MFTE. Mr. Shipley said he did not know, but HE expected they would be market rate housing; without any incentives to do otherwise, most developers build market rate housing. Councilmember Olson appreciated the well-prepared packets for both public hearings. She referred to conclusions for this proposal that were based on something other than the proposed project; the project description in the geotech report on packet page 292 is three single family homes. If the Council was relying on that report in its decision, she suggested having Ages Engineering update that report. Mr. Shipley advised those reports will be updated at the project level. If there is a proposal for 6-7 townhomes, an updated geotech report would be provided. A critical area report is not required for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Councilmember Paine said she also reviewed the geotech report, and although she did not imagine much to change, there are changes in the environment. The western toad is listed and there are other important things happening which makes it hard to do a Comprehensive Plan map change without a subarea plan for that area. There is a salmon and trout bearing stream, Perrinville Creek, that is threatened in part due to a neighboring city’s planning that wiped out the stream with the stormwater flow which complicates things. She loved the idea of addressing the missing middle but the framework is being put together with hooks and ladders. She asked about not having the framework going through Comprehensive Plan review, the environment degradation of Perrinville Creek, and the actions of the neighboring city. Mr. Shipley answered critical areas will be considered at the project level in the future. The RM zone has maximum lot coverage of 45% which the BN zone does not, so the proposal would actually be better for environment than it leaving as is. Councilmember Paine asked if that excludes the critical area, the slope. Mr. Shipley answered if the geotech report says the slope is stable enough to build on, building on the slope could potentially be approved but he did not see that occurring, especially with commercial. Ms. Hope said any development that occurs, whether commercial, townhomes or other, has to meet all the stormwater standards and critical area requirements. 8.2.c Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 18 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the SEPA determination of non-significance. She questioned why the proposal for the subject site was not residential RS zoning which is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Shipley answered they could develop to RS currently but it would likely have more impervious surface than typical multi-family development. If that was the product that the applicant wanted to provide, they could have done so, but they want to do a different product. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if residential was allowed in a business zone. Mr. Shipley answered it could be developed with RS-6 today. Ms. Hope said there also could be residential above commercial. Councilmember Buckshnis said when Planning Board Member Monroe asked that question, he received a different answer. She was concerned about Perrinville Creek and the environment in the area and has received a lot of inquiries about this. She noted there were numerous emails submitted and she hoped those people would provide comment during the public hearing. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Councilmembers’ thanks for all the information included in packet for both public hearings. He pointed out the existing property owner could currently develop the property in a number of ways. Mr. Shipley agreed they could do small scale commercial or RS-6 single family. Councilmember Distelhorst said the Comprehensive Plan amendment is for a different type of housing for this property and it would still go through permitting and reviews whether it was developed RS or RM. Mr. Shipley answered yes. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a 25 year resident of the Seaview area, a member of the Sierra Club Sno Isle Group Executive Committee and chair of the Political Committee, said although he was speaking on behalf of himself, it was more than likely that the executive and political committees would think similarly. He was also a former steering committee member of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat group whose goal was to promote backyard habitat connections between forests and pocket forest areas and obtained community backyard habitat status as well as Tree City recognition for the City. Perrinville Woods is one of these forest habitat areas; without forests and pocket forest areas, which are disappearing at a rapid rate in Edmonds, the benefit of backyard habitats is significantly reduced. Birds, squirrels, chipmunks, coyotes, deer, and toads as well as salmon in Perrinville Creek do not know where the South County Park ends and Perrinville Woods begins so it is up to citizens to speak on their behalf. Mr. Senderoff said the recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan change did not originate with Council or the Planning Department but with a developer who purchased the property having full knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan and code requirements for its development. He was tired of developers purchasing property knowing the requirements and then pressuring and sometimes even extorting or trying to extort the City to loosen Comprehensive Plan requirements and development codes so they can collect a windfall in profits resulting from the change. What is happening in Perrinville Woods is no different than what happened at the old Safeway property for over 25 years, the Harbor Square property, the Pt. Edwards property after new owners took over and even similar attempts for the downtown post office property. They should not be allowed to turn to the City and expect or be given a windfall product and the Council has the power to stop it. If fact, all the current Councilmembers and the Mayor ran for office as a supporter of open space and environmental sustainability. It will now be evident whether those values are truthful. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 40+ year Edmonds resident and retired fishery biologist, said this parcel is located in the Perrinville Creek Watershed which studies dating back to 1998 indicate has serious problems with excessive stormwater. Any further action in this watershed without considering its impacts would be improper. Streambanks are eroding, properties at the lower end of the stream are threatened with flooding, and fish habitat is being eliminated. He recommended before amending the Comprehensive Plan, stepping back to consider what should be happening in the Perrinville Watershed. One of the criteria is whether it is 8.2.c Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 19 in the public interest or determinantal to the public interest. The answer to both is obvious; it is not in the public interest to continue deteriorating the Perrinville watershed or to continually destruct fish habitat. The background material did not reference the consequences of a change in the map designation and how the change would affect the environment. Without such information, the Council would be making a decision in the dark. The Council needs to know the differences and consequences and whether the change to the map designation will make things in the watershed worse or better. As it is not in the public interest, he recommended Council the deny the amendment. Hans Korve, applicant, said these issues were not brought up at the Planning Board and the Planning Board voted to approve the amendment. This project meets the Comprehensive Plan planning policies as listed in the packet and presented, particularly commercial policy A2 which states land that was previously zoned for commercial use which basically has been identified as unnecessary or inappropriate for commercial use should be reclassified. This property has been listed as commercial for 60 years and due to its elevation, it has not been developed for commercial purposes. No one wants to put a commercial building 8 feet above the street. Single family homes could be constructed on the site, but the impact of that would be developing the hillside which is allowed by code. They do not want to do that, it is expensive and it is destructive to the hillside. This proposal stays off the hillside and provides the missing middle, a housing type that is not available in Edmonds. Most of Edmonds is single family; people like yards, big houses and there are a lot of beautiful craftsman-style homes, but there are no townhomes, residences that people can afford to own without caring for a large yard. One of the Planning Board members said she would love to live here because she cannot find missing middle housing that she can afford and has the amenities she is seeking. He was uncertain how the Perrinville Woods comes into this; their proposal preserves approximately half of the site. With regard to the watershed and excessive stormwater, the subject site is located on the opposite of the creek, their proposal does not impact the creek or its banks and their stormwater will be addressed in accordance with the stormwater manual. The post office is across the street and the creek is in a pipe. He requested the Council support the Planning Board’s recommendation. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested postponing to October 6th due to number of comments she has received. In looking at the SEPA and the comments, a Perrinville master plan may be needed like was done for Five Corners, Westgate and Highway 99. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO POSTPONE A DECISION UNTIL OCTOBER 6TH. Councilmember Paine asked if postponing to October 6th would give the City or the applicant adequate time to provide more information about stormwater controls and how the proposal would impact Perrinville Creek. She was interested in not allowing any work on the steep hillside slope as it would be damaging and although this proposal may be less damaging, the Council was working in a vacuum as Mr. Scordino stated. Ms. Hope said it would provide more time and then on October 6th the Council could decide whether they had enough information. Mr. Shipley said these are usually looked at on a project level basis, not necessarily for a Comprehensive Plan amendment which is a non-project level. He pointed out no additional development could occur as a result of a Comprehensive Plan map change; a rezone would still be required. The updated stormwater code addresses many of the historical issues along Perrinville Creek. If this is an environmentally sensitive proposal, he was unsure two weeks would be enough time to have an assessment of potential development. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to amend to postpone until November. The proposal will add 14 more people and vehicles. She has received a lot of information since Sunday when people became aware of this via the media and she there were a lot of environmental issues she wanted to research. 8.2.c Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 20 Councilmember Distelhorst said he was ready to take action on October 6th. He appreciated the information staff has provided and reminded himself what decisions are made when and what decisions are made at this level. He appreciated staff’s reminder regarding when various issues are taken into account during the process for these types of applications. Councilmember Olson said staff has embraced the Mayor and Council’s priorities with regard to the environment. She expected via the permitting process that issues would be carefully vetted, particularly the issues raised during the public hearing that need to be mitigated. The Council may be distracted by the fact that the parcel is currently undeveloped and development may look like bad thing for the environment. In fact, the site can be developed today under its current Comprehensive Plan designation; the Council has the opportunity to consider what the Comprehensive Plan designation should be, all things considered. From what was in the staff report and the presentation, the proposal would be as environmentally friendly if not more so than the other options allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan designation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:20 P.M. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the Council has been online since 6 p.m. and extending to 10:20 p.m. can easily go to 10:40 p.m. She believed the Council should bring its work to a close and continue the remaining issues until next week. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out the agenda includes a study item for CARES Funding, waiting until the next meeting is two weeks and would push back something that is very time sensitive as there is a finite amount of time to use the money. She was in favor of extending the meeting. Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded there is no meeting next week as it is a fifth Tuesday; the next Council meeting is October 6th. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the Council could not meet on a fifth Tuesday if there were items that needed to be considered. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered three, potentially four Councilmembers were out of town next week. There are very few fifth Tuesdays and there is not another one until March. Councilmembers have flights booked and have planned trips out of town next week. Councilmember Distelhorst said he was unavailable next week; he has not had a vacation until August 2019 and he intended to not be on Council Zoom next Tuesday. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for clarification, if the motion was to extend the public hearing until October 6th. Mayor Nelson answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the public could still comment on October 6th. Ms. Hope said the motion was to postpone a decision until October 6th; she would defer to Mr. Taraday with regard to whether the public could provide comment. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can if it wishes extend the hearing until October 6th; the motion was ambiguous and it wasn’t clear to him whether the intent was to delay deliberation and voting until 6th or if it was to continue the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 6TH. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday pointed out if that was the Council’s intent with regard to the previous public hearing, that also was not clear. 8.2.c Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 21 MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 (previously Consent Agenda Item 7.3) Councilmember Olson said the time of adjournment should be 8:47 p.m. not 10:47 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIREWORKS CODE Mayor Nelson relayed there were previous presentations by the City Attorney, the Fire Department, the Acting Police Chief and Assistant Fire Marshal. Tonight Assistant Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer and Acting Police Chief Lawless are available for any additional questions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIREWORKS CODE. Councilmember Paine referred to the $1 million, $2 million insurance required for public display of fireworks and asked whether that was adequate and whether that needed to be addressed in the ordinance. Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer answered that was adequate, it was the amount in the two other cities he serves, and $1 million, $2 million was standard practice. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if someone is under 18 and they “mess up” and were charged, Judge Coburn said they could not be charged with a misdemeanor and would have to go to juvenile court. She asked Acting Chief Lawless his opinion about bifurcating that to separate violations over and under 18. Acting Chief Lawless answered the municipal court cannot hear juvenile misdemeanor cases; juvenile charges have to be referred to the juvenile court in Everett. The way the ordinance is written would be consistent with any other misdemeanor that a juvenile may be charged with, it would be referred to the juvenile court. Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the law would be enforced and people stop using fireworks. Acting Chief Lawless said it will be up to the Council to decide what they want to do with regard to juveniles. There is no distinction about 16 years old; the law is related to when a juvenile can be charged and it will be up to the juvenile prosecutor whether to proceed or do some type of deferral. Most first-time defenders on misdemeanor cases, regardless of the charge, are put into some type of deferral program through the juvenile court. Councilmember K. Johnson said this will be a significant change in the law, going from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor infraction. She asked whether civil infractions have been effective and what a misdemeanor infraction will mean in terms of enforcement. Acting Chief Lawless said he was unsure how to address the effectiveness of one charge versus the other; it is usually dependent on the type of charge and what the legislative body decides is appropriate for the charging standard of the offense. It comes down to deterrents and the ability to enforce. The Police Department struggles with the volume of calls versus personnel; but at the same time, a $50 fine when cited is not a huge deterrent when often the fireworks cost more than $50. It comes down to public safety and being consistent with is being done in the region. Acting Chief Lawless commented Edmonds is kind of an outlier; there are other graduated offenses in the code that go from an initial fine on the first offense, to a second offense, to a third offense, but that is more 8.2.c Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.09.22 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 22 leniency to allow that household to put a child or children into the program. She noted things are changing so rapidly with COVID and the phases and she anticipated that would continue through the end of the year. The intent of the hardship language was to provide enough flexibility for the director to approve or consider one-off situations. Councilmember K. Johnson said that made sense and the hardship language would allow discretion to deal with a family with students that needed to be considered. Councilmember Olson said to expect scrutiny on how hardship is used and ensure decisions will stand up to that scrutiny. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Doherty wanted to ensure it was clear the Council was approving the ordinance as presented tonight, not the ordinance in the packet and as amended tonight. Mr. Taraday suggested toward that end, Account E be read in its entirety with that amendment. Mr. Doherty read, “Account “E” shall be the “Edmonds Learning and Activities Program (LEAP) Scholarship Support Program” account into which $37,550 of the CARES Act funding shall be allocated to provide scholarship funding for full or partial registration fees to Edmonds households of low income, below low income, or hardship situations to help them enroll their school age children in LEAP. Low income household shall be defined as eligible for the Edmonds School District free or reduced meal program.” MAIN MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED TONIGHT AND AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR TWO UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM “NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL” TO “MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY.” Associate Planner Brad Shipley explained this is a continuation of the public hearing held on September 22, 2020 for two properties located in the Perrinville area. The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi Family –Medium Density.” This a Type “V” legislative decision. Based on the findings in the Staff Report, staff recommended approval. The Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend City Council approve the proposal. The City Council held a public hearing on September 22, 2020 and voted to continue the public hearing until October 6, 2020. Mr. Shipley reviewed:  Four review criteria for evaluating Comprehensive Plan amendments: 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development?  What is the difference between “lot coverage” and “impervious surface calculations?” o “Lot coverage” is defined as “the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site…”  Structures are defined as something permanently affixed to the ground over 3 feet in height o Maximum lot coverage allowed by zoning designation Zoning Designation Maximum Lot Coverage All single family zones (RS) 35% 8.2.d Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 23 Multi-family zones (RM) 45% Business Neighborhood (BN) None o “Impervious surface” is defined as “a non-vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development.”  Compliance with Comprehensive Plan o Land Use Element Residential goals and polices encourage:  RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets  Height of multi-family buildings that abut single family zones shall be similar to the height permitted in single family zones. - Maximum height allowed  RM zone – 30 feet  RS zone – 25 feet  Good design practices that preserve natural surroundings - Preliminary site plan shows: 40% impervious surface coverage and 60% landscaped or undisturbed areas and leaving the slope untouched o Commercial goals and polices encourage:  Parcels of land planned or zoned for commercial use but are identified as inappropriate for commercial use should be rezoned. - Land was rezoned for commercial use in 1962 and has never developed - Additionally, the site sits approx. 8’ above street level, making it difficult for visibility necessary for commercial use. o Housing goals and policies  Provide for a variety of housing types that respect the established character and land use policies that provide for a mixture of housing types and densities which addresses the missing middle housing type  Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City o What we heard: Concerns about health of Perrinville watershed o Issue: Sedimentation and channeling of creek has led to declining quality of habitat.  Caused by past development practices.  Updated stormwater requires projects of a certain size to prove infeasibility of low-impact development (LID) best management practice (BMP) methods with the objective of: - Minimizing degradation of surface water quality; - Minimizing degradation of groundwater quality; - Avoiding damage to adjacent or downstream properties.  Reminder: The subject site can currently be developed by-right with either commercial or detached single family, two uses that could be more detrimental to the critical areas on site than what is being proposed.  Geotech letter confirms that the soils on the site are suitable for infiltration.  Proposal avoids grading of the hillside  Closing o Staff finds the proposal meets the criteria as established by ECDC 20.00.050, and recommends approval. o Planning Board concurs with staff’s assessment and also recommended approval. o If a motion is made to not approve the proposal, please specifically state which criterion the proposal does not meet. Hans Korve, applicant, DMP Engineering, said he had a 20 minute presentation but would attempt to condense it due to time constraints. He referenced the neighborhood context map, recalling key points by the Housing Commission such as housing should be located around transit and commercial uses which their project is, that more affordable housing options as well as less expensive housing types should be provided without changing the character of the community. Their project does all of those; it provides fee-simple 8.2.d Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 24 home ownership in a more compact housing type that leaves the majority of the project site untouched. He pointed out this is not a choice between development or no development; a lot of the comments seem to indicate the public wants this left as an undeveloped site. If the Comprehensive Plan rezone is not adopted, the client will go back to their single family development option which will impact a greater amount of the site, impact the hill to a greater extent and eliminate the trees on the hill. Mr. Korve referenced the Neighborhood Concept Exhibit, explaining their proposal impacts the minimum amount of hillside and trees, the vast majority of larger trees on the slope are left undisturbed. One of the issues raised was infiltration; a geotech letter has been provided that specifies permeable pavement is possible on the site. He paraphrased a public comment that townhomes would put water into a pipe and shove it down the hillside, commenting that was untrue. Permeable pavement can be applied to a single family or retail project, it is a matter of soil, not the development type. However, if a public street with a cul-de-sac is constructed, public streets are not allowed to be permeable pavement, a private drive for a townhouse project can be permeable. Mr. Korve referred to his September 25th letter regarding the 2015 flow reduction study the City commissioned that found in Reach 1 of Perrinville Creek, the area where this project is located, the stream bank is in a pre-modified stage and has no erosion. Many of the comments at the first public hearing were in regard to water gushing into the creek and causing erosion. He said that would not happen; there is an existing stormwater system and whatever is not infiltrated on their project will be collected on site and released at a predevelopment rate per the adopted stormwater manual. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of clarification, whether this person was restricted to the three minute public comment or was responding to staff’s presentat ion. Mr. Shipley advised Mr. Korve is the applicant. At the public hearing, he was included in public comments and was not able to make a presentation about the proposed project. Mr. Korve explained there would not be any degradation of the stream as a result of their project; the applicable codes do not allow it. There is existing infrastructure to address stormwater via a piped system long before it reaches the stream. He contacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are no toads so there is no toad impact. All the problems with the creek are based on 60-year old development with no stormwater standards whatsoever. Their project will have no negative impact on the creek, erosion, toads, or the environment because they will build to the current standards which do not allow water to gush into the stream. He urged Councilmembers to read the information he provided. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 11 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Gayla Shoemake, Edmonds, said it was interesting to listen to the applicant because she had heard those kinds of proposals and promises about what would happen before and very often there were problems. She remained opposed to the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan primarily because the environmental issues have been downplayed by staff to both the Planning Board and the City Council. Now that the environmental concerns had been publicly noted, it was clear the proposed amendment would endanger an already fragile watershed and critical area in Perrinville and harm habitat. She noted there are fish in area, not just toads. It would also further contribute to possible residential flooding that is already a problem in Perrinville. She requested the City Council not approve this amendment. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a resident of the Seaview neighborhood for 25 years, stood behind the comments he made at the September 22nd public hearing on this topic. The primarily focus of those comments was that Council should end the practice of providing changes to the Comprehensive Plan and 8.2.d Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 25 development codes that are not put forward by conscientious prospective consideration by the Planning Department, Planning Board and/or Council but rather by a developer who purchased the property with full knowledge of the development requirements and limitations and then looks for a financial windfall resulting from a zoning change. In fact, Mr. Korve mentioned that no one was willing to develop the property due to the expense associated with its elevation and steep slopes. He suggested that should have been considered before the property was purchased. Mr. Korve also astonishingly expressed a complete lack understanding of watersheds when he indicated that excessive stormwater is not an issue because Perrinville Creek is located on the opposite side of street. Perhaps he does not understand that water flows downhill following the path of least resistance and that removal of trees and vegetation will result in more excessive flows and that a street does not stop flows into the creek. Dr. Senderoff said Perrinville Creek is a salmon creek and the creek banks and habitat are being damaged and private property downstream is already flooding during rain due to excessive stormwater. Given these facts along with Lynnwood development activities on the east side of 76th Avenue, the City should pay more attention to development impacts on the Perrinville Watershed, not less. It is time for a time for master plan for the Perrinville Woods properties that recognize the watershed, taking stormwater, steep slopes, wetlands, significant tree canopy and wildlife habitat provided by the current open space into account. Dr. Senderoff supported the concept of addressing the missing middle in Edmonds. But just like there is a right place and a wrong place to plant a tree, there is right and wrong place for new developments. Impacting forested open space already limited in Edmonds that affects the watershed and salmon streams is the wrong place. Edmonds should be protecting these areas, not expanding development into them. He quote Theodore Roszak, “Suddenly it becomes a subversion of progress to assert the commonsense principle that communities exist for the health and enjoyment of those who live within them, not for the convenience of those who drive through them, fly over them or exploit their real estate for profit.” Joe Scordino, Edmonds, appreciated the Council continuing the public hearing so that environmental issues could be brought to Councilmembers’ attention. He was troubled that these same environmental issues were not brought to Planning Board’s attention when they made their recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment which he viewed as a flaw in the process. The background material provided to Council includes a 14-page document regarding infeasibility criteria that can be used to justify not using various onsite stormwater management BMPs, essentially 14 pages of excuses for developers to not to follow stormwater protection procedures. The City has a problem getting correct stormwater protection structures and drainage in place to protect wetlands throughout the City. That makes it clear that whatever commitment the developer is making at this stage in the process was not likely to continue to the end of the process. Mr. Scordio said the current Comprehensive Plan map designation for this property should not be changed because it could not be demonstrated that any change would be better for the habitat. This parcel is in a critical area which has not been mentioned; critical area restrictions will considered later in development but should be considered to ensure best management practices occur to ensure the property is not developed in an adverse manner for the watershed under the current Comprehensive Plan map designation. This proposal does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, environment quality goal A1 and C indicate this amendment should not be approved and it is clearly not in the public interest. It is clearly in a private developer’s interest to change the designation. The public’s interest is the entire watershed and what citizens want for this property He urged the Council to deny the proposal. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, emphasized the need for more information about the environmental implications of development in the Perrinville Watershed. Piecemeal decisions about the area like the current proposed change camouflage the big picture. Citizens along Perrinville Creek do not find flooding their yards wonderful and would disagree with the 2015 engineering report that there is not erosion or bank degradation along the creek across from the development site. Students Saving Salmon disagree the proposal is 8.2.d Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 26 wonderful for salmon due to sediment blocking the creek. The City’s report acknowledges Perrinville Creek has been degraded over the last 60 years as a result of urban development and inadequate stormwater regulations. She wanted to ensure the next 60 years did not continue that degradation. Councilmembers should not be asked to make a decision that impacts the Perrinville Watershed until a master plan for the area has been created. There needs to be a separate section in the Comprehensive Plan for Perrinville due to the sensitive nature of the area. Mariam Gold, Edmonds, a resident in the Perrinville Watershed and on Perrinville Creek of all 19 years of her life, said she has a vested interest. The developer’s presentation on a magical lack of environmental impact to the Perrinville Creek watershed is willfully naive of how development works in its inherent nature. For him to act as though the development will magically have no impact on a nearby watershed does not seem a reasonable expectation. She expressed concern with allowing this rezone to go forward without a lot of oversight to ensure what occurs does not impact creek. There needs to be more regulation and investigation into the impacts independent of the developer. A change from single family to a significant increase in residential density cannot have a positive impact on the watershed. It is already a highly stressed watershed and even small changes can have significant impacts on the function of the watershed and stormwater runoff that plague the Perrinville Watershed. Any additional development in such a fragile ecosystem needs to be entered into with less monetary motivation and a lot more investigation regarding the impacts. She urged the Council to deny this proposal as it was not in the interest of the natural ecosystems or the residents of Perrinville. Justin Monroe, Edmonds, a lifetime Edmonds resident, said he submitted an email to Council identifying his concerns and asked if Councilmembers had an opportunity to read it. Mayor Nelson advised the public hearing is an opportunity for comment, not a back and forth exchange. Mr. Monroe echoed all the previous speakers regarding environmental concerns from the project. This neighborhood is awaiting the impact of an additional 40-50 new townhomes in a Lynnwood project. Streets in the neighborhood are already dangerous; Olympic View to the west is a very windy, narrow, dangerous road; 76th Avenue to the north is extremely narrow and dangerous with sidewalks on only one side and limited space between the sidewalk and passing cars. Additional vehicles from the Lynnwood project as well as this proposed development will only add to those concerns. The Perrinville intersection also needs improvement. He requested the Council pause and not allow this rezone, and wait to see the impacts of the Lynnwood townhome project before allowing more development. To Mr. Shipley’s assertion that the property has been zoned commercially for 60 years and has not been developed so it is improperly zoned, there has been a great deal of development in the area so commercial development may occur on that lot. He asked the Council to reject this proposal, allow the neighborhood to absorb the already pending project and wait to see the impacts before adding further development in the neighborhood. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, assumed the Planning Board would have made a different decision if they had all the environmental information. She trusted the Council had that information to weigh in its decision. She echoed previous requests to push the pause button on this amendment as it is putting the cart before the horse. There are master plans for Westgate, Five Corners and Highway 99, but no master plan for an area that is the most fragile, most damaged, and needs the most care and thoughtful consideration. The appeal of low income and affordable housing is a big carrot, everyone wants that. As stewards of the City and property, she requested the Council push pause. Proposals are being approved for single lots throughout the area and she envisioned playing “whack a mole” with the problems that develop if there is not a master plan. Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 27 In reference to the public comments, Mr. Shipley said there is an assumption there will a huge increase in density. The site could currently be developed with seven units; the preliminary proposal is for six units. There is a lot of discussion about whether the stormwater system has been properly designed; the project is not at that stage yet and other stages need to be completed before the stormwater infrastructure is designed. Critical areas are typically addressed via a subdivision or a development proposal, this is neither of those. Housing, particularly housing diversity, is in the public interest and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This step in the process is the consideration of a Comprehensive Plan map change. If approved, the applicant could apply for a rezone and then submit a development proposal which would go through design review and a building permit application. There are several stages of review that are not being considered by the public. Stormwater can and will be addressed at the appropriate time; it is not feasible for a developer to design the system before they know whether the development type will be allowed. Mr. Korve said he understood everyone’s passion for protecting the creek. Everyone assumes the applicant has nefarious intent which is not the case. They worked with staff to develop something they thought would be acceptable. To the inference that the Planning Board lacked information and that now that secret was out, he pointed out the Planning Board had exactly the same information that was presented to the City Council. Other than one board member, they were happy with the presentation and addressing the idea of missing middle including one board members who wanted to know when she could move into the project. There was opposition at the Planning Board, but they addressed the opposition. One adjoining neighbor to the north whose backyard abuts the property changed his mind and now supports the project. The proposal is not intended to degrade the environment but to live within it. The proposal is to build six townhomes next to shopping which the Comprehensive Plan supports so that residents can walk to services instead of driving. Mr. Korve explained this a small project with a new sidewalk removed from 76th with trees on both sides creating a boulevard in front of the project. This will be an improvement in the neighborhood, it will be hidden by trees and 8 feet above the street level. He anticipated when it was complete, it would not be visible from the street. He urged the Council to look at their concept sketch. He was unclear about the reference to a 14-page document, explaining the stormwater manual does not allow them get out of anything. The project will go through an arduous process of stormwater design to meet the currently adopted standards that are applicable across the state. This project will meet Ecology standards or it will not be approved. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. Shipley’s comment that this meets the City’s goals and asked how it met the City’s goals related to low income and low, low income housing. Mr. Shipley answered this will be market rate housing. It provides other housing options and a more diverse range of housing options, but it is not a subsidized project. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how it was a more diverse range of housing. Mr. Shipley said adding townhomes instead of single family homes diversifies the range of housing. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how that how diversified the range of housing. Mr. Shipley said if someone did not want to take care of a yard, a townhome was a great option. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the difference in cost between single family and townhomes. Mr. Shipley said the proposal is not to build more units than is currently allowed. Townhomes can share walls and do not require construction of full streets so there are cost savings in development. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it does not respond to the low income or low, low income housing that is needed in Edmonds. The report refers to missing middle housing, but that is not where the City is struggling, the struggle is with low income and low, low income housing. Mr. Shipley said there are no programs to promote affordable housing in Perrinville. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there could be. Mr. Shipley answered maybe, but the City has not done that. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 28 Councilmember Distelhorst observed based on the current zoning, this not open space or public space, this is a privately owned property and could be developed in two different manners if an applicant applied tomorrow. Mr. Shipley agreed and said that was likely the route the property owner would take, developing it with single family homes, if this was not approved. The approach the applicant has proposed is more environmentally sensitive; everyone is talking about the environment, but are talking across each other. Councilmember Paine recalled Mr. Shipley was unable to complete his sentence about lot coverage and impervious surface percentages during his presentation. Mr. Shipley said he wanted to clarify the difference between those; lot coverage for single family development is 35% and 45% for multifamily development. The site is currently zoned BN which has no lot coverage maximum. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she brought this up two weeks ago, why hasn’t the City done a Perrinville master plan when master plans have been done in other areas and in her opinion, Perrinville was just as important as Five Corners, Westgate, Firdale, and Highway 99. Ms. Hope said budgets are set for subarea plans; there is actually only one full subarea plan and that is for Highway 99. Some work was done for Five Corners but it was never completed. There was a code change for Firdale, but there is no subarea plan. There are no subarea plans for most of the City. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS EXTEND TO 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ms. Hope was not with the City when the Firdale Plan was done; there was also a form based plan for Westgate and the plan for Five Corners was not completed. She may be using the wrong terminology or Ms. Hope may misunderstand what she was saying about master planning the area because it is an important business area. Ms. Hope said there was no plan, only zoning code changes. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the City did do a master plan for Firdale and development at Firdale was approved but the property owners backed out. She recalled building heights on the back side of Firdale were up to 6-7 stories. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that no planning had been done for the Perrinville area. Some say this proposed change is a benefit to the City but she only sees benefit to the City of housing for low income or low, low income people and $1400/month for a studio was not low income or even market rate at this point. She was not saying this area in Perrinville had to be identified for low income housing, but it was another missed opportunity to create low or low, low income housing. Changing the laws in Perrinville to allow this development caused her angst considering nothing was being done to provide the level of housing that was needed. The missing middle is not the problem in Edmonds; it is low income and low, low income. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the Council was discussing this specific change because that is the application, not because the City was initiating it to provide a certain type of housing. Mr. Shipley agreed the property owner initiated this Comprehensive Plan change, not the City. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled hearing the term press pause during the public hearing and asked what that would mean. Mr. Shipley said the proposal needs to be evaluated based on the current codes. If we see something we don’t think fits with what we would like to see there, we can’t press paus e and change the code, that could open the City to lawsuits. Councilmember L. Johnson assumed pressing pause meant waiting for a more comprehensive plan for the Perrinville area. She asked his opinion on what would happen if that was done in this case. Mr. Shipley said the site would probably move forward with a subdivision for seven single family homes which is currently allowed. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 29 Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had it with piecemealing and thanked everyone who had contacted her. She was interested in an emergency ordinance that would put a moratorium on any development in heavily forested areas such as pocket forests and critical areas until the tree code was in place. The tree code and the housing code are due in a couple months. In the last four years, she was aware of seven pocket forests that have been razed for construction of houses. The Council needs to take control and speak on behalf of the environment. The Council waited three years for the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and are now waiting for the tree code. She was interested in doing something to press pause, noting emergency ordinances and moratoriums have been done in the past and it is time to do it now. She has had this conversation with Ms. Hope and Mr. Taraday and Mayor Nelson was copied. Councilmember K. Johnson said on the face of it, this looks like an interesting proposal. However, considering all the other plans that are nearing completion such as the housing plan and the tree code and the environmental concerns, it seems appropriate to remand this back to the Planning Board to consider all the public comments and to make a determination after the tree code and housing plan are presented. Ms. Hope said that may be a question for the City Attorney; state law directs the City to look at existing regulations and if something is incorrect, it is docketed for future correction. Projects are entitled to be considered under the existing requirements. Mr. Taraday explained according to the code, the Council choices on an application such as this are to consider the recommendation and subsequently approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the proposed amendment based on the findings required by the chapter. The code does not provide an option for remand. If the Council determines the application meets the findings required under Chapter 20.00.050, the application should be approved. If the Council determines it does not meet those findings, the Council should not approve it. If the absence of a master plan is the Council’s primary concern, a n applicant is always free to reapply in subsequent years if a master plan is ever presented. He pointed out under that criteria, no one in this area would be able to successfully apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is a legislative decision, not quasi-judicial, even though the code directs that certain findings need to be made. The Council cannot be forced to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment that they think doesn’t meet the test of what’s appropriate. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested not making a decision tonight due to late hour. Public testimony has been provided and she wanted an opportunity to carefully consider what everyone contributed including the applicant’s information and what she learned tonight from Mr. Shipley. Councilmember Paine commented the Council has received a lot of public comments on this topic. It is time to make a decision and she did not support postponing a decision. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO DENY IT. Councilmember Buckshnis did not believe the proposed amendment satisfied review criteria #4, Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? Consideration hasn’t been given to the fact that it is a business area with Lynnwood on one side and Edmonds on the other side, there isn’t a good master plan for the area, she has received a large number of comments, and she was interested in doing a moratorium until codes were in place. She felt the proposed amendment was detrimental to the public interest, health and safety. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order whether the Council should vote tonight when a Councilmember asked for time to review the information. She asked whether the Council should vote on whether to give that Councilmember the time they requested to digest what they heard. Mayor Nelson answered there is a motion on the floor; the Council will first take action on that and if they disagree with the motion, they can vote accordingly. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 30 Councilmember Buckshnis offered to withdraw the motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas said until there is process developed for the Perrinville area, she was unwilling to give up something just because someone wanted it. She suggested the same process that was used for Highway 99, Westgate and Firdale, commenting the only area where that process did not occur was Perrinville. She was particularly interested in looking at the area as a whole and developing a plan for development because it involved streams, fish, trees and many other issues. Councilmember Olson thanked the citizens for their thoughtful comments, commenting she has learned a lot. She supported a master plan for Perrinville, but there was no plan for that and it was not included in the proposed 2021 budget and it was likely not something the Council could make a budget priority. What was a budget priority was restoring the health of that watershed. She supports that commitment, including it in the budget and considered it a top priority and will do everything in her power to ensure that funding remans in the 2021 budget. She researched this agenda item exhaustively and she was satisfied that the environmental impact from the project was equal to or less than the development opportunity that is already available to the property owner and that it is otherwise a greater community benefit than the commercial development that likely will not happen or the single family development that probably will happen. If the Council was not willing move forward on any development proposal, it is unethical for the City to be taking applications with no intention of approving them due to concerns with the environment. If that is true, the Council should absolutely do an emergency moratorium to take the opportunity for applications to vest off the table. Councilmember Paine appreciated the thoughtful discussion from everyone over the last two weeks. The competing needs of the environment and the need for entry level housing stock are troublesome. She did not see approving with modifications as an option as there were no modifications supported by the code to suggest or impose. If that was an option, she would like to hear about it. This area has large lots, and the last thing she wanted to see was 2, 3 or 7 single family residences on this property which was currently allowed without any Comprehensive Plan change. She asked if there were any modifications that the Council could offer, if not, the Council was stuck with approval or disapproval. Ms. Hope said she did not see any potential modification, the question was whether to change the Comprehensive Plan designation or not. Mr. Shipley agreed; it is a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, he was uncertain what modification could be made at this stage. In the next stage, a rezone, modifications could potentially be made such as a contract rezone. Councilmember Paine asked if the next stage would come to Council. Mr. Shipley said it would. Ms. Hope said the zoning designation would come to the Council and the Council would have a couple of choices including a contract rezone but that was a special process and not something that was typically done. Once it gets to the project stage, conditions would apply related to critical area protections, stormwater, etc. Sometimes it difficult to sort out whether the concern is related to what is truly best for the environment such as can it remain open space forever. That is not likely so the question is whether one designation is environmentally better than another, whether one designation provides for other needs in the community and another does not. She agreed it was a legislative decision and a balancing act. Councilmember Paine asked if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan change, could the property owner proceed with seven single family homes without coming to the Council. Mr. Shipley explained if the applicant did not pursue a rezone, the zoning remains as is and the property could be developed with single family homes. Approving the Comprehensive Plan map change keeps the options open and allows further exploration of the environmental concerns. The rezone as well as a formal plat would come back to City Council before anything was developed. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 31 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it is 11:22 p.m. and the Council has been meeting until 6:00 p.m. and it very late to be making such a drastic decision. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE REST OF THE AGENDA ITEMS TO THE WEEK AFTER NEXT DUE TO THE LATE HOUR AND NEXT WEEK IS COMMITTEE MEETINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO SET THESE TWO ITEMS TO NEXT WEEK AND HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Councilmember Olson suggested taking the public hearing comments and only delay the vote since members of the public have been present for hours. Keeping people up until 11:30 p.m. without resolution was inconsiderate. Mayor Nelson advised the Council had already voted to table the issue. Councilmember Olson clarified she was referring to the agenda item regarding properties on 9th Avenue. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the two items that would be moved to next week were 10.4 and 10. 5 and Item 10.3 was tabled indefinitely. As Council President Fraley-Monillas was experiencing technical difficulties, Mr. Taraday said that was his understanding of Council President Fraley-Monillas’ motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her intent. At Councilmember K. Johnson’s request, Mayor Nelson restated the motion: TO MOVE ITEMS 10.4, CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1" AND 10.5, SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 184TH STREET SW STREET VACATION, TO A SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES BECAUSE THERE ARE APPOINTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ANNOUNCED. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out there was a motion on the floor to extend the meeting. Mr. Taraday advised a motion to adjourn takes precedence over the motion on the floor and is not debatable. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES. MOTION TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 32 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1" FOR TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 530 AND 522 - 9TH AVE. N. (Previously Item 10.4.) This item was rescheduled to a special meeting on October 13, 2020 via action taken under Agenda Item 10.2 4. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 184TH STREET SW STREET VACATION (Previously Item 10.5) This item was rescheduled to a special meeting on October 13, 2020 via action taken under Agenda Item 10.2 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed the curbside dining program for downtown restaurants has been very successful. Staff is working on long term provisions for the code that will be presented to the Council for consideration and public comment. The existing special permit expires October 11th; therefore he is extending the curbside dining program to November 8th to ensure there isn’t a gap between the curbside dining allowed by the special permit and the ordinance that will be presented to Council in approximately 30 days. Mayor Nelson announced the following appointments:  Economic Development Commission o Charlene Lieu, Position 1, term expiring 3/31/22 o Carrie Hulbert, Position 2, term expiring 3/31/21  Youth Commission o Brooke Rinehimer o Alternates: Zane Marulitua and Aaron Nateephaisan 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis announced she appointed Grace Kamila to the Youth Commission. She advised the budget is available online. Anyone interested in obtaining a hardcopy can contact Finance Director Dave Turley. Councilmember L. Johnson announced she appointed Finn Paynich to the Youth Commission. Council President Fraley-Monillas announced she appointed Brooke Roberts to the Youth Commission. Councilmember Distelhorst announced he appointed Hunter DeLeon to the Youth Commission. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 33 8.2.d Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 34 Public Comment for 10/6/20 Council Meeting: From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:39 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Agenda, Action Item 10.4 Council, Please deny Item 10.4. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1” In a LTE in myedmondsnews: https://myedmondsnews.com/2020/10/letter-to-the-editor-no-special-favors-for- homeowners-when-changing-the-comprehensive-plan-map/#comment-265465 The following is stated: “On August 26, 2020, the Planning Board voted overwhelmingly (6 to 1) to DENY a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two lots on 9th Avenue between Glen and Daley, after having also voted (7 to 0) to deny the same proposal for the whole block.” Please honor both the Planning Board’s recommendation and the concerns expressed by the letter writers. Given the condition of our city code, this is not the time to approve Comprehensive Plan changes, to private property owners, to allow future development. There is not a clear public interest to warrant doing so. Regards, Joan Bloom From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:19 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) 8.2.d Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 35 <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Item 10.3. Perrinville Comprehensive Plan change request Council, Please deny Action Item 10. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing on Planning Board's recommendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Multi-Family Residential - Medium Density.” I agree completely with Joe Scordino’s letter which states: “the Council should deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because 1) it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Environmental Quality goals; 2) it has not been shown to be in the Public Interest due to potential impacts on the watershed and a critical area; and 3) it can be detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare due to damage to wildlife habitat and confounding contributions to an already deteriorating watershed with potential flooding of residences in its lower reaches.” Each Council member would best serve the citizens of Edmonds, in evaluating this and all future requests from the planning department, by keeping in mind the following: The Big Picture- poor code, no Urban Forestry Plan  As Ken Reidy has repeatedly brought to council’s attention, our municipal code has been seriously in need of re-write, since 2000. Pause with that for a moment. Twenty years have passed since serious problems with our code were identified. Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on consultants, and staff hours allocated for a code re -write, and yet it has not been accomplished.  The city has yet to complete an Urban Forestry Plan. We have no code that specifically protects our trees. The Smaller/Personal Picture- the affect upon tax paying citizens  Each approved development has an effect on the environment AND on nearby property owners. Joe Scordino states: “The stream’s wildlife and the streamside property owners should not have to tolerate continued and additional deterioration of the creek caused by urban development.” 8.2.d Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 36 It would be irresponsible for Council to go along with the planning departm ent’s aggressive support for development given our poor code, the lack of an Urban Forestry Plan, and the damage the proposed developments would do to our environment and to surrounding property owners. Regards, Joan Bloom From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:58 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Comments on Agenda Item 10.3 on proposed Comprehensive Plan Change in Perrinville Watershed Sorry, missed including the attachment. Here is a map from the Edmonds City GIS site showing the proximity of the parcels to Perrinville Creek. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 37 On Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 10:40:39 AM PDT, joe scordino wrote: This is a follow-up to my prior public comments on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area. I am pleased to see that City staff have now provided additional information to the Council that acknowledges the long-standing excess stormwater problem in the Perrinville Creek watershed. It was a gross disservice to the Council for staff to ignore and not mention this huge environmental issue in their previous presentation to the Council. Unfortunately, this new information does not also affirm that the parcels are in Critical Area which ECDC Chapter 23.40 defines as “ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values.” The SEPA checklist is still grossly inadequate and misleading relative to environmental impacts, presence of salmon, and doesn’t even affirm that the parcels are in Critical Area (it incorrectly says the parcel is NOT within 200 feet of a stream - contrary to what the Edmonds GIS Map 8.2.d Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 38 shows - see attached); but, I recognize the SEPA appeal period has passed and defer to the Council’s attorney on how the Council’s decision making is affected by a deficient SEPA Checklist. I did not send any E-Mails to Brad Shipley or to Zachary Richardson, City Stormwater Engineer, on this topic, so I don’t know what E-Mails are being attributing to me in the document in the Council’s packet (Packet page 345) - it obviously is not the public comments (Packet page 63) that I sent the Council as part of the public hearing on September 22nd. But, nonetheless, I am pleased that it acknowledges the severity of the excess stormwater issue in the Perrinville watershed and provided some details of what the stormwater ordinances say. Unfortunately, what is not emphasized is all the “loopholes” in the ordinances and BMPs that allow developers to circumvent intended environmental protections. However, the Council meeting packet starting on Packet page 349 does provide 14 pages of “infeasibility criteria that can be used to justify not using various on-site stormwater management BMPs...” This is like telling a student they must turn in homework to pass a class, and then to give them a wide-array of “authorized” excuses they can use for not turning in their homework. Unfortunately, Mr. Richardson’s comparison of stormwater requirements for differing zoning did not take into account these “authorized excuses” nor incentives and varying development practicalities that would affect how much additional stormwater flows into an already “overcapacity” stormwater drain system. The bottom line is Council decisions on any Comprehensive Plan Amendments affecting the Perrinville Creek watershed have to be made with an eye towards whether it might, in any way, add-to the long-standing excess stormwater problem. The stream’s wildlife and the streamside property owners should not have to tolerate continued and additional deterioration of the creek caused by urban development. Page 31 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth Environmental Quality Goals that must come into play as the Council considers if a proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Quality Goal A.1 states: Ensure that the city’s natural vegetation, especially native vegetation, associat ed with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced for future generations. Environmental Quality Goal C states: Develop, monitor, and enforce critical area regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science. It is very troublesome that in the Agenda Item narrative for the continued public hearing, staff 8.2.d Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 39 added Housing goals from the Comprehensive Plan, but neglected to ev en mention the above Environmental Quality goals. The minutes of the September 22, 2020 Council meeting are clear that the continuation of the public hearing was due to Council’s desire to obtain environmental information so Council could make an informed decision on whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Pubic Interest - yet, the Plan’s Environmental Goals aren’t even referenced. The minutes from the Planning Boards meetings indicate they too were not appraised of the environmental issues in reaching their recommendation to approve the proposed amendment. It is noteworthy that one of the Planning Board members voted against recommending the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because “there is no guarantee that is the project that will ultimately get built. The Board should not base its recommendation on the site plan that was presented.” This point also applies to whatever the applicant is stating currently about the development and how stormwater is treated - there is no irrevocable assurance that the actual development will include protective measures for the Perrinville watershed. The Planning Board minutes are also telling about the applicants personal interest, rather than public interest, for the proposed amendment - “If the property were developed for a commercial use, a lot of grading and a large retaining wall would be needed. This would be quite costly.” Mr. Shipley is also quoted in the Planning Board minutes as stating “the applicant has indicated a desire for RM-2.4. However, it is not likely that the site will accommodate that amount of density.” What is most disturbing about the staff’s presentation to the Planning Board is the lack of acknowledgment that the parcels are in a sensitive watershed AND in Critical Area and that has special requirements for development (see Comprehensive Plan Goal C referenced above). A stated in my previous comments, high stormwater flows from multiple sources are causing serious erosion of the stream banks and destabilizing the valley walls in Southwest County Park and private properties downstream of the Post Office. Sediment buildup from streambank erosion and high flow scouring have destroyed fish habitat (coho salmon, chum salmon, and resident cutthroat trout) and have raised the stream level at the lower portion of the Creek such that private properties are threatened with flooding during every rain event. Any urban development that may adversely affect the health of the Perrinville Creek ecosystem needs t o be avoided. So .... based on the information presented, the Council should deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because 1) it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Environmental Quality goals; 2) it has not been shown to be in the Public Interest due to potential impacts on the watershed and a critical area; and 3) it can be detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare due to damage to wildlife habitat and confounding contributions to an already deteriorating watershed with potential flooding of residences in its lower reaches. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 40 Separately, I hope the Council will begin a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a separate section for the environmentally sensitive Perrinville Creek Watershed caused by urban development. From: dgarberson Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:19 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana <kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov> Subject: AMD2019-0007 We represent three properties on Glen Street and we are adamantl y opposed to both proposals in AMD2019-0007 (changing 21 parcels from ‘Single Family-Resource’ to ‘Single Family-Urban 1’ and changing 522 and 530 9th Avenue N from ‘Single-Family Resource’ to ‘Single Family-Urban 1’). Changing 530 9th Avenue N to ‘Single Family-Urban 1’ will ultimately add more traffic to Glen Street, which is a very narrow street that cannot be widened. We believe that ingress and egress for the proposed flag lot at 530 will end up being off Glen Street as egress on 9 th Avenue N would be too dangerous given that you cannot see cars travelling northbound down the hill (often well over the speed limit). We are also extremely concerned about how this issue has been presented to us by the City. Why did the City staff propose changing 21 parcels from Single Family-Resource to Single Family-Urban 1 when it was clear to them that it was never a viable option given the conditions on Glen Street? We were led to believe that the issue up for discussion was changing the designation for 21 parcels when, in fact, the issue was changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for just the two parcels (522 and 530). We do not understand why the notification letter we received from the City did not make it clear that there were two options up for a vote and that City staff recommended denying the first and approving the second. Even one of the Planning Board members pointed out during the 8/26/2020 meeting that the public was not clear about the proposals on which the Planning Board was voting. We do not believe that full and clear public disclosure is an unreasonable request. The Planning Board voted to deny both proposals. We ask that you review and consider their recommendations regarding this issue. Changing the designation for the two parcels sets a precedent for Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes based on individual exception rather than changes based on an established set of criteria in the best interest of the City as a whole. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 41 Richard Garberson (property owner/resident) Doris Garberson (property owner/resident) 934 Glen Street Silvia Heldridge (property owner/resident) 923 Glen Street 930 Glen Street From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:39 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Confusion - Public Comments for either Mayor Mike Nelson's Proposed 2021 Budget Address on October 5th or the City Council Meeting on October 6th I am confused as to the surprise change to City Council's Plan (since July 2, 2020 per extended agenda) for the Mayor’s Message and Presentation of Preliminary Budget to Council to be done during the October 6th Council Meeting. Is City Council as a whole being provided any information during the October 5th message and presentation? Is City Council attending the October 5th message and presentation? If so, the October 5th action may constitute a City Council meeting. Please consider the following Public Comments my 450-word written public comments for either October 5th (if this is a City Council meeting) or October 6th. If the public is allowed to make public comments on both October 5th and October 6th, please let me know promptly so I can prepare public comments for the October 6th City Council meeting. Thank you. My public comments follow City of Edmonds government knows it has operated with a flawed Code for many years. This includes the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). During the October 25, 2005 City Council meeting, former Development Services Director Duane Bowman said he had been describing the need to update the zoning code since 2000. The comment was also made that the City’s Code dated to the 1980s and piecemeal amendments made it difficult to use and administer. In September of 2007, the former Hearing Examiner issued a written report which stated that: Several code provisions fail to provide adequate guidance because of the use of the phrase "and so forth," which creates ambiguities within various criteria for approval. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 42 Thirteen (13) years later, the use of the phrase "and so forth," is still found in the City's Code. See ECDC 20.75.085. Former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated in his November 2007 City Attorney annual report that the biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the Code Rewrite. Mr. Snyder stated the intent was to begin the Rewrite last year and finish it this year (2007). Mr. Snyder summarized that the Code Rewrite was approximately a year behind schedule as of November 2007. It is now late 2020 and the Code Rewrite is MANY years behind schedule. The 2009-2010 Budget included the following: Major 2009-2010 Budget Issues Completion of the City’s Shoreline Master Plan update and the Edmonds Community Development Code rewrite will occur in 2009-2010. Completion of the Code Rewrite did NOT occur. In late 2012, during the PUBLIC HEARING ON the 2013 BUDGET, I made public comment that five years had passed since Mr. Snyder stated the intent and I questioned why the Code Rewrite had still not been completed. I urged the Council to include the proper amount in the 2013 budget to complete the long overdue Code Rewrite from start to finish. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been budgeted yet here we sit with a Code that is still flawed and has been for at least 20 years. There was an open house in March of 2015 trumpeting the City’s just-launched Code Rewrite process – a process advertised as a major update of the City’s development code. I attended that Open House in the hope that finally the Code Rewrite would be finished. The City has a page on its website - but I do not see any updates to this Code Rewrite website page for over 4 and a half years! The last update on that website page was in March of 2016. Please budget for the completion of the Code Rewrite - including the ECC which is also flawed. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 43 From: cdfarmen Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:37 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: October 6th hearing on 184th St SW street vacation Dear City Council Members, I am requesting the hearing on October 6 regarding the street vacati on to be postponed for the following reasons. The initial notice of public hearing sent to residents of the Seaview area said the hearing would be about eliminating the right-of-way of 184th St SW from the official street map, not a partial vacation of the right-of-way. Since the original "notice of public hearing" was sent out, the council's agenda has been changed to deal only with vacating a segment of the easterly portion of 184th St SW. The area residents have not been notified of this change, nor have they been informed of the landowner's reason for their request. How can anyone any interested citizen make an informed decision without current and reliable information? Also, I think the council should be concerned that someone may join in via zoom and start talking about removing 184th St SW from the city official street map because they have not been privy to the change in the council's agenda. That would create an unnecessary and embarrassing situation for the caller. The reasons I have just cited warrant postponing the hearing scheduled for October 6 and a new notice of public hearing be sent out. Any new notice should include the reasons for the street vacation requested by the landowner. In all fairness, the concerned residents deserve sufficient and reliable information on which to make an informed decision so they can participate in any legislative decision regarding the landowner's vacation request. Respectfully submitted, Charles Farmen Seaview resident 8.2.d Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 44 Public Comment for Tree Board Meeting October 1, 2020 Comments provided by Darrol Haug I spoke to the Tree Board at your March 2020 meeting. The topic was to amplify your policy of the Right Tree in the Right Place. I was talking about examples of the Wrong Tree in the Wrong Place. Sometimes wrong trees are ok but, in some instances, a wrong tree is dangerous to our citizens. On your agenda tonight is the tree on Chase Bank Property at Walnut and 5 th Ave S. You have been sent some of the background information about this tree. The City contacted the Bank at least as early as September 2019, pointing out the need to remove the tree as it was a violation of city code. As I commented at your March meeting, I first became aware of the violation when I ask code enforcement for a determination in January 2020. That is not in you packet, but I can assure you that it was determined to be a violation in January and likely back in 2019. I will not review the other information that you have been provided but do have some suggestions for your discussion. 1. City Code is very clear about this type of violation. Just ask staff. 2. City reached out to Chase over a year ago point out the violation and I did the same in January. 3. Chase submitted information, the City had requested added information, Chase asked for a 90-day extension, the extension expired, and when the City did not follow up on the issue until I asked for and update on the issue. 4. You now see a September 22, letter to Chase re-initiating the process. This means that more than a year has passed since the first letter to Chase. It was only in this last letter that a fine of $100 a day was outlined. I urge you to ask staff some questions about enforcement. 1. Why has it taken more than a year when there was no question about the violation? 2. The code seems to read that the property owner is responsible for the expense of the sidewalk repair, why is the city paying for that repair? 3. Chase has been asked to purchase a sidewalk tree grate. The sidewalk is not very wide in that area and already has various poles for lights and signs. Is their going to be a replacement tree, and where will it go? 4. Will the sidewalk be widened in this area? 8.2.d Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 45 5. The tree has damaged a patch of sidewalk directly north as well. Will that sidewalk be repaired and at whose expense? The bottom line is this tree has been labeled dangerous for a long time and the City has not been as aggressive as it could have been to remove this hazard. I would urge the Tree Board to take a stand on “Wrong Trees” when such a tree is dan gerous to our citizens. Thank you for your time and efforts for Edmonds. Respectfully submitted, Darrol Haug From: Finis Tupper Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:25 PM To: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: September 22, 2020 Special City Council Meeting 6pm Dear offending Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas: Yesterday’s Special Council Meeting at 6pm was conducted in violation of State and City laws. First off, there was no Roll Call of the Councilmembers attending this Special Meeting. After the executive session, the City Council failed to reconvene the Special Meeting which is required by State law. You failed to announce whether any action would take place and failed to announce if any information would be released which is in violation of City law. As the Presiding Chair of the Special Meeting you also failed to publicly adjourn this Special Edmonds City Council Meeting. Are you not aware of the rules governing Special Meetings or is it that you are assuming the City Attorney is making sure the City and State laws are being followed? The City Councilmembers have violated the OPMA on the following dates; May 15, 2020, May 26, 2020, September 8, 2020 and September 22, 2020. The OPMA requires a civil penalty of $500 each for the first violation and $1000.00 each for each subsequent violation of the Act for a total of $3500.00 per councilmember. Yours truly, Finis Tupper 8.2.d Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 46 From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:26 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment for Public Hearing - Agenda Item 8.2 Perrinville Comp. Plan Amendment Council members; My name is Joe Scordino. I have lived in Edmonds for over 40 years and am a retired fishery biologist. I would like to provide the below public input to Agenda item 8.2 Public Hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area. The Perrinville Creek watershed, in which these parcels occur, has serious problems with excessive stormwater gushing into Perrinville Creek. Any development being considered, or changes to zoning for such development, has to be viewed with an eye towards whether it might exacerbate the long-standing excess stormwater problem. Studies contracted by the City have documented that urban development has resulted in higher flows in the creek during rain events that are causing environmental degradation of the stream system (see for example the 1998 Pontiac study on “Perrinville Creek Streambank Stabilization”). High flows from stormwater are causing serious erosion of the stream banks and destabilizing the valley walls in Southwest County Park and private properties downstream of the Post Office. Sediment buildup from streambank erosion has destroyed fish habitat and raised the stream level at the lower portion of the Creek such that private properties are threatened with flooding during every rain event. Recent monthly observations I've made over the past 3 years with Students Saving Salmon confirm these problems exist and are getting worse. Unfortunately, this well-known watershed problem is not addressed in the background information presented to the Council, or the Planning Board. It is essential that environmental issues be fully disclosed and considered in all decisions the Council makes. So..., for this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the review criteria should be viewed as follows: 8.2.d Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 47 Is the proposal in the public interest or is it detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare? It is NOT in the public interest to exacerbate 1) deterioration of Perrinville Creek; 2) destruction of fish habitat that otherwise is supporting cutthroat trout and juvenile coho salmon; 3) destruction of private property along stream channel; 4) potential flooding of private property in lower areas of Creek with each storm event; or 5) loss of tree canopy in Edmonds. There is NO information provided by staff or the applicant that would indicate the Perrinville watershed problems would be improved, worsened, or stay the same with a zoning change. Unless it can be proven that the zoning change will not make things worse, the proposed action must be DISAPPROVED. It is NOT appropriate for staff to say that a zoning change would make no difference to the environment unless they have presented analyses necessary to demonstrate such a finding. At a minimum, the following questions should have been addressed. Will a zoning change, which allows DENSE residential development at this site, make it worse for the environment than the current zoning? Does the current zoning provide better opportunities for low impact development, stormwater management & treatment, or retention of large trees, than a rezoning? Another aspect that is not addressed in the staff report is the fact that this parcel is in Critical Area. Has a Critical Area Report been prepared as required by City Ordinance? (The wetland observations included with staff material is NOT a Critical Area Report). In sum, I recommend the Council DISAPPROVE this proposal because critical information, necessary for an informed decision, on environmental affects has not been provided. Separately, I hope the Council will be considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that better address environmental issues, watershed health, and the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Environmentally sensitive areas such as the Perrinville watershed or even the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary watershed need to have individual Master Plans that are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Further, I hope the Council will direct City staff to begin implementing an actual solution to the Perrinville watershed problem of excessive stormwater during rain events. 8.2.d Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: City Council Minutes Excerpt_2020.10.06 (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 247Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 248Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 249Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 250Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 251Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 252Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 253Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 254Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 255Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 256Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 257Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 258Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 259Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 260Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 261Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 262Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 263Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 264Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 265Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 266Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 72NORTH 8.2.ePacket Pg. 267Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 268Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) TRANSITION FROM CREEK TOSTORM WATER PIPETRANSITION FROMCREEK TO CULVERTTRANSITION FROMCULVERT TO CREEK8.2.ePacket Pg. 269Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.e Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 297Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 298Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) 8.2.ePacket Pg. 299Attachment: Applicant Response Letter w/ Attachments (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Proposal) Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM City of Edmonds Engineering Division Date: September 29, 2020 To: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner From: Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Subject: Stormwater Impacts of Re-zoning Neighborhood Business to Multi Residential – Medium Density At your request I have reviewed two emails from Joe Scordino, which were forwarded to me on 9/23/2020 regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan map designation change from Neighborhood Business to Multi Residential – Medium Density. While I agree with the author that additional protections for Perrinville Creek are needed, I believe the author to have misunderstood the impacts of this Comprehensive Plan map designation change on stormwater runoff and disagree with their assessment of its impacts, both in the general sense and as it specifically applies to the project on 76th Ave W. It is first worth noting that all projects that involve over 2,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surfaces require drainage review and that current City code requires every such project to test for the suitability of infiltration. The code includes a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which must be reviewed in order, with the applicant unable to move to the next BMP on the list without first identifying a specific infeasibility criterion. So as long as there is sufficient space and favorable geotechnical conditions, a project will end up infiltrating. Typically, the only time there is not sufficient space for infiltration, is in zones that do not have a structure lot coverage maximum. Structure lot coverage maximums restrict the amount of space that a building is allowed to take up on a site, typically as a fixed percentage of the lot size. In zones without structure coverage limits, the building can take up the entire project footprint and preclude the use of infiltration due to settlement and safety concerns for the building. It is my understanding that, the current zoning, Neighborhood Business (NB), does not have a prescribed structure lot coverage maximum and therefore could result in such a project where infiltration is geotechnical feasible, but not able to fit into the site. It is my understanding that the revised zoning, Multi Residential – Medium Density, does include a structure lot coverage maximum of 45%. Infiltration BMP options allow for a great degree of flexibility and can be worked into parking areas as pervious pavements, underground vaults or galleries, or on the surface in landscaped areas with bio-retention. So, by ensuring that 55% of the lot is free of building structures, it is far more likely that infiltration BMPs would be feasible if the geotechnical conditions allow. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan map designation change is actually an improvement from a flow control/water quantity standpoint. 8.2.f Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Memo from Edmonds Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Page 2 of 2 The author also fails to note that business zones typically have much higher parking requirements, which generate larger quantities of pollution generating material. However, in residential development, most of the impervious surfaces are actually clean roofs1. Far less polluted parking areas are needed for residential development and, even when required, are often tucked under structures so the contamination does not enter the stormwater at all. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the proposed Comprehensive Plan map designation change is also a benefit from a water quality standpoint. Specific to the project on 76th, I have reviewed the plan and do not see any reason the plan layout would not support infiltration if feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. A geotechnical engineer will need to perform a study and confirm, not only that on-site soils can infiltrate adequately, but also that they can do so without negatively impacting the steep slope and critical area on-site. If the geotechnical conditions allow for infiltration, it would be required of the project as proposed. The drive isles and parking strips provide ample room for underground infiltration facilities or pervious pavement and bioretention may be feasible in each of the landscape tracts and/or easement area west of the structures. For the reasons above, I believe the proposed Comprehensive Plan map designation change to be beneficial from a stormwater perspective and with regards to impacts to Perrinville Creek. That said, I understand the concern that the author has raised regarding protection of Perrinville Creek and believe there is need to discuss this topic further when ECDC 18.30 is next updated. An update to this code is required before the end of June of 2022 per the City Municipal Stormwater Permit, so the City will be reviewing this code in the near future. At this time, elevating the level of flow control or adding basin-specific drainage requirements could be considered and implemented with Council’s approval. 1 Per SWMMWW and ECDC 18.30 roofs are consider non-pollution generating surfaces provided that certain provisions are met to prevent spills of mechanical equipment placed on the roof and leaching of roof materials. 8.2.f Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Memo from Edmonds Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson (Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Ordinance Imposing Moratorium on Certain Subdivision Applications Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The Tree Board has advocated for over three years to get a comprehensive tree code in place for the City of Edmonds. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council moved on 10/27 to place a moratorium ordinance on the agenda for possible action on 11/2. The Council will discuss and may vote on placing a six-month moratorium on subdivision applications where a certain number of significant trees are present. The ordinance contains a formula for staff to use in determining whether a particular property has enough significant trees on it to be subject to the moratorium. This emergency ordinance would be a short-term tool intended to ensure that new subdivisions are developed in accordance with the new forthcoming comprehensive tree code. A public hearing would be held on December 1, 2020. 8.3 Packet Pg. 302 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/2/2020 Ordinance adopting interim development regulations to make the moratorium ordinance more enforceable Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History In conjunction with the agenda item to vote on a moratorium ordinance, this ordinance would adopt interim development regulations that would make the moratorium ordinance more enforceable. The council moved at its last meeting to place this ordinance on the agenda for 11/2. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council will discuss and may vote on an ordinance to adopt interim development regulations that would make the moratorium ordinance more enforceable. A public hearing would be held on December 1, 2020. 8.4 Packet Pg. 303