2021-02-09 City Council - Full Agenda-27911.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
O� LDIVO
�o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
FEBRUARY 9, 2021, 7:00 PM
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, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART
PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE
ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE
AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND.
WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED
LIVE ON THE 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
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
PRESENTATION
1. Snohomish Health District Update (20 min)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
February 9, 2021
Page 1
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel" as a
Permitted Use in the CW Zone (20 min)
9. NEW BUSINESS
1. Overview of WCIA Annual Audit (15 min)
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1).
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
February 9, 2021
Page 2
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2021
Snohomish Health District Update
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
Pursuant to the interlocal agreement with the Snohomish Health District, the District is required to
provide a quarterly update report to the City Council.
Staff Recommendation
No action required. For information only.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
Edmonds_SHD Update
Packet Pg. 3
(i7*Q SNOHOMISH
HEALTH DISTRICT
WWW.SNOHD.ORG
Resiliency & Recovery for a
r
Healthy, Thriving Community.
CU
x
City of Edmonds Presentation .E
Katie Curtis, Prevention Services Director U,
District
0
.� cn
Snohomish Health
c
0
E
w
2020 in
REVIEW (NON=COVID)
5.1.a
Rebuilding the Agency
✓Online service delivery
✓IT infrastructure
✓Rucker Building improvements
✓Transparency and accountability
Snohomish Health District Packet Pg. 6
5.1.a
Public Health Activities Continue
OVA
d 500+
Inspections on
restaurants,
grocery stores,
espresso stands,
caterers and
mobile food
vehicles
000+
Complaints
addressed (food,
pools, septic and
solid waste)
4R C-'goe
;114WM�0001111
inn
Permits for pools
and spas that we
routinely inspect
E
O
200+ N
Public and
private schools
Q
with kitchen
o
permits and
n�
required safety
inspections
0
W
E
a
Snohomish Health District Packet Pg. 7
5.1.a
In Your Community
✓ Partnered with City on suicide prevention policy and events
•L
✓ 237 annual food establishment permits, 6 field consultation, 26 prE o
opening inspection and 14 change of ownership reviews
✓ 56 child care providers received consultations through Child CarE .o
Health Outreach program, and 114 continuing education course! 0,
completed by providers
CU
✓ 16 children served through Children with Special Health Care y
Needs program
0
;_
✓ 24 COVID case investigations in school and/or child care settings
E
a
Snohomish Health District Packet Pg. 8
5.1.a
JV I 0=1%
ONI
a�
r
Q.
�L
L
L
0
t
0
Co
m
Q
0
Cn
N
O
E
W
d
E
t
u
2
Q
Packet Pg. 9
Web Resources (www.snohd.org/covid)
CORONAVIRUS INFORMATION
The Snohomish Health District is track rig CCNI Q19 carefi_ ry anc viand ng with the community to reduce the impacts of this virus. VV2 can all help fi�ghtthis pandemic by staying informed
and prepared. This is an evdaing sihration, and these web pages are undated irsg4ently. To reach the Snohon4ih Health Disbicts OOVIa19 call o�er, call 42 439- 78.
Please cl ick the topi c butlon s below for rn ore i nform at on.
11 F
Case Ceunm and bale
P"wo and Brwhngs
Sthoolwchrld Care
•
COVI13-19 Firallh Into
LLi41G�GiL�(�5 � r
FAG2-! 4� f 3 b 114
J
FAQ
Language Remuters
Posters tar Download
COVIG vac[Yne
COO
Hwakthcars Prnrldwrs
Slate 13 uidance
V2
WA NotOy+APP
At-Rksk Popular ons
LongTerm Care FaclYUes
Packet Pg. 10
Snohomish Health District
5.1.a
COVID=19 Heat Map --Cumulative
STANWOOD
ARLINGTON
GRANITE FALLS
MARYSVILLE
LAKE STEVENS
EVERETT
SNOHOMISH
M U KI LTEO
Z MILL CREEK
EDMONDS-
'�" BOTHELL
WOODWAY BRIER
Through January 23, 2021
DARRINGTON
MONROE SULTAN GOLD BAR
INDEX
Snohomish Health District Packet Pg. 11
Rate by Zip Code (Jan. 10=23)
01/23/2021 ZIP
LJ LDUU-Lyyy
0 3000-3499
3500-3999
4000-4499
4500+
Through January 23, 2021
� Packet Pg. 12
Snohomish Health District MMI
5.1.a
COVID=19 Looking Ahead
• Healthcare System
— Continue work with hospitals, LTCFs, DSHS, and other resources to y
improve flow through the discharge system
CU
• Disease Prevention & Containment N
E
0
— Continue testing, case, contact and outbreak investigations
— Support schools in implementing statewide guidance
0
• Vaccine y,
— Work with Vaccine Taskforce to increase supply to meet capacity 0
— Develop reporting information on demographics, etc. W
— Collaborate with partners to increase access for underserved E
Continue to follow prioritization in vaccination phases
a
Packet Pg. 13
5.1.a
a�
r
Q.
�L
L
L
.O
t
0
Co
m
Q
0
Cn
N
O
E
W
d
E
t
u
2
Q
Packet Pg. 14
5.1.a
Implementing Our Strategic Plan
• Reduce the rate of communicable disease and other
notifiable conditions L
0
CU
• Prevent or reduce chronic diseases and injuries
• Provide high -quality environmental health services o
M
0
• Improve maternal, child, and family health outcomes
CU
• Provide legally required vital records y
• Address ongoing, critical public health issues E
W
• Support increased access to medical, oral, and mental
health care
a
• Build a more sustainable organization
Packet Pg. 15
Snohomish Health District
5.1.a
Projected Revenues
Licenses & Permits
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges for Goods & Services
Miscellaneous Revenues
Charges for
Goods &
Services
14.1 %
Licenses
& Permits
27.1 %
2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual
3,860,426
4,008,199
3,787,452
10,147,984
11,046,367
9,913,452
2,140,985
1,838,729
2,578,610
298,909
580,829
401,213
16,448,304
17,474,124
16,680,727
Miscellaneous
Revenues
0.7%
2021 Budgeted Revenue By Source
Federal Grants
15.8%
City Per Capita
1.g%
2020 Amended
Budget
State Grants
26.1 %
3,577,892
22,383,413
2,449,479
257,818
28,668,602
County
NCounty
Grant
0.3% Per
Capita
F1 4.6%
County TB &
Communicable
Disease Funding
9A%
2021 Propose
2
Budge
L
4,314,29
r
0
9,260,32
2,239,46
CO
=
114,55
N
15,928,38
0
0
to
_
O
E
W
r
Q
Snohomish Health District
Updated Six=Year Forecast
Budget Projection, 2022 - 2027
32-50D 0
36X00,000
27-50D 00
25X00,000
22-S00,000
213AXX,000
17-SODX 0
15)000,000
12,503,000
113XOD M
7-sm OCO
5XODA C0
2 5C0.000
0
r
L.
2020
2020
2417 Actual
2019 Actual
2019 Actualm
Approved
AeivW
2021 Budget
2022
20J3
2024
2025
20�5
2027
Projected
Projected
PIopected
Projected
Projecwd
Prarected
budget
gouges
Nw-Latrof 2,605,992
3,059.261
3,7115,529
3,585,352
6,717.921
3.997,140
4,163,5E0
4,376,952
A,5E8,705
4,925,974
5,288,034
5,575,7CW
Labor 13,505.860
14,031,553
13,272,035
13,067.643
20r642,980
12,031.247
12,153,179
12,415,137
12,582,S76
52,950 75
13,223,473
13,502,597
Revenue 1-6,446.303
17,47A,124
16,403,171
SF6754,0d5
28,558,6W
15,928.367
16.223.9114
15,365,570
15,702,817
17,051p28
17,411,729
11,365,45E
� Lobar � Nan -Labor --g—ReveAue
M
�L
to
C
t
R
N
t
N
E
0
t
0
C
Cn
d
Q
C
2
N
N
C
0
E
W
c
d
E
Z
trI
M
y+
a
Packet Pg. 17
Snohomish Health District
5.1.a
Looking Ahead
COVID Funding -continue engaging with federal
delegation and local partners to ensure
extended &expanded
Sustainable Funding -
stable, current trends
with an inadequate t
while 2021-2025 are fairly
would leave the District
Dtal fund balance to cover
reserves starting in 2026.
Increased Revenue -finalizing renovations to
lease out space in Rucker Building,
Sound Foundation for Public Health
and running.
as well as
getting up
•L
0
CU
E
0
M
0
CU
0
Cn
0
;_
W
a
Packet Pg. 18
Snohomish Health District
5.1.a
Sound Foundation for Public Health
• New Foundation board members
selected
• Anticipate filing paperwork Q 1
• Finalizing MOU between Foundation
0009 and Health District
Purpose: To provide support for priorities identified in community health
assessments, community health improvement plans, and/or emerging
public health issues in Snohomish County.
�L
f+
0
CU
E
O
M
O
CU
0
Cn
0
;_
W
E
a
Packet Pg. 19
Snohomish Health District
I
EJ
0
f
Latest b 1 c
(click to read)
. i odty Nap]m
HAPPY FNFOLIDOYS
Yew can Wp IT� tha spread efll.
Tm
olidays can be hard
- - -
Ii There is help.
OL There is hope.
kYou Matter
_ •. Gash of �ites[iital
Illne—.v
.a wwwsn�n��r��GHa2018 _�
Sign up for our blog,
newsletters, alerts and more
at www.snohd.or Notif Me
g/ Y
Follow us on Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube, and
Instagram
5.1.a
Thank you
contact information
For more info, please contact:
Shawn Frederick, MBA
Administrative Officer
425.339.8687
SFrederick@snohd.org
Katie Curtis
Prevention Services Director
425.339.8711
KCurtis@snohd.org
Packet Pg. 21
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2021
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:
02-02-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 22
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
February 2, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Enviromnental Programs Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
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 Olson 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 PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 23
7.1.a
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
George Bennett, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Nelson and My Edmonds News for an in-depth and candid
interview with the Mayor, commenting that understanding the approach and the context of city leaders is
very important. With regard to the equity and justice task force report, reading the experiences in the
report were heartbreaking. He cited positives in the report: 1) 752 of the 5,992 police shootings in the
U.S. had body cameras, a program the City of Edmonds plans to implement. 2) Additional training is
always good; defunding the police as stated in the equity handbook is somewhat loaded and is a
misnomer; shifting or increasing funding including special task forces, domestic violence task forces,
community involvement resources or other needs is a good idea. 3) Community outreach, educational
sessions in schools, devoted time for community concerns in an open forum would hopefully create more
dialogue and interactive feedback; however, the police cannot force the public to attend. He cited things
he found disheartening about the report and the approach: 1) not sure the task force was ever presented
with any statistics, training, commendations or history of the effectiveness and equity within the Edmonds
Police Department. 2) Lived experiences and perceived biases are inherent in each of us; lived experience
should never be discounted. However, this report, guided by a professional versed and trained equity
consultant weighted perception more than data. Taken to together, data and perception lead to actual and
measurable solutions. 3) The report did not mention the systemic failures within the policing policies
leading to racism and inequity in our local police force. This report was based on assumptions and steered
by a consultant with a somewhat negative and false narrative. He thanked the task force for bravely
sharing their experiences with the community to bridge the racial divide, but he faulted the process and
the basis. Since commenting in the local press, he has been labeled a misogynist, a racist, a fat rich white
person and ironically a potential Council candidate. Those labels do not change his ask of the Mayor,
Police and Council to put a plan together and agree to pay for, measure and move forward with. Perhaps a
shift of funds from equity consultants to training consultants may have been a better move. He thanked
the task force for their report and real thoughts about the City.
Maxine Mitchell, Edmonds, commented on the tree -related regulations. She and her husband have lived
in Edmonds for the past 10 years; one of the main things that attracted them to Edmonds was the beautiful
views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountain range. She concurred with Anna Forslund West's
comments to the City Council dated 11/20/20 which were posted in the public comment section on the
City's website that suggested protection of water views be inserted into the intents and purposes section
of the proposed tree code. Trees have the potential to block water views and can adversely affect property
values. Having this very salient point omitted shows a complete disregard for homeowners' vested
interests. Real estate agents know how valuable property with a view of Puget Sound and the Olympic
Mountains, adding substantial value to the price tag. The City has maximum height guidelines for
buildings and fences, but no one seems to care when planting trees how tall the tree will eventually grow.
The 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan addresses this issue via an entire section on trees and views,
stating when views become obstructed, enjoyment of one's property as well as property values may be
impacted. The UFMP goes on to state, when considering planting trees in the bowl and other view areas,
lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. In other words, when a
developer plans a site, he/she should take into consideration the height of the new trees chosen for the site
and how their eventual height could adversely affect neighbors' views. That should be included in the tree
code, not just penalties for cutting down trees. Just as there are building codes that establish a maximum
height on new construction, the tree code should address mature tree heights and how that affects property
owners' views. She implored the Council to add a clause in the intent and purposes section of the
proposed tree code that refers to protecting water views for homeowners and selecting lower growing
trees when land is being developed. Choosing the right tree for the right place is a mantra of the UFMP
and should be incorporated into the tree code.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 24
7.1.a
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out there was a public hearing later on the agenda. Mayor Nelson
requested the public hold their comments regarding the tree code until that agenda item. This agenda item
is for public comments regarding any topic other than the tree code.
Nicole Hughes, Edmonds, chair of the Citizens Economic Development Commission, spoke in support
of the agenda item to consider a zone amendment to add hotels to the list of permitted primary uses in the
Commercial Waterfront zone. This issue was in front of the Council for consideration in February 2020.
At that time, the Council heard from the EDC in the form of a memo in support of the zone update. She
renewed that support and refreshed the reasoning through the lens of the impact that COVID has had on
Edmonds businesses and property owners. In considering the post-COVID emergence of the City and
businesses, this zone update will provide even greater flexibility for some properties in the CW district
and possibly provide the City the potential to have one of the only boutique beachfront hotels in the
greater Seattle area. The zone amendment applies only to development that would occur as a reuse of
current buildings, only three exist in the zone, and will not change the character or view corridors on the
waterfront. The benefit of a boutique hotel on the waterfront could amplify the success of the Waterfront
Center as well as business activity in the waterfront area and the downtown core. When the EDC studied
this opportunity, they learned overnight guests spend 2-3 times more in the local economy than day-
trippers. This change also gives existing property owners the ability to pivot or repurpose a property into a
new use like a boutique hotel. Having that ability to adjust a business strategy with an expanded list of
use options gives property owners the greatest flexibility possible to emerge in the post-COVID economy.
From an economic standpoint, the expansion of permitted uses to include a hotel could have significant
economic impact and potentially accelerate post-COVID recovery for the City. She thanked the Council
for putting this back on the agenda and considering this zone amendment.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, a 12-year resident, spoke about the recent happenings regarding the Police
Chief hiring. Although that may seem like dragging it through the mud again, as a citizen she has been
following a lot of what transpired although she was not looped in on the candidates before the Council's
vote. When she missed the Council's vote, believing it would occur on December 15th but was moved to
the 8'h, she began to educated herself on what was going on. She expressed disappointment with Mayor
Nelson's lack of transparency. She was hopeful the recent MEN interview would contain more
information to clarify what went wrong in process, but was disappointed once again when even though
Mayor Nelson admitted he was human and all humans make mistakes, he made the choice to once again
blame people who were asking for answers, something she found surprising because the community looks
to him as their leader, mayor and elected official. She thanked Councilmember Olson for showing great
integrity and character in the process and making sure the information was thorough and shared with the
Council before the vote. Unfortunately that was not taken under serious consideration. She read an
October 24, 2019 quote from Mayor Nelson when he was running for mayor in response to the Edmonds
Beacon asking what role the mayor provides in the community, "As a public servant it is vital that the
mayor listen to the community that they represent. We have seen what happens in Edmonds when elected
officials move forward without listening to our citizens first. While listening and learning are important,
actions speak louder than words. To be an effective leader, the mayor must also act on what they hear and
learn from our citizens." She respectfully asked Mayor Nelson to listen to the community and to be a
good leader.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to an email sent by Council President Paine to the Edmonds Beacon
stating the City's Comprehensive Emergency Plan was optional. He pointed out emergency planning is a
federal mandate that started after Katrina. The federal government provides funds to the state which are
distributed to cities. One only needs to look at the interlocal agreement to determine that the City of
Edmonds needs a functional, current, updated Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. That City
response was totally misstated with regard to what the City's duties are. He asked who wrote that
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 25
7.1.a
response stating the City's position that the CEMP was optional and not to supplant and augment the
county plan. He requested Council President Paine answer that during Council comments.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JANUARY 26, 2021 MEETING MINUTES AS
AMENDED BY THE CITY CLERK ON MONDAY. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as
follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KATHLEEN
BARRETT AND RAPHAEL & MARIEKA MILLER
PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE
AMENDMENT
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Urban Forest Management Plan
0 2014/2015 Tree Code Update (abandoned)
0 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan
• Tree Regulations Update Goals
o Improve tree retention with new development on private property
o Implement low impact development principles
o Establish a Tree Fund
o Other updates
■ Definitions
■ Existing permitting process
■ Penalties
Related UFMP Goals
o Goal 1 —Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban
forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code
violations
B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in
parks according to the PROS plan. These tree regulations in and of themselves will not
meet the no net loss policy.
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other
tree programs
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 26
7.1.a
i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs
o Goal 3 - Incentivize planting trees on private property
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
Draft Tree Regulations
o New Chapter 23.10 ECDC
■ Exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement,
violations
o New Section 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
o New Chapter 3.95 ECC Tree Fund
ECDC 23.10.020 - Definition
o Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - Diameter of tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground
o Significant tree — A tree with at least 6-inch DBH
o Protected tree — A tree identified for retention and protection, or a replacement tree required
during development of a site
ECDC 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development
o Short Subdivision (up to four lots)
o Subdivision (five or more lots)
o New multi -family development
o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-
family house
o Tree removal on developed site not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040
ECDC 23.10.040 - Exemptions
o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas
o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means
o Removal of trees for utility maintenance
o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park's Department
o Routine landscaping and maintenance
o Exemption with supporting documentation
■ Hazard Tree Removal
■ Nuisance Tree Removal
• ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited
o Removal of protected trees unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees
o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless trees are determined to be
hazard or nuisance trees
o During permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct
demolition activity
o Trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in Chapters 23.40 — 23.90
ECDC
Trees and Development
o First retain existing trees
o Second replace trees that are removed
o Third pay for trees removed but not replaced
ECDC 23.10.060.0 — Tree Retention Requirements
o ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Requirement
New single family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, or unit lot subdivision
site
o Retention Priority
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 27
7.1.a
■ Priority 1 —Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and
critical areas, trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH
■ Priority 2 —Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a
screen function, other significant native and nonnative trees
■ Priority 3 —Alders and cottonwoods
• ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement
o Replacement required for each significant tree removed
o Number of required replacement based diameter of trees removed:
■ 6 inches to 10 inches DBH —1 replacement tree required
■ 10.1 inches to 14 inches DBH —2 replacement trees required
■ Above 14 inches —3 replacement trees required
• ECDC 23.10.080.E — Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu
o A fee -in -lieu may by allowed after consideration of all other options
o $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees required to satisfy the replacement requirement but
not planted
o Paid into the City's Tree Fund
• ECDC 23.10.085 —Protected Trees Notice on Title
o The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an
approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently
protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance,
record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the
Snohomish County auditor's office.
• ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design
o Provide flexibility during subdivision design to aid in tree retention
o Setbacks
■ No street setback less than 15 feet
■ No rear setback less than 10 feet
■ No side setback less than 5 feet
o Lot size may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed
by the zone
o Coverage on individual lots may be increased as long as the overall coverage allowed by the
zone is not exceeded
o Allow variations in access widths
• Chapter 3.95 ECC — Tree Fund
o Funding Sources
■ Revenue from Chapter 23.10 ECDC: fee -in -lieu or civil fines
■ Civil penalties from critical area violations
■ Donations or grants for tree purposes
■ Other monies allocated by the City Council
o Funding Purposes
■ Tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds
■ Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional
■ Paying for services that support urban forest management and health
■ Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City
■ Purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes
o Funds from fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting (added by
Planning Board prior to examples, could be significant amounts paid into fee -in -lieu program,
may not be enough places to plant trees in city, Council consider other uses)
• ECDC 23.10.030 - Permits
o Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 processed as Type I permit
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 28
7.1.a
o Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision or other
land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate
tree removal permit.
ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
o Civil Penalties
■ Economic benefit derived from violation
■ Appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or larger
■ $1,500 for trees less than 12 inches DBH
o Aiding and Abetting: Tree cutter equally liable as property owner
Development Examples
o Next five slide are examples of implementing the draft regulations
o Compare the fee -in -lieu tree fund payments with other development fees
o City Impact Fees
■ Traffic - new single family residence $6,249.14
■ Parks - new single family residence = $2,734.05
o Utility Charges
■ Water — %" meter = $5,050
■ Sewer — new single family +$4,417
o Credit is given for existing development
New Single -Family Development
0 15 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 5 Trees
o Tree Retained — 6 Trees
o Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees
o Required replacement trees not planted 22
o Tree Fund Payment $22,000
o Retain one additional tree and plant three more
■ $16,000 Tree Fund Payment
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450
2. Short Subdivision — Four Lots
0 41 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 12 Trees
o Trees Retained — 13 Trees
o Assume 3 Trees/lot — 12 Trees
o Required replacement trees not planted — 58 Trees
o Tree Fund Payment - $58,000
o Retain 8 additional trees
■ $37,000 Tree Fund Payment
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $55,351
Subdivision —Ten Lots
0 90 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 27 Trees
o Trees Retained — 20
o Assume 3 Tree/lot — 30
o Required replacement trees not planted — 98
o Tree Fund Payment - $98,000
o Retain 1 additional tree and plant 4 per lot
■ $85,000 Tree Fund Payment
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $129,151
4A. Conservation Subdivision Design (Standard development)
o 153 Trees Predevelopment
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 29
7.1.a
0 30% Retention — 46 Trees
o Trees Retained — 15 Trees
o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees
o Required Replacement trees not planted — 315
o Tree Fund Payment - $315,000
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801
4B.Conservaton Subdivision Design (Flexible development)
0 153 Trees Predevelopment
0 30% Retention — 46 Trees
o Trees Retained — 62 Trees
o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees
o Required Replacement trees not planted — 202)
o Tree Fund Payment - $202,000
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801
5. Multi -Family Development —10 Unit Apartment
0 8 Trees Predevelopment
0 25% Retention —2 Trees
o Trees Retained — 0 Trees
o Required Replacement Trees —18 Trees
o Tree Planted — 36 Trees
o Tree Fund Payment - $0
o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $38,595
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Larry Temple, Edmonds, said he and his wife moved here 18 years ago and live a block north of City
Hall on 5th Avenue north in a condo with a view of Puget Sound, mountains and ferry. A lot of work and
planning has gone into the tree code, but it is little more than protection of trees. Although he understood
the ecological need for trees, particularly with global warming, but the code needs to include something
about controlling tree heights. They have watched their view diminish over the 18 years. He referred to an
article in the Edmonds Beacon on May 30, 2013 written by Vivian Olson, relaying that she chose to move
to Edmonds in part due to the great water and mountain views. Many others would agree that was why
they came to Edmonds, for the unique views. The article included Ms. Olson recalling when she lived in
the Seaview neighborhood and the splendid view of the Puget Sound and mountains that disappeared as
the trees took over. Water views are an asset unique to Edmonds that does not exist in Mill Creek; in Mill
Creek the view is the trees. Edmonds has something that needs to be protected in addition to the trees and
kept as a focal point which requires managing the trees. He recalled meeting with Parks Maintenance
Manager Rich Lindsay in November and explaining that the trees on 3rd Avenue were growing into the
view and his response that the City has nothing to do with maintaining trees for views. He was hopeful
some protection for the views that residents paid a lot for could be included in the tree code.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, acknowledged she is a tree hugger. At the last city council meeting, it sounded
like the city was acknowledging problems with the scope and effectiveness of the tree code, but was
proposing passage of a partial code, with a promise of more to come. However the timeline and coverage
for additions to the code were not addressed. Without that information, it is difficult to know whether to
support the proposal or not. There are so many questions, such as will additions address more of the
Urban Forest Management Plan that was supposed to be the basis of the tree code? Will additions be
based on science, with data to back up regulations regarding various tree species and various locations of
trees? For instance, will trees essential to managing stormwater runoff be prioritized for retention? Will
additions be specific about what constitutes a nuisance tree?? Will experts be involved in determining
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 30
7.1.a
what trees are not protected? Testimony from fellow citizens adds to the list of unanswered questions. She
summarized she was worried about the great hopes for a meaningful tree code.
Bill Phipps, Edmonds, a Tree Board member, but not speaking for the Tree Board, referred to a letter he
submitted on January 26, 2021 that reflects his current thoughts on the tree code. The tree code is a good
start and he encouraged the Council to finish it and not kick it down the road. However, a tree code
should address all the trees in a city, not just a few. He encouraged the City to, 1) set up a tree bank where
replacement trees could be planted, 2) set up a tree loss notification where tree loss on private developed
lots could be tracked so all the tree lost in Edmonds could be accounted for, 3) plant multiple of kind
replacement trees for every significant tree lost any place at any time for any reason, and 4) and ensure
the tree code addresses all the trees in the City. He also suggested the City assure residents with water
views that the aim of the tree code is not to plant large confer trees in the bowl area. The City needs to set
up a tree bank or tree preserve or join a group that already has a preserve and plant replacement trees
there where they will not block anyone's water views.
Lora Hein, Edmonds, applauded the City Council, Tree Board and Planning Board for all the hours
spent meeting and deliberating on the tree code. However, after reading through detailed numbers and
pages of exemptions, these regulations are not enough to serve the stated purpose, to protect, enhance and
preserve significant trees. Protecting, enhancing and preserving a viable tree canopy will require tougher
restrictions on removing trees on any property. Replacement of trees will not be served unless trees that
are removed are replaced with trees at minimum equivalent to or in excess of the volume of the tree
canopy removed. Without such stringent regulations, the City will continue to lose these living, breathing
protectors of clean air, climate, and quality of all life including native wildlife. She relayed hearing that
up to 90% of residential properties in Edmonds are already developed and exempt from any regulations to
protect, enhance and preserve the remaining canopy. Thus all but 10% of the residential area of Edmonds
is subject to removal of any or all remaining trees. She read in City of Kirkland materials regarding
revision of its tree code that shoppers spend 9-12% more in areas with high quality tree canopy. She
found the streets adjacent to retail in Edmonds contain only a smattering of trees. Her favorite places to
stroll, linger and look at shops are those with the dappled proximity of a street tree. In her personal
experience walking to and from downtown on summer day on streets named after trees, few trees shade
those streets, requiring her to weave from one side of the street to the other to find a place to pause and
appreciate the cooling relief of a tree. As long as most of Edmonds is exempt from tree removal and the
small area addressed in the tree code is subject to additional exemptions and administrative override, the
intent of enhancing the Edmonds quality of life with all that trees provide will be for naught. As she has
stated in previous remarks regarding these regulations, what is needed is a complete moratorium on any
tree removal until the Planning Board returns with a stronger, more effective tree code that meets the
stated purpose of protecting, enhancing and preserving significant trees. Such code should be based on
best available science, support the known benefits of trees and puts clear and management rules in place
to serve the future wellbeing of all City residents rather than allow the continuation of business as usual
while quality of life erodes away.
Maxine Mitchell, Edmonds, said she and her husband have lived in Edmonds for 10 years; one of the
main attractions is the views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountain range. She concurred with the
comments expressed by Anna Forslund West to the City Council in November in which suggested
protection of water views be inserted into the intents and purposes section of the proposed tree code. Real
estate agents know how valuable property with a view of Puget Sound and the mountains is, adding
substantial value to the price tag. Edmonds is a very special place to live and to buy a house. When trees
are planted without regard to their mature height, they could destroy a resident's view. The Urban Forest
Management Plan has an entire section on trees and views, stating when considering planting trees in the
bowl and other view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. In
other words, when a developer plans a site, he/she should take into consideration the height of the new
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 31
7.1.a
trees chosen for the site and how their eventual height could adversely affect neighbors' views. That
should be included in the tree code, not just penalties for cutting down trees. Just as there are building
codes that establish a maximum height on new construction, the tree code should address mature tree
heights and how that affects views for property owners. She implored the Council to add a clause in the
intent and purposes section of the tree code that refers to protecting water views for homeowners and
selecting lower growing trees when land is being developed. Choosing the right tree for the right place is
a mantra of the UFMP and should be incorporated into the tree code.
Nicholas Kathis, Edmonds, said in consultation with his neighbors in the Pine Ridge area, they plan to
draft a letter to the Council outlining their concerns, too numerous for a three minute comment. He was
hopeful the letter would reach the Council in the time required to consider their concerns. He summarized
not only does there need to be a code that considers all trees, but a code that responds to all people.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, said she sent the Council a letter this morning. She has a sign in her house
that says I live in the Pacific Northwest and trees are the view. She noted we all live in the Pacific
Northwest.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he sent in written comments last week and today regarding the draft tree
code. The draft tree code needs substantive changes and he questioned why the City would go through the
long process of developing an Urban Forest Management Plan that was supposed to set the way for the
tree code and then not implement the goals and objectives of that plan. He was not an expert on trees so
could comment on the specifics, but he did not see the science in many of the metrics such as the 3:1
replacement. He recommended the Council turn to the Tree Board which includes a number of tree
experts and get their recommendations on what the metrics should be. He cited his background in
regulations, 30 years with federal government primarily writing and implementing federal regulations; he
sees a lot of loopholes in these regulations that need to be closed. He questioned the City would draft
regulations with so many loopholes for developers to work around. His written comments address how to
close those loopholes, streamline the tree code, and make it effective while acknowledging some of the
public's concerns.
Gary Nelson, Edmonds, said he grew up on a horticulture farm before urbanizing and moving to
Edmonds 58 years ago. The Tree Board and the City Council have ignored several goals in the GMA in
RCW 36.70 via this tree code. In the first goal, cities are encouraged to have growth in urban areas, and
the fourth goal is to encourage the availability of affordable housing. One of the top five reasons that
affordable housing is lacking in Edmonds and throughout the Puget Sound area is over government
regulation. The sixth goal of the GMA is to protect private property owners so they are not affected by
arbitrary actions. The Comprehensive Plan requires sufficient capacity of land for development of
housing. The tree code hampers the use of available land. Fees are a barricade to development, not just
developers, but regular people who have a lot next to the home they currently live in. If there is serious
thought to preserving more trees on private land in Edmonds, the City should purchase the property with
the trees to be retained instead of punishing property owners with overreaching laws.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Council President Paine announced that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had been feeling ill and had left
the meeting.
Council President Paine asked how tree canopy changes would be measured over time. Mr. Lien
answered the UFMP did a canopy coverage analysis based on a 2015 aerial photo. One of goals in the
UFMP is to update that canopy coverage periodically. There is nothing currently scheduled but a periodic
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 32
7.1.a
review is stated in the UFMP. Council President Paine observed it had not been decided what periodically
entails. Mr. Lien recalled it was 5-10 years. Ms. Hope said that could be budgeted in the near future.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was going to propose including it in the 2021 budget, but envisioned
including it in the 2022 budget. With her knowledge of development that has occurred, there has been
significant tree loss since 2015. She recommended remanding the tree code to the Planning Board as she
did not like having the Council attempt to approve a half completed code. She did not recall the Council
telling the Planning Board to develop half a code. There are a number of issues with the tree code as
emails from citizens have pointed out. The code needs to address incentives, no new loss, and a tree
notification system that does not penalize people for removing trees but keeps track of trees. She
recommended discussing net ecological gain and offered to send Mr. Lien a letter from Puget Sound
Partnership whose issue is the current no net loss model is a misnomer, an approach that turns a blind eye
to centuries of devastating habitat loss. Edmonds is not the only city with a tree code; Mr. Phipps has
looked at the tree codes in all the local cities. All cities have GMA issues to deal with. She recommended
the Council discuss what needs to be added to the tree code and send it back to the Planning Board
because there is time and she believed it was inadequate.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked Ms. Hope to comment on an email she sent today about the escalation
pricing around DBH versus the same cost or fee for every tree. Development Services Director Shane
Hope said it was related to instead of the way the in -lieu -fee program is currently proposed and focusing
on tree retention, focusing on trees proposed to be cut and to higher fees for larger trees to provide
motivation to retain them. Mr. Lien said that idea comes from Medina's tree code where the $200/inch fee
is based on diameter of the trees that are cut. For example, the fee for removal of a 10 inch diameter tree
would be $2,000 and $4,000 for removal of a 20" diameter tree.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the low impact development conservation subdivision example
and asked staff to explain whether the area on one side where the trees are retained would be owned by an
HOA or how ownership of that area was accomplished. Mr. Lien displayed the conservation subdivision
design and referred to the diagram on the right (clustered houses), explaining that area could be set aside
as a conservation easement where the responsibility for the property is spread between the property
owners. Typically 4-lot subdivisions do not establish an HOA, but it could be set aside as an easement or
a separate tract, or a number of other ways.
Councilmember Olson wanted to address how the Council will move forward. She agree if the Council
was able to stay focused on the narrow scope of this tree code, they were more likely to reach agreement
and have something move forward in the next 1-2 weeks. She personally felt some pressure to move the
tree code forward based on the fact that there is a moratorium in place. She supported the moratorium but
felt it was a significant move for a city to take because it was not good for business. The part of the tree
code that was most relevant to the moratorium was new development such as new subdivisions which as
proposed the tree code did address.
Councilmember Olson agreed that the proposed tree code did not get the City to the UFMP goals which
she fully supported and wanted to know the timeline for addressing trees on other property that need to be
protected. She was interested in getting information from the Administration this week so the Council
knew what it was working toward. The tree code as proposed does not contain the foundation for that
aspect and she was concerned if the Council tried to address that within the window necessary from the
standpoint of the moratorium, it would end up not being great policy. Ms. Hope answered there have
discussions at the Administrative level regarding what could be done to address the expected timeline;
what could be accomplished now to address the first level of problems and what things can be done to
address the second and third levels. She and Lien have discussed that and have heard from
Councilmembers and the public. She offered to return with that next week for Council review and input.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 33
7.1.a
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed some of the previous comments, pointing out as stated in the
presentation, the proposed tree code does not meet the no net loss requirement nor was it intended to.
However, by calling it the tree code, she was concerned it gives the impression that it is the code that will
offer that protection. It is a start but it needs to be expanded to a code that will get the City toward no net
loss or better yet, the net ecological gain that has been mentioned. She was interested in code that would
look at single family lots and whether the timeline could be reasonably met. The UFMP stated the canopy
analysis would be updated periodically; she recalled the Council approved an interlocal agreement with
Snohomish County for GIS data a couple weeks ago, data that would be available to the City. She asked if
that data would allow the City to compare today's canopy to 2015 to determine tree loss that has occurred
during those 6 years. Ms. Hope said it would be necessary to determine whether the methodology
Snohomish County used was the same as was used for the 2015 inventory. If it is, that makes it very easy,
if the methodology is different, it may not provide credible, science based information. Staff will look
into that.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section 23.10.040 which indicates there are exemptions for the
removal of trees on private property. She cited two aspects of that, first, property rights, what people can
do on their own property which must be balanced with the significant removal of old growth, mature trees
that people want to remove for no particular reason. She often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood; it
used to be heavily treed and now it is much less so. She questioned how to balance those two
perspectives, the desire to protect private property rights versus the desire to maintain tree coverage. Mr.
Lien agreed that was a difficult question, it is a balancing act when preparing the code. One of the reasons
for focusing on development with this code update is clearcutting during development is the most
frequent complaint. The previous tree code update looked at tree removal on all property throughout the
City; private property concerns was one of the reasons so many people came out against that tree code.
The focus of this tree code is on development; the exemption is for single family properties without
critical areas. Critical area regulations still apply; if there are streams, wetlands, steep slopes, etc. the
property would not be exempt from tree cutting requirements. However, a flat, developed single family
lot falls under the exemption. He agreed private property rights was a tough balancing act when
developing any code.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested focusing on significant trees or protected trees on private property
to maintain older forest trees. Ms. Hope said one of things that has been discussed is some kind of a
heritage tree program that would identify special trees, either particular species, size or some other aspect
as another way to address tree retention not part of development. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that
would be on a voluntary basis. Ms. Hope answered there are two types of programs, one is voluntary and
the other is mandatory. Staff could explore that and give Council options.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if staff anticipated being able to do that during this code update. Ms.
Hope expected to be able to do it this year but not in two months to provide a good product. Mr. Lien
commented meeting the 30% canopy coverage requirement will require more than code. There could be a
voluntary heritage tree program and consideration could also be given to incentives. This code provides
for tree vouchers and a tree fund. There have also been discussions about possible financial benefits for
property owners who retain trees such as property tax breaks, breaks in the stormwater utility fees, etc. to
encourage people to retain trees on their property. There is also an education element to inform people
about the importance of retaining trees on their property. He summarized it will take more than code to
meet the 30% requirement; it will require a more holistic approach that includes education, incentives,
etc.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the replacement program, if one tree is cut, three are supposed to
be planted. She asked if that could specify that the same species of tree be planted so that a Douglas fir is
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 34
7.1.a
not replaced with three Japanese maple that do not provide the same tree coverage. Mr. Lien said that gets
to the right tree right place. There have been comments tonight about views in the bowl; if a Douglas fir is
cut down, replanting another Douglas fir might not be the right tree in the right place, a Douglas fir is not
really an urban tree. Different tree species have different canopy coverage; the code prefers native trees
for replacement, but requiring the exact same species will not result in the right tree in the right place
most of the time. For example if someone cuts down an apple tree, should they be required to replant
apple trees? Ms. Hope said that is the reason for prioritization of trees so that higher priority trees are
preferred. She agreed it depends on the circumstances and is another example of private property rights
and interests; some people want orchard trees, some do not and often the particular site determines what
makes the most sense.
Council President Paine raised the issue of tracking, permitting and how to keep track of what is going
on. Some cities have free or low cost tree permits for pruning or tree removal on single family private
property. That way if it is a protected tree or has other qualities that the city wants to preserve, there is an
opportunity for education. She asked if there were ways to incentivize the permitting process for low
impact development such as fast tracking for good tree retention, good stormwater infiltration, etc. That
would allow combining good practices with strong tree retention. She cited the importance of tracking
which trees are being removed, and questioned why there was hesitancy to have tree removal permits or
tree pruning permits to assist with tracking larger canopy trees.
Ms. Hope answered if a city wants a have permit system, it is important to determine whether the permit
system is intended to say no or to say yes. A permit system only tracks what happens to come to the
City's attention, there are plenty of other things that happen that the City does not know about, raising the
question of how valid the information is. It is also important to recognize that if the City Council wants
everybody to get a permit for pruning and cutting, it will require quite a lot more staffing. There are
millions of trees in the City and it would take a much greater financial commitment to make that happen
unless the intent was to pass something there was no intent to enforce. Council President Paine said there
is often a missed opportunity for education. At some point the City needs to track what is happening with
larger stands of trees or larger specimen trees that the City wants to retain.
Councilmember Olson referred to points made in citizen letters such as rhododendrons and laurels which
are bushes, but over time develop quite substantial trunks that would exceed the significant tree
specifications. She asked if those would be included in number of trees on a site and used to determine
fees and replacement requirements, commenting sometimes those bushes are more like landscape clean
up during a construction project. Mr. Lien read the definition of tree, a self-supporting, woody plant
characterized by one main trunk for certain species or multi -trunks that is recognized as a tree in the
nursery and arboricultural industries. He concluded rhododendrons and laurels probably would not meet
that definition.
Councilmember Olson referred to replacement trees and the 30% retention rate, pointing out someone
would still be responsible for zero net loss on that lot. If someone purchased and developed a site with a
lot of trees, the financial impact could be very significant because the requirement is not just to replace
the trees that existed. She acknowledged the reason a higher in -lieu -fee was recommended was to retain
trees, but in fact it is impossible to keep all the trees in order to construct a building or buildings on a site.
It ends up being punitive to charge more than the cost to replace the trees. She was not comfortable with
the $1,000 amount when last week's minutes state Parks indicated the cost to replant a tree was $300. She
questioned why the higher amount was proposed as it would penalize the developer.
Mr. Lien responded that dollar value was discussed a lot during the Planning Board's review. One way it
was looked at was if the amount was lower, a developer would not make as great an effort to retain more
trees and the higher amount would result in a greater effort to retain trees on the site, basically a reverse
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 35
7.1.a
incentive. Developers who want to save money would retain more trees so the fee -in -lieu payment would
be less. With regard to no net loss in UFMP, the intent is to replace trees cut with development. Having
the fee -in -lieu program could fund tree planting throughout the City via tree vouchers in parks and if the
tree code is revised slightly, could also be used to preserve wooded lots. Consideration was given to ways
of potentially lowering the fee -in -lieu of amount but the Planning Board was adamant it should be that
higher amount.
Councilmember Olson said the math and the examples provided illustrate it is not even an option to keep
the number of trees that the developer would be responsible for funding. In light of that, the trees should
be funded at the true price, not an amount almost three times higher. Mr. Lien said the fee -in -lieu in some
other jurisdictions in the cost of the tree replacement; often a fee is not stated, it is just the fair market
value of replacing the tree. Councilmember Olson said she was making the point in the context of the
developer, but it ends up getting passed onto the consumer and has a direct impact on the bottom line cost
of the house.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ms. Hope's comment about completing the tree code in two
months, commenting it sounds like the Administration is expecting to have the tree code completed in
two months. Ms. Hope answered that was this part of the tree code that is related to development only; it
would be good to have that finished within two months and then pursue the other parts if there was
agreement on key points. The City has a moratorium related to development; therefore, finishing the
development portion first as has been presented and returning on other issues would allow the
development part to exist while the rest of the work is done over the next 2-6 months or whatever it takes.
Councilmember Buckshnis said her concern with the development aspect of the tree code was staff used
the current development code and examples that relate to million dollar houses when a housing code was
coming up that she hoped would deal with low impact housing that would preserve trees. She was
concerned with piecemealing the code when it was a very important topic. She offered to provide
examples of what was missing. With regard to exemptions and allowing the director to waive
requirements such as replacement trees, that was not something not many cities have in their codes. Mr.
Lien answered a lot of other codes have that flexibility. One of the areas where the director can allow a
difference is in the size of the replacement trees. He has heard over the years on critical areas and also in
tree planting that planting a smaller tree is actually better than planting a larger tree. Planting a small tree
where the ratio of the tree to the root ball is lower, the tree gets established faster and grows better.
Planting a larger tree takes longer for the tree to get established and begin growing again. That is one of
the flexibility in this code. Apart from that, there is not much flexibility from the requirements in the
code. He summarized that language is in a lot of codes not only in Edmonds but in other cities.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not interested in planting Doug firs in the bowl. She recalled that
was addressed in the UFMP and an exhibit that illustrated planting Doug firs in the bowl was removed.
She referred to the Right Tree, Right Place and Before You Grab the Chainsaw brochures developed by
the Tree Board. She agreed there was an educational aspect. The proposed tree code is addressing
development, but it is hoped development changes will impact the retention of trees, yet the examples still
utilize the current codes. She suggested developing a list of things and remand back it back to Planning
Board and develop a comprehensive tree code in 2-4 months. During that time the Council will also be
vetting the Housing Commission's recommendations. She was leery because there were so many
important things coming forward and it may be better to step back and get it them all in place.
Council President Paine said her biggest concern was there was not enough focus on canopy retention and
including understory which will impact the quality of the remaining trees. She wanted to focus on groves
which impact spaces much larger than are currently being considered. It is unfortunate this is not a
comprehensive tree code, but there are enough pieces to get something in place before the moratorium
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 36
expires. She was not ready to make amendments tonight and suggested the Council discuss it again next
week.
Observing that was the consensus of the Council, Mayor Nelson advised the tree code would be returned
to Council at the next meeting.
8.
1. RECOGNITION OF HOUSING COMMISSION'S WORK
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC),
appointed by the City Council has completed its work. The Council agenda memo outlines some of the
process. She reviewed:
0 Council appointed the Citizens' Housing Commission in 2019 after a citywide application
process
o Postcards mailed city wide
o Numerous applications received
0 15 commissioners and 8 alternates appointed by Council and Mayor
• CHC began holding public meetings in September 2019 (video recorded and livestreamed)
• Open house at Edmonds-Woodway High School
• Following COVID shutdowns, CHC began holding online meetings
• 80 people attended the in person open house
• 3,700 people participated in the three online open houses
• Information shared with the public via a City webpage
• Information sent to 600-700 local residents and emails to community groups to remind them of
the process and invite them to participate in the survey
• Council set timeline of end of January 2021 for the CHC to provide their recommendation
• After 23 meetings, the CHC has provided 15 recommendations for further consideration and
public input
o CHC recommendations are not the subject of tonight's agenda item
o Staff will present recommendations to Council, starting with those with the most interest and
opportunity
• CHC was a diverse group with different opinions/ideas
• Two Council liaisons attended CHC meetings and shared information when needed
• Staff provided information and acted as resource, but allowed CHC to do its work and develop
recommendations
Ms. Hope recognized the great job done by the volunteers on the CHC of meeting their deadline, focusing
on their mission and providing recommendations to the Council. Now that the CHC's work is done, the
next phase will be for staff to bring their recommendations to Council in the near future.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the commission, staff, consultants and Council liaisons Distelhorst
and Olson. She asked if the Council was provided the CHC's recommendations. Ms. Hope advised she
emailed Council the 15 recommendations and 7 proposals that may not fit mission were but worthy of
consideration on January 29th following the CHC's January 28th meeting. Staff made a few corrections
and resent it yesterday. The CHC's recommendations have also been posted on the City's website as well
as a press release to inform the public.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the CHC automatically sunsets. Ms. Hope said the resolution states
the CHC ends on February lst. This agenda item is to recognize that the CHC's work is done and there is
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 37
7.1.a
work ahead. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed there were a variety of different opinions on the
commission She asked how the recommendations would be presented to Council, whether 1-2
recommendations would be highlighted. Ms. Hope said that would likely be the best way. There are
complex issues, some more than others, and it would be easier to focus on 1-2 at a time. Councilmember
Buckshnis said she was excited to move forward.
Councilmember L. Johnson recognized the CHC for having 23 meetings which represents an enormous
amount of work on the part of many individuals including two Councilmembers. She expressed her
appreciation to the CHC for their time and dedication on a very important issue, commenting it was now
time for Council to get to work on the same issues.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked Ms. Hope to explain how the Planning Board would be involved in the
process moving forward. Ms. Hope answered some of the recommendations are not related to zoning. For
example, some are related to partnerships with organizations, etc. which are not Planning Board issues. If
the Council wants to pursue something the CHC recommended that is zoning related, she envisioned the
Council would refer that to the Planning Board with direction, it would then go through the regular public
process which may takes months and then would come back to the City Council for a final decision.
Other recommendations may be budgetary issues such as how to spend sales tax revenue dedicated to low
income housing. She summarized any of the recommendations related to zoning that the Council wanted
to have explored further would involve the Planning Board.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Ms. Hope for her efforts, commenting there was a lot of staff
involved in this effort as well as a lot of dedicated community involvement. She applauded Ms. Hope and
the CHC for meeting their goal by the end of January, commenting Zoom meetings brought everyone
together.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty commented it has been a year
since the Council last considered this topic. He explained hotels are an allowed use in the Downtown
Business (BD) zoning districts. However, in the waterfront district of Downtown Edmonds - the
Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone district - hotels are not included on its list of "permitted primary
uses." The CW zone encompasses all of the properties waterward of the BNSF railroad south of
Brackett's Landing South park to the City's southern limits. That being said, only limited opportunities
may exist for hotel uses to be developed in the CW zone, given that there are few, if any, viable, vacant
properties. If a property owner or investors were to respond to market demand for hotel rooms, it would
likely be in the form of re -use of an existing commercial building.
A review of the history of several of the extant commercial buildings along the waterfront indicates that
they have housed a succession of different uses over the decades, including such marked changes in use
as apartments to offices, offices to restaurants and back again, retail to office, etc. These changes have
occurred in response to changes in market demand over the decades and in response to changing
economic conditions. The one, otherwise standard, commercial use that has not been available in this
zone is lodging.
The Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered this issue over the past two to three years,
spurred by their interest in potentially capturing more economic impact from the thousands of visitors
who come to Edmonds. While day-trippers spend on average from $44 to $85 per person, per day
(depending on their activities) in our local economy, overnighters in Snohomish County spend up to $179
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 38
7.1.a
per person, per night, a substantial increase in local economic impact (Dean Runyon Associates, May
2019).
What's more, in proposing this potential code amendment, the EDC believed that additional lodging
opportunities in and around greater Downtown Edmonds would also serve as a welcome complement to
the important arts, culture, entertainment and culinary scene. For these reasons, the EDC proposed
consideration of adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted uses" in the CW zone. The Planning
Board considered this recommendation and concurred with adding hotels to the list of permitted uses.
It should be noted that since this matter was first considered, the COVID-19 crisis has up -ended the local,
national and global economies and substantially impacted the financial viability of traditional mainstays
of the local economy, including retail, office -based and other establishments. Many business and property
owners are facing an uncertain future with their traditional business models. Office -building owners have
been left wondering if pre-existing and/or traditional tenants will return once the pandemic has receded,
given the current work -at-home environment. It is quite possible that previously well -occupied office
buildings may see long-lasting vacancies. Such property owners may start to seek and consider any
possible alternative uses that could be more financially viable. Re -use of such buildings for lodging
should be an available option.
For these reasons, and in an effort to expand the opportunities for developing potential lodging
establishments in and around Downtown Edmonds, the Administration accepts and forwards the EDC
proposal to consider adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted uses" in the CW zone.
The current version of the CW zone is attached to the packet. Generally, the City's zoning code provides
for hotels in commercial zones, and includes this definition:
21.40.060 Hotel.
Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out
for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and
services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing
persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care. (See also, Motel.)
The current proposal can be accomplished by adding hotels to the list of Permitted Primary Uses in
Chapter 16.55.010 (CW zone). Staff does not recommend adding 'motel' as a permitted use since the
purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area, and the
definition of a motel is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access.
This potential amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which allows this type
of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments. In fact it is arguable that reuse of an existing
building that may be office now as a hotel could potentially better meet the SMP than office use. One of
the primary objectives of the State SMP is to encourage use or enjoyment of the shorelines of the state.
Use of and enjoyment incudes visual access, passive access and active access. Most office building are
fairly closed environments whereas a hotel tends to have more public.
The City Council had some discussion regarding parking during its review on February 4th. Briefly, the
standard for all commercial uses in the downtown area is as follows:
"All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate
of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a mixed use or
residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for residential uses shall only be
required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit. For purposes of this chapter,
"residential uses" shall refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar
features." [ECDC 17.50.010.C]
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 39
If the Council is concerned that the normal downtown commercial parking rate is insufficient for hotels,
the Council could instead specify that hotels use the residential parking rate of "one stall per {dwelling}
unit". This could be accomplished by amending the proposed ordinance to permit hotels as:
"Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit"
During the previous presentation, questions were raised whether a hotel would have great parking needs
than the existing office uses. The availability of adequate parking to meet demand will be very important
to a hotel developer. The existing parking will be a critical path in determining the number of hotel room
that could be provided on a site.
In summary, the Administration believes it is incumbent upon the City to provide a fertile platform for
robust economic opportunity within our local business community - such as opportunities to pivot from
traditional business models to keep businesses and property owners viable in the new economic realities
we will be facing. The potential of a mostly vacant office building at the Waterfront does not serve our
community's nor nearby businesses' best interests. If market conditions warranted re -use of such a
building as a hotel, the Administration believes such an opportunity should be available, as it is elsewhere
in Downtown Edmonds.
Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that would implement the Planning Board's recommendation to add
"Hotels" to the permitted uses in the CW zone.
Council President Paine recalled Mr. Doherty's response to an email indicating that there would be a
possibility of 40-60 hotel rooms. Mr. Doherty clarified the most that would be seen in the largest building
was 30-40. Council President Paine asked in addition to one parking space per hotel room, how much
employee parking would be required. She observed the standard for all commercial uses in the downtown
area was one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of building. She suggested crafting
language such as whichever is most beneficial to keep cars on the property. Mr. Doherty explained every
potential proposal to reuse a building will be different, one may be large luxurious rooms with a small bar
or caf6 so the 1:500 parking ratio may better capture the parking demand, whereas another proposal may
be smaller rooms with a larger common area and amenities where one space per room would better
capture the parking demand. He emphasized there is no vacant land on the waterfront other than one small
parcel with two small homes that is not big enough for a hotel. The only chance that this would occur
would be reuse of an existing building. Those existing buildings currently have a parking impact so it
would not be an entirely new net impact.
Mr. Doherty explained for example an office building may a spillover peak parking impact of 10 spaces
who park on the street; a hotel may have 15 spaces of spillover peak parking impact or it could be the
converse. When creating code, it is impossible to know in advance all the possible future development
proposals. The parking impact does not start from zero, it is trading uses. For example, restaurants are
currently allowed in the CW; the top floor of one of the office buildings could revert to a restaurant as it
has been in the past which would have a much greater parking impact. Planning Manager Rob Chave said
the City moved away from specified parking ratios for individual uses because it began to be separated
from reality. A lot of the ratios were rooted in studies done 20-40 years ago and business models and how
parking is provided changes. Staff found using individual parking ratios that were out of date tended to
restrict the flow of businesses. For example, if one business closed and another moved in that had a
different parking ratio, it hindered businesses occupying spaces and continuing to provide a lively
commercial area.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was her understanding there was only one building as the rest were on
Port property. Mr. Doherty answered there are two office buildings and one residential building. It is very
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 40
7.1.a
unlikely that the residential building would change to a hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the
residential building was the Ebb Tide. Mr. Doherty answered there was another residential building. The
proposed change would impact a maximum of 2-3 buildings. The current vacancy rate is somewhat
immaterial because he has heard from some office buildings who are worried about tenants not renewing
leases in the next few months due to people working from home, being nervous about COVID, etc. It may
be 2022 until high vacancy rates are seen in office buildings. He pointed out this is just an idea, like any
zoning ordinance, the list of possible uses are identified but it may take decades for the uses to be acted
upon. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there is an apartment building next to the EbbTide and the
property with two little houses. Mr. Doherty said the property containing the two little houses was
underdeveloped under the zoning but it was a very small site that could not accommodate a hotel
building.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Harbor Inn across the street and asked if there was a need for
another hotel and whether they or the Port has voiced any concern about this proposal. Mr. Doherty
recalled there was a comment from Port Commissioner Preston last year that there was a downtown hotel
in Harbor Square. Mr. Doherty pointed out the City did not insert itself into the market dynamics of
competition. For example, if a grocery store was allowed in a business commercial zone, there was no
restriction on other grocery stores. Likewise, the City does not decide there are too many auto dealerships,
grocery stores, bookstores, etc. The City provides the platform of zoning that allows a rich array of
commercial and lets investors, the market, developers and banks determine whether there is enough
demand. A hotel demand consultant the City hired a couple years ago advised that before a hotel is
financed, the bank requires the hotel developer do a hotel demand study. A bank will not finance a hotel if
the demand and the supply do not warrant a new hotel. The study done two years ago determined there
was a deficit in supply based on demand of about a 75 room hotel within downtown and about the same
in the Highway 99 area. At that time, the study determined the market in Edmonds was not meeting the
inherent demand. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled as a regulator, she looked for that information with
regard to hotels.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there were funds in the budget for a comprehensive planning
review of the entire waterfront area. She personally believed that should look at the entire waterfront,
parking, transit hub, the Port, the marsh, open space, public beaches, etc. She asked if this change should
be delayed until after that comprehensive review was completed which will give the Council a good
understanding of the CW zone as well as the numerous other zones within the waterfront. Mr. Doherty
answered there is an urgency to ensure commercial properties and business owners have a wide-open
platform to respond to these changing economic times. That comprehensive study will take 1-2 years. Ms.
Hope said the Comprehensive Plan process and looking at that area holistically will take quite a lot of
time and steps need to be followed. The proposal is not to change the zoning, it is simply to add a
particular commercial use in existing buildings. She summarized if that was something the Council
wanted to allow the market to consider, it would not hurt the bigger project.
Councilmember Olson said the Comprehensive Plan changes may/may not be consistent with the current
allowable uses. She pointed out the 2019 Planning Board minutes reflect that the consultant study said
there was demand but due to building heights, the supply could only be met via boutique type enterprises.
With regard to competition, the Harbor Inn and a boutique hotel have different market niches. She
suggested googling the Lido House in California to get a better idea of a boutique hotel, noting the target
market is wholly different. For example, families would be more of the Harbor Inn's target versus a
person attending a wedding at the Waterfront Center or a show at Edmonds Center for the Arts. As
someone who has spent a lot of time around local business owners, she assured they are a very
enterprising group and she fully expected and trusted that anyone interested in taking on that mission
would ensure they had sufficient parking to support their operation or come up with ways such as
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 41
7.1.a
providing a shuttle to the hotel from the ferry or train. She was confident they would deal with that as part
of their business model and the Council did not need to micromanage the parking for this possibility.
Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated the creativity with the potential for an adaptive reuse of a
building. He would be much more comfortable having it conform to current parking guidelines and not
encourage more driving which would be contrary to the City's climate goals. He was comfortable having
this on the Consent Agenda next week if other Councilmembers were also comfortable with that.
Councilmember K. Johnson said before moving forward, the Council should have a better idea of whether
or not this development is feasible under the code. She cited ECDC 23.80.040 which identifies this as a
geological hazard area which excludes residential or use for places for employment or public access. She
requested a determination whether it was feasible to have hotel under the existing code. With regard to
parking, it was stated that the parking requirement was one space per 500 square feet in downtown;
however, these sites are more confined with less sharing and less street parking. She suggested counting
the number of parking spaces per site to determine the number of parking spaces available for the
adaptive uses. That preliminary information would be very helpful before moving forward and until those
questions were answered, she could not support this zoning change.
Mr. Doherty explained the issue of a geological hazard area is regarding development. The proposal is
related to the potential for adaptive reuse of existing buildings. If the land were vacant and a new building
were proposed, there may be a different approach to the first floor height as was done with the Waterfront
Center. This is related to reuse of an existing building and the feasibility of that is high because there are
already systems, parking, etc. in place. With regard to parking, a developer would count the parking
spaces, and using the current parking requirement of one space per 500 square feet would determine the
amount of hotel space, literally right -sizing a hotel to the parking supply. Regardless of the parking
requirement, the existing supply will determine the number of room and size of the hotel. That does not
need to be done in advance because it is self-regulating.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented if there were only 12 spaces, that would not accommodate a
boutique hotel but 60 space would. She asked if there was a sense of the amount of parking available. Mr.
Doherty said he did not know the exact number of parking spaces the largest building has, but it is around
30 which would be adequate for a boutique hotel. Councilmember K. Johnson said that may not be
sufficient for a boutique hotel plus a restaurant which would require more parking and parking on the
waterfront is insufficient overall. She agreed looking at the waterfront overall as Councilmember
Buckshnis suggested would take more time but needed to be done regardless of what the Council did
regarding a waterfront hotel.
Council President Paine suggested the Council continue this conversation next week. She recalled during
the last presentation, there was abundant discussion about the definition of "hotel." Mr. Doherty sent her
several definitions and she preferred Kirkland's definition. She requested staff provide that definition next
week for Council consideration. Mr. Doherty agreed, recalling some people raised questions about the
validity of the existing definition of hotel in the City's code. Staff does not have a problem with the
definition as nothing else meets that definition because, as arcane as the definition may be, it does not
mean an apartment, a boarding house, a drug rehab center, etc. It basically means an establishment that
provides rooms available for sleeping. He said the reason sleeping is included is dwelling unit is a unit of
building area for housekeeping. Housekeeping means living in a unit versus just sleeping. He said if the
preference is to have a more modern definition, Issaquah's definition states a building with rooms for rent
on a weekly or monthly basis.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City would have any liability if a building were retrofitted for a
hotel and a catastrophic event occurred with railroad or an earthquake. She viewed an office building as
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 42
7.1.a
having little traffic and a hotel having more traffic and events. The new Waterfront Center is built very
well and can withstand an earthquake versus a retrofitted building that would not be built to the new
standards. She request staff address the liability aspect, if any, during next week's discussion.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled asking Mr. Doherty about the seismic hazard, and he said it would
not apply because this was an adaptive reuse. It was her understanding a hotel could not be built in that
area if it were bare ground due to the seismic geological hazard. Mr. Doherty answered if someone did a
substantial enough rehab such as gutting a building, they could trigger current standards related to fire,
life safety, seismic, etc. A lesser building rehab with minor tenant improvements may not trigger the
threshold and they may not have to bring it up to the current codes. He noted some thresholds, especially
related to fire, are very low.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was not related to the building code but codes related to
critical areas that state residential should not be built in seismic hazardous areas. If a hotel could not be
built there because the bare land is seismically hazardous, she asked why a hotel would be allowed just
because it was a retrofit. Mr. Chave said the codes do not say a hotel cannot be built. The seismic
requirements trigger more stringent building code requirements. With a conversion from one use to
another under the building code, a lot of different building considerations are applicable particularly when
the use is changing from an office into a place with sleeping quarters, there are more exiting and access
requirements, window openings, structural, etc. It doesn't mean it cannot be done, it is just potentially
more expensive and a lot more attention needs to be paid to what is being done.
Mr. Doherty said what Councilmember K. Johnson was referring to was exactly what the Waterfront
Center found when they realized they needed to raise the first floor due to sea level rise. A new building
would have a much higher burden to achieve than reusing an existing building. He noted a hotel is not
residential, it is commercial. The current code would allow any of the office building to be reused for a
restaurant and a couple of the buildings had restaurants in the past. Those uses, which are quite active and
would attract a lot of people, are currently allowed.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson said the COVID news is encouraging; the two week rolling average in Snohomish County
is down to 184/100,000, a 50% drop since the height this winter. People are making a big different by
continuing to physically distance, wear masks and avoid large gatherings. Those things still need to be
done to stay safe and beat the virus especially as Snohomish County moves into Phase 2 which provides
more options.
Mayor Nelson announced with sadness the passing of Bill Anderson, a local nature photographer. Many
people are familiar with his work, but may not have seen Bill. He displayed a photograph of Bill and a
quote from another photographer, "you don't shoot things, you capture them. Photograph means painting
with light. You paint a picture only by adding light to things you see." Mayor Nelson said Bill added light
to the marsh, to the bird, to all the wildlife in Edmonds, all the natural wonders that people miss every
day. He extended his condolences to Bill's wife Pauline and son Daren. He thanked the Parks Department
for posting several of the photographs Bill took for the Arts Commission, BirdFest, and the Discovery
Program on the Edmonds Parks Facebook page.
i [1�0010041 11[K1]u 105 1 oleo V
Councilmember K. Johnson offered her condolences to Mr. Anderson's family, relaying the community
has enjoyed his educational and illuminating wildlife pictures.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 43
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Bill Anderson was a wonderful man and she learned a lot from
him. She was honored to have had him in her life; he was a nice, kind, intelligent man who knew
everything about the wildlife in the marsh. She was greatly saddened by his passing but relieved he was
no longer in pain.
Councilmember L. Johnson said it was exciting and comforting to hear that first responders, medical
professionals and mature individuals including her own parents who have been able to get COVID
vaccinations. However, one educational piece that is missing; people still need to take precautions after
being vaccinated. The vaccination works by reducing or preventing the individual from getting sick with
COVID; however it does not prevent the individual from spreading the virus, asymptomatic infection
despite immunization. She congratulated those who have been vaccinated and urged them to continue
taking precautions and keep in mind those who are still waiting to get vaccinated. Regardless of their
vaccination status, she urged everyone to keep interactions to a minimum, wear a mask and socially
distance.
Councilmember L. Johnson said Bill Anderson's work has touched her, she has long appreciated his
photograph. His work will be appreciated for years to come. She offered her sympathies to his family and
may his memory be a blessing.
Councilmember Olson commented it was fitting that the Council was talking about the tree code and
climate issues today as they remember Bill Anderson because he helped the community appreciate the
wildlife in Edmonds and made a big difference to the community. She was thinking of him and his
family.
Councilmember Olson expressed her shared value of the views in Edmonds. Most of the comments today
were from the standpoint of homeowners, but views are something that all residents and visitors enjoy.
The letter to the editor she wrote in the past was not the view from her home, but the view she enjoyed
leaving a neighborhood. She acknowledged we can't have it all and the environment is of the utmost
importance, but to the extent that those can be valued and balanced when possible, that is good policy for
a town like Edmonds and goes a long way toward making tree lovers out of everybody. She hoped
Councilmembers would keep that perspective in mind as they move forward on this important support of
climate goals that she supported as well as the UFMP which is the basis for the tree code.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed his sincere condolences to the Anderson family and friends. He
reported February is Black History Month and expressed his appreciation to Sno-Isle Libraries for
developing a reading list from very young children through adults on many topics related to Black
history. Sno-Isle also has a list of local organization and local Snohomish County Black owned business
that the community can support. The Edmonds School District also has lunchtime readings.
Councilmember Distelhorst highlighted the equity tool kit developed by the Diversity Commission
available on the Chamber of Commerce website. It includes a pledge that businesses can take to create
and strengthen an equitable and welcoming culture for each and every neighbor and visitor. It includes the
pledge, tools, educational resources, podcasts, websites and local leaders and trainers. Tomorrow night
the Diversity Commission will talk about how they plan to roll that out to the community. He urged the
public to continue to stay safe, stay home if they can, mask up and take care of the community.
Council President Paine announced she will be reappointing Kevin Harris to the Economic Development
Commission. She expressed her appreciation to the Citizens' Housing Commission, the Councilmembers
who devoted a lot of time, and the staff team that kept the CHC together for a year. Edmonds gets a lot of
mileage from its citizen volunteers who commit their time to making Edmonds a better place.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 44
7.1.a
Council President Paine said she will miss Bill Anderson. He was a great observer of the natural
environment as well as a caretaker of the Edmonds Marsh who highlighted the Edmonds Marsh in
abundance through his photograph. His photography was admired across the country and he would send
links to his fan club. She was sorry he was gone, but glad he was no longer in pain. She expressed her
sincerest condolences to his family and friends, everyone will miss him and the impact he made on the
community. She urged everyone to mask up and stay safe.
Student Representative Roberts expressed condolences to Bill Anderson's family, commenting he just
discovered his work this morning and was amazed by his contributions and thankful for the impact he left
for his and future generations of Edmonds.
As we approach nearly a year spent in quarantine, Student Representative Roberts reminded of the
importance of taking care of all aspect of your health, but especially your mental health. Over the past few
months he has seen an unfortunate number of suicides among youth, and is heartbroken for each one.
Those lost are children, brothers, sons, sisters, daughters, coworkers, students, and friends and he
wondered what could have prevented their suicides. While the COVID-19 situation cannot be changed,
we can change our attitude toward others; we can choose to be respectful and positive toward one another,
choose to reach out to our friends to check in or get help, and have the difficult and emotional
discussions. He urged everyone to check in with friends and family about mental health and take it
seriously; no one has a reason to pretend they are having issues with their mental health. For anyone
struggling, he assured there is always help available and urged them to reach out. He encouraged
everyone to wear a mask and make safe choices. In addition to preventing as many illnesses and deaths
from this virus as possible, there are so many other things on the line; businesses, the mental health of
those feeling alone and afraid, and families depend on your choices, please make the right one.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 45
7.1.a
Public Comment for 2/2/21 Council Meeting:
From: Marjie Fields
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 10:48 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: written version of tree code comment.
Thank you for all your hard work for our city.
Just in case you didn't memorize every word I said at the meeting last night, I'm sending you a
written version:
At the last city council meeting, it sounded like the city was acknowledging problems with the
scope and effectiveness of the tree code, but was proposing passage of a partial code, with a
promise of more to come.
However the timeline and coverage for additions to the code were not addressed. Without that
information, it is difficult to know whether to support the proposal or not. There are so many
questions: such as
Will additions address more of the Urban Forest Management Plan that was supposed to be
the basis of the Tree Code?
Will additions be based on science, with data to back up regulations regarding various tree
species and various locations of trees? For instance, will trees essential to managing
stormwater runoff be prioritized for retention?
Will additions be specific about what constitutes a Nuisance tree?? Will experts be involved in
determining what trees are not protected?
Testimony from my fellow citizens adds to the list of unanswered questions.
I am worried about our great hopes for a meaningful tree code.
Marjie Fields
From: Lora M. Hein
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:21 PM
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 46
7.1.a
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code
Dear City Council and Mayor Nelson,
Thank you for the chance to speak at the hearing this evening. I am sending these remarks I
made with a couple of additional notes.
I applaud all of you as well as the Tree Board and Planning Board members for the numbers of
hours spent meeting and deliberating over the tree code. However, after wading through
detailed numbers and pages of exemptions, these regulations are not enough to serve the
stated purpose to "protect, enhance, and preserve, significant trees"
To "protect, enhance, and preserve" a viable tree canopy for the city, we need tougher
restrictions on removing trees on any property. Another part of the purpose, replacement of
trees, will not be served unless trees removed are replaced with trees at minimum equivalent
to or in excess of the volume of the tree canopy removed. Without such stringent regulations,
we will continue to lose these living and breathing protectors of clean air, climate and quality of
all life, including native wildlife.
I have heard that up to 90 % of residential properties in Edmonds are already developed and
exempt from any regulation to "protect, enhance, and preserve" what canopy is left. Thus all
but 10 per cent of the residential area of Edmonds is subject to removal of any or all remaining
trees.
I read recently in Kirkland City materials regarding revision of its tree code that shoppers spend
9-12 % more in areas with high quality tree canopy. I checked our streets adjacent to retail and
found only a smattering of trees. My favorite places to stroll and linger to look at shops are
those with the dappled proximity of a street tree.
From personal experience walking to and from downtown on a summer day, on streets named
Maple, Fir, Pine and Cedar, few trees shade those streets. I have to weave from one side to the
other to find any place to pause and appreciate the cooling relief of a tree.
As long as most of Edmonds is exempt from tree removal, and the small area addressed in this
code is subject to additional exemptions and administrative override, the intention of
enhancing the Edmonds quality of life with all trees provide will be for naught.
As I have stated in previous remarks regarding these regulations, what is needed is a complete
moratorium on any tree removal until the Planning Board returns with a stronger, more
effective tree code that meets the stated purpose of protecting, enhancing, and preserving,
significant trees. Such code must be based on best available science. It must support the known
benefits of trees and needs to put clear and manageable rules in place to serve the future well -
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 47
7.1.a
being of all city residents rather than allow the continuation of business as usual, while our
quality of life erodes away.
I also would like to mention the sacred spiritual connection of the original inhabitants of this
land who are acknowledged at the beginning of every meeting who have taken care of this
land, including far more trees than are present today.
I also would like to reiterate what someone who followed me referred to. In the Pacific
Northwest trees ARE the view. If people want to have unobstructed water views they might
want to consider moving to Southern California. A significant part of the view across the water
is of the forested slopes of the Olympic Peninsula.
In addition, in response to the person who claimed that trees degrade property values, the city
of Portland found the presence of trees adds an average of $9000 to a house's selling price, the
equivalent of an added 129 square feet of finished area to a house.
Conservation Subdivisions Design is another issue that could be woven into the Housing code
considerations. I am curious what the number of lots are that actually would be able to make
use of these regulation changes.
The tree code needs to address a total tree program.
Many other cities have tree codes that require permits for tree removal from any property.
Many of those permits have regulations in place with the intention of maintaining the benefits
of caring for our tree neighbors. Rather than punitive fines, property owners are allowed up to
a certain number of trees to be removed and provide for replacement of excessive tree loss.
Thank you for considering a more thorough approach to the need for improving urban tree
retention and well being. Until a working tree code is approved it is essential to maintain a
moratorium on removing trees that cannot be replaced until and unless this code requires clear
and adequate maintenance and improvement of our existing environment.
Thank you very much for your attention to this critical matter.
Lora Hein
Submitted by Val Stewart:
February 2, 2021
Dear Mayor Nelson and esteemed City Council members
My name is Val Stewart. I lived in Edmonds for over 30 years. I know most of you through my
City involvement for many years including Planning Board where I served alongside Mayor
Nelson and councilmember Kristiana Johnson. I chaired the Climate Protection committee for
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 48
7.1.a
two years and started Students Saving Salmon, a student led group that restores salmon habitat
and educates the public and decision makers about how they can be better stewards of their
watershed. I appreciate all the hard work you are doing during these unprecedented times.
This is when citizens really need you to represent them.
Tree code is near and dear to my heart. I happened to chair the meeting back when the tree
code first came to Planning Board. There were 100 people who wanted to comment. It was a
long night. That was when we all learned the hot button items. It became clear that an Urban
Forest Management Plan needed to be developed to guide tree code updates. That finally got
done and now here we are looking at the latest proposed updates passed on by Planning Board.
I think the proposed tree code should focus more on undeveloped land and how to protect
environmental assets on a tract that could be developed. LID is a step in the right direction.
Assessment of existing ecosystems and species of wildlife they support should be imperative.
One aspect of the proposed tree code provides for the option of using flexibility measures to try
and arrange the building sites in a way so more trees are preserved. Using such measures
would require the developer and the city planner to reach a common agreement on a modified
plan. I hope that means that building footprints can be moved to where they would not impact
an already established ecosystem of trees. Townhomes and cluster housing could allow for
common areas with nature to be retained and appreciated by residents. This could also
contribute to affordable housing with increased density requirements with code adjustments.
What I don't see in this draft is enough attention paid to wildlife habitat. Edmonds is a NWF
certified Community Backyard Wildlife Habitat. We need to revive that and continue to educate
citizens on how they can certify their properties. They would need to provide food, water,
shelter, and a place to raise young for wildlife. The emphasis is on native plants where possible.
When older trees are cut down, we set ourselves back generations and destroy a complex
ecosystem that has been evolving often a hundred years or more. I believe in the UFMP it
states : "Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to 7 years to
establish after planting, and another 10 years before they reach functional maturity. Trees
provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach
functional maturity." That's 17 years. So when you take down a hundred year old tree and
everything under it, ask yourself how many human generations it will take to replace that
complex ecosystem it supported. it's not just the tree you removed, but the whole network of
life under the tree, the roots, understory shrubs and the complex network in the soils that have
been developing and nurturing diverse life for decades. Planting a few trees with a much
smaller diameter and not replacing the ecosystem that has been destroyed falls way short.
The UFMP asks the City to provide a report which documents Ecosystem Services provided by
Public Trees. I think it should include private property trees as well. I am not in favor of a fee in
lieu program since I see it as giving developers permission to take down trees indiscriminately
and assuage guilt by paying what amounts to not much money to them in a tree bank.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 49
7.1.a
With regard to views, trees can be windowed to reveal some view. We did that on our property
and got the benefit of beautiful trees along with a water view through them and alongside.
That was until a developer took all the trees down on a neighboring lot when it was
redeveloped. Look up "Not a Tree Left Standing" in the Beacon archives. I wrote that at the
time. A 4 ft diameter Big leaf Maple along with at least 10 other significant native trees and
understory shrubs went down. We never did see the diversity of wildlife we enjoyed ever
return.
Seaview woods is a precious and fragile ecosystem since it encompasses a portion of Perrinville
Creek drainage basin. This area has been under a microscope for years by neighbors who want
to protect it. Development would not be a good idea on that 5 acre tract. Citizen Duane
Farmen said recently in an editorial " Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan recommends new
open space acquisitions to preserve environmentally sensitive land, particularly land that is
adjacent to an existing park or open space. The Seaview Woods is exactly what those
recommendations call for." I propose that citizens and the City come up with a plan to
purchase the land from the developer who bought it. That should have happened years ago.
It's not too late.
There's a lot of talk about property rights. But what about the rights of trees. After living for so
long and contributing to cleaning our air and water, controlling erosion, providing shade and
coolness, and providing critical habitat for wildlife, we are jeopardizing our own sustainability if
we don't protect them. I'd like to end with a quote from the Rights of Nature by David Boyd,
2017. "Who Speaks for Trees? And now I ask all of you Will you speak for the trees?"
Thank you for your consideration and service to our community.
Kind regards,
Val Stewart
From: Richard Senderoff
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:01 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment- Perspectives on Draft Tree Code
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm writing to address some overall perspectives regarding the draft tree code and then further
elaborate on the relationship between development, storm water, and trees. First, some
overall draft tree code perspectives:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 50
7.1.a
• There are way too many exemptions! The KISS (Keep It Simple Silly) principle needs to
be followed. The exemptions are subjective and will be subject to "interpretation" by
the Planning Department and, subsequently, the Hearing Examiner/Superior
Court. Exemptions should be few and far between, not the rule. Developers will look
for "loopholes" in the code, which will lead to "band -aids" and a messy code. Keep It
Simple!
• The requirements to replace significant trees or charge developers per tree removed is
much too lenient! The number of replacement trees should be doubled if not
tripled. And the charges per tree removed should be at least 2-3 times (if not up to 5-10
times) higher. Developers will just see these "costs" as the price of doing business.
o There should also be requirements for replacement based on the number of
trees removed per sq. ft. regardless of size/type; trees removed beyond a
specified number per sq.ft. need to be replaced or the developer charged. This
is the only way to protect pocket forests and to dissuade developers from their
current practice of essentially clearcutting prior to construction.
• The Tree Fund needs to be better described in terms of how it will be managed and this
should include tree vouchers provided for free on a first come basis to citizens who
want to plant trees on their properties (as per Lynnwood).
• More than three (3) tree code violations should result in a developer/contractor being
banned from working in Edmonds, as should have happened during Point Edwards
construction years ago. Developers/contractors need to understand the City is
serious. Again, developers will just view charges for violations as the price of doing
business. Carrots won't work for tree preservation; sticks are required!
• It's insufficient to focus on code ONLY pertaining to new development. We need a
comprehensive tree code and this includes currently developed property, etc.
o If we approve only a tree code pertaining to new development, Council will
simply believe they have "checked the box" and move on, without completing a
more comprehensive code. And the tree code will be left unfinished for a long
time (if not forever).
o I don't believe current developed property owners should be charged for
permits. But they should be required to obtain a free permit, allowing the City
to document the number of allowable trees being removed for tracking
purposes. And at this time, they could also be encouraged to donate to the tree
fund based on the cost of a tree voucher/removed tree that could be provided to
other citizens (as described above). Developers should also need to document
the number of trees being removed during construction.
Finally, we can't make decisions regarding tree preservation in a vacuum that doesn't consider
the impact on the environment and utility/stormwater requirements. I shouldn't need to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 51
7.1.a
remind you of the importance of trees regarding stormwater handling, purifying water draining
into our salmon streams, and cleansing the air (in addition to providing wildlife habitat).
I previously was a Steering Committee member on the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project. The
objective of this project was to enhance the wildlife corridors within neighborhoods that
connect to pocket forests, parks, and other open spaces. The speed at which we achieved
Community Wildlife Habitat designation for Edmonds from the National Wildlife Federation is a
testament to the concern and interest that Edmonds citizens have for maintaining and
enhancing our environment. In fact, we were achieving the specified requirements so quickly
(e.g., record time) that the National Wildlife Federation seemed to keep changing the rules in
terms of how they calculated "points" which extended the time for us to achieve the
designation. My point being that the Edmonds community has much interest and concern
regarding our natural areas and tree canopy.
As such, the environment, including tree canopy preservation must be seriously considered
when adopting any development proposals. And the impact of tree removal and development
on our existing stormwater issues MUST be given serious consideration; flooding that results
increases both the City's liability and disrupts the lives of families.
For instance, ALL of our current storm water systems throughout the City failed during recent
rain events, especially in the Perrinville watershed. This included issues on my street in the
Seaview neighborhood, in which stormwater ultimately drains into the Perrinville watershed.
In trying to address these issues with both the Snohomish Conservation District and Public
Works it was stated clearly to me that the Perrinville watershed is the most challenging
stormwater handling area in the City and the current system is insufficient. Yet, the Planning
Department continues to advocate for zoning changes to allow development in Perrinville
Woods. It's as if the Planning Department and Public Works aren't working in a coordinated
manner. In other words, the Planning Department works on behalf of developers to facilitate
development proposals and leaves it up to Public Works stormwater engineers to deal with the
consequences, with a stormwater handling system that currently is insufficient! Don't get me
wrong. As a scientist, I have great respect for engineers. But frankly, they are not always right
and there are many examples of this. And when stormwater systems do not adequately keep
pace with development, solutions become even more challenging and expensive.
Yes, I'm aware of the "excuse" that this was a historic storm. But to offer this excuse is to deny
that climate change (and global warming) is real and the frequency and extent of these events
won't continue to increase. Remember, it's not about temperature. Rather, it's about
energy. And when more energy (e.g., heat) is put into a system the frequency and extent of the
subsequent reaction is increased.
We MUST keep these factors in mind when considering development projects; otherwise,
current and future taxpaying residents will suffer the consequences. There should be NO more
development within the Perrinville watershed, especially Perrinville Woods, until the current
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 52
7.1.a
stormwater issues there are sufficiently addressed. To allow otherwise, is legislative
malpractice!
Respectfully,
Rich
From: joe scordino
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 2:18 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michae1.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment for Public Hearing on Tree Code
Council Members;
The draft Tree Code needs substantive revisions!!!!
The draft Tree Code does NOT even come close to achieving the goals and objectives of the
Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) of 2019. Why did the City go through the whole
process of developing and the Council approving a UFMP, if it only results in an ineffective
Tree Code?
There is no apparent scientific basis for what appears to be arbitrary numbers, percentages,
and provisions in the draft. Further, the draft lacks acknowledgment of the functions and
ecological values of different species of trees and the conditions of the watersheds that these
trees occur in.
The Council NEEDS TO REQUEST the City's Tree Board, which consists of citizens
knowledgeable on trees, to provide recommendations based on the "best available science"
on each of the metrics (diameters, numbers, percentages, etc.) in the draft Tree Code.
As a starting point to fixing the draft code, attached (and below) are suggested changes to
definitions, exemptions, permit requirements, and other sections that need to be made to the
draft Tree Code to start making it more consistent with the UFMP.
Council Members;
Below are suggested changes to only some of the sections of the draft Tree Code
necessary to start making it more consistent with the UFMP.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 53
7.1.a
Section 23.10.020 Definitions
Change definition of part F. Hazard tree to read as follows:
"A significant tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective as
determined by a qualified tree professional, or causing significant physical damage to a
private or public structure, sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities,
driveway, or parking lot."
Delete F. ",--�; nee and change all references of Nuisance tree to "Hazard tree".
(see revised definition of Hazard tree above. There is no reason to separately
distinguish trees that are causing significant damage to property - they are a "hazard")
Delete K. Protected Tree and change all references of PYeteeted Tr^^ to "Significant Tree"
(This makes it clear that primary purpose of this code is to protect and retain trees
with 6" or more diameter)
Section 23.10.030 Permits
Change A. Applicability: to read as follows:
"No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree without a
permit except for removal of trees, with notification to the Planning Department, by
the Public Works Department, Parks Department, Fire Department and or franchised
utilities for one of the following purposes:
1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities.
2. In response to situations involving public safety, substantial fire hazards,
or interruption of services provided by a utility."
Delete part B. (Not needed with above change to part A)
Add new part B.
"B. Fees. Permit application fees will be assessed for each significant tree proposed to
be removed, except no fees will be charged for permits solely for removal of trees on
an improved single-family lot that is not suitable for subdivision."
Section 23.10.040 Exemptions
Delete entire SP"+""''-2.1^.^^^ Exemptions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 54
7.1.a
(Exemptions should only apply in specific and necessary situations such as permit
requirements and fees, and be noted in the applicable sections of the code)
Section 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
Change/simplify this section to read as follows:
"Removal or alteration of a significant tree is prohibited except as provided in a permit
issued by the City of Edmonds."
Section 23.10.080 Tree Replacement
Change/simplify this section to read as follows:
"Every significant tree removed or altered must be replaced with "an ecologically
equivalent number of same species trees (taking into account the growth and
survival of replacement trees) in the parcel where removed, or in another parcel or
park in the same watershed."
Subsequent Sections
Revise subsequent sections of the draft tree code to be consistent with the changes noted
above.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 55
7.1.a
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 6:01 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>;
Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott
<Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: Public Comments for the February 2, 2021 City Council Meeting
At the end of the May 5, 2020 City Council discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60,
Councilmember Susan Paine said August would be an opportune time if it is available to "meet"
the new CEMP as the Emergency Management Policy. Her comments, however, were not
included in the May 5, 2020 Approved City Council Meeting Minutes.
Council Discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60 finally showed up on the September 15, 2020
Agenda. The new CEMP was NOT included in the Agenda Packet, however. There was no new
CEMP to "meet"!
What was included in the Agenda Packet was of such POOR QUALITY that it was immediately
voted off Council's Agenda. Despite months of time to get ready, it was not ready. It contained
errors as I pointed out in my September 13, 2020 email to City Council.
It is now February 2, 2021 and citizens have no way on knowing when City Code Chapter 6.60
will be fixed or when the new CEMP will be presented to Council for approval.
Council President Susan Paine has chosen to not respond to my emails asking her about City
Code Chapter 6.60 and the new CEMP. I believe her conduct is contrary to the City's Code of
Ethics which clearly states that it is mandatory to keep the community informed on municipal
affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers.
I encourage all to watch the video of the May 5, 2020 City Council discussion of City Code
Chapter 6.60. That discussion included Mayor Nelson's representation that the disaster
coordinator is busy coordinating a disaster, implying he was too busy to attend a Council
meeting.
I have attached that portion of the minutes. I have highlighted some of the more important
points. Please also see my documentation of the major error in the May 5t" minutes.
encourage Council to correct that error as soon as possible.
The City of Edmonds knows that WAC 118-30-060 (7) requires the CEMP to be reviewed AND
updated at least once every two calendar years. WAC 118-30-060 (9) requires revised and
updated portions of the plan to be submitted to the director within ninety calendar days of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 56
7.1.a
revision. City of Edmonds Resolution 1386 provides clear evidence that the City of
Edmonds has known for years that Washington State law requires the CEMP to be reviewed
and updated at least once every two calendar years.
The CEMP attached to Resolution 1386 is dated January 2017 on each page of the CEMP
document. That CEMP had to be reviewed AND updated by December 31, 2018. Per Statute,
the revised and updated portions of the CEMP had to be submitted to the director within
ninety calendar days of revision.
Please notify all parties, including all citizens of Edmonds, of the City's failure to review AND
update the City's CEMP as required by statute. Thank you.
Attachment:
From the May 5, 2020 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes:
3. COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 6.60
Councilmember Paine said this is continued discussion from the March 24th meeting. This is
not meant to be a comprehensive change to the code but for the code to more closely match
the RCW and WAC. There were no changes to the emergency powers section other than
minor tweaks. She suggested
returning this to Council on August 18th to include a review of Comprehensive Emergency
Management
Plan (CEMP) if it is ready for review and to make other changes based on the
administration's needs. The administration has not had the opportunity or bandwidth to
make changes to this code andthey really do need to have an opportunity to weigh in on
the operational structure and how things work.
This is the year when the CEMP gets updated.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she sent some amendment/ideas about Section 6.60.090
because Items C and D are duplicative. She asked what Councilmember Paine wanted from
the Council tonight.
Councilmember Paine said she was interested in a review and a full bodied discussion and she
will bring
it back next week or the following week to enact those changes so the code reflects the
requirements in
the RCW and the WAC.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 6.60.080 Proclamation of emergency, Item 3,
which states, "The proclamations of emergency do not need to be ratified by the city
council," and pointed out the CEMP requires ratification. Councilmember Paine said her
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 57
7.1.a
understanding of the CEMP was the City
did not have a safety and disaster coordinator position in place so it was a limited update and
thatmay
be a relic. The CEMP was the operational manual and if the code was changed, the CEMP
instead of the
code would be out of line.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she personally believed the City Council needed to ratify the
proclamation or make a declaration via a resolution of emergency because she believed the
City Council should be involved with approving/supporting the Mayor's proclamation. She
recommended the statement she cited be removed from 6.60.080.3. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday said he was trying not to build a lot of process into this for the sake of process.
Subsections 3 and 4 need to be read together; subsection 4 states, "If in the case that city
council disagrees with the proclamation of emergency or believes that the emergency is no
longer pending, city council may nullify the proclamation of emergency through resolution."
He explained the intent was not to take any power away from the City Council but to put the
power in a place where the Council has the option to do things versus creating process where
the administration has to jump through a bunch of hoops. In the midst of emergency,
checking every last box set forth in the code may not be on everyone's mind. For example, if
there was a
9.0 earthquake, procedural things like getting the Council to ratify a proclamation may not be
front of mind. While leaving the power with the City Council to take away emergency powers,
he did not want to create a lot of unnecessary process.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 36
Packet Pg. 58
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Mr. Taraday may need to agree to disagree; she did
not view as it as an unnecessary administrative thing, basically all the Council would be doing
was affirming the Mayor's proclamation. She recalled Mayor Nelson had called her to say he
was declaring an emergency as outlined in subsection 2. Regardless of whether there was an
earthquake, when an emergency was declared, the Council should in open session ratify the
proclamation so the citizens could see what happened. She viewed it as communication,
transparency and acceptance of the emergency. She questioned how the Council could
remove it if it were not in place. Councilmember Distelhorst said he had a similar question to
Councilmember Buckshnis' question regarding 080. He asked what the Mayor can include in
a proclamation of emergency and whether it was simply this is an emergency full stop or
could there be other items that are considered under the order that require Council
ratification. Mr.
Taraday said any order, even if bundled with the proclamation, still needs to be ratified by the
City Council.
Councilmember Distelhorst clarified there could not be a proclamation that includes an item
covered by the order that does not need Council ratification. Mr. Taraday said the Council
would not be able tg
avoid what was of Ling it in the initial
proclamation.
-MISTAKE — MR. TARADAY WAS REFERRING TO THE MAYOR NOT COUNCIL. Anything that
looked like
an order would still have to be ratified. The proclamation simply states there is an emergency
Councilmember K. Johnson explained the CEMP is coordinated at a state and county level. In
the last iteration, there were only minor changes made. That does not make it a relic; it is a
living document that
needs to be updated every two years. She agreed the City did not have an emergency
management coordinator when the CEMP was last updated; then -Police Chief Compaan was
the director responsible for updating the CEMP and it had been reviewed and adopted by
Council.
Councilmember Olson referred to Section 6.60.090 and suggested removing Subsections C, D
and E and renumbering the remaining subsections. Anything that gets done under these
emergency orders are things the actual emergency necessitates. Being specific about what
might happen during an emergency isn't helpful, may cause someone concern, and those
issues will not come into play unless required by the emergency. Subsection B is broad and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 37
Packet Pg. 59
7.1.a
includes the specifics cited in Subsections C, D and E. She referred to 6.60.065 Continuity of
government, stating she felt strongly that the experience of whoever was stepping up was of
the utmost value in an emergency situation versus spending time figuring out who the players
were. The people who have been around the longest are the most likely to know how to act.
She recommended deleting Subsection B so that remaining city councilmembers in order of
continuous seniority would follow the council president. The council president is guaranteed
some seniority because they were likely pro tem before becoming council president.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 38
Packet Pg. 60
7.1.a
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the subsections in Section 6.60.090 already
existed. Councilmember Paine said they were the result of discussion over the last six weeks.
Mr. Taraday clarified the entire section was added in March, but nothing has been added
since the Council last amended it. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked where that
language came from. Mr. Taraday answered Section 6.60.090 was a conglomeration of
Seattle and Everett primarily; several other cities have similar provisions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested in the future identifying it as new language so it
was easier to understand. Mr. Taraday clarified it was not new language. They had only
highlighted changes that had been made since the last time the Council saw this. Mayor
Nelson clarified Mr. Taraday's definition of "new" and Council President Fraley-Monillas'
definition were different.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed that language was not in the policy before the
pandemic and before the Council began working on this. Mr. Taraday agreed. Council
President Fraley-Monillas said it would be clearer and easier to understand, especially in a
document of this size, if that was indicated.
She found it difficult to track because it was so large and some sections seem duplicative. Mr.
Taraday said it would be helpful for future packet preparation to know which version the
Council wanted the document redlined against. His custom was to only show the most recent
changes. Council President FraleyMonillas said normally the most recent was fine, but
because this was a new section, it would be easier to understand if what was added in
previous months was highlighted. One of the issues is this is a large policy to comprehend.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the original is attached to Ordinance 4177. She agreed there
were a lot of new sections. She recommended Mr. Taraday use Marysville instead of Seattle
or Everett. She concurred with Councilmember Olson's suggestion to remove Subsections C,
D and E because they were redundant and already addressed in B. She has received a lot of
comments about Subsections C, D and
E. The issue with C is closing bars, taverns and liquor stores. One person expressed concern
that the Mayor can decide whether those businesses remain open or not. Marysville's code
does not even address that issue nor does it address guns which was in the former
Subsection G. She suggested attaching Ordinance 4177 which shows the new language.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she also received emails from citizens about the policy and
they are generally confused. She suggested it would be helpful for Council and citizens to put
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 39
Packet Pg. 61
7.1.a
everything in context in the narrative. Some people are under the mistaken impression that
the City is still under ESCA
when in fact the City is now under Snohomish County emergency management. It would also
be helpful to describe the new 911 coordination because that has also changed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 40
Packet Pg. 62
7.1.a
Councilmember Paine said much of the language in the changes proposed today are from
Lake Stevens and Lynnwood; Lake Stevens updated their code in 2019 and Lynnwood updated
their code in 2018. She thought they were good sources of information because they are both
local and part of Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she understood the desire to potentially take out
Subsection C, but she was likely the only Councilmember who has been through a Category 5
hurricane in a third world country where one of the first thing they did was shut off all the
alcohol. There may need to be other changes made such as an order requiring the closure of
any businesses that the Mayor deems.The Council will likely need to discuss this policy
amendment -by -amendment because everyone will have their own opinions.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Councilmember Paine confirmed the verbiage in pink is from
Lake Stevens and Lynnwood. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Fraley-
Monillas that some of the sections are new so they need to be differentiated. She still has
concerns with Section
6.60.090 but not as many concerns as when the subsection regarding guns was included. She
reiterated the Council should ratify the proclamation.
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Paine for the unbelievable
amount of time she has spent creating a good valid policy. She also thanked Mr. Taraday for
his work.
Councilmember Paine asked the Council's preference whether to bring this back next week or
in two
weeks. The majority of the Council preferred to have it come back in two weeks.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested now that the City has an emergency management
coordinator, it
would be nice to have him be part of the presentation so the Council can meet him,
understand his role
and get his input on the policy, because once the policy is established, he will be implementing
it. Mayor
Nelson said the disaster coordinator is busy coordinating a disaster and will be coordinating it
until there
is no longer a disaster. At that point, he would be happy to make the disaster coordinator
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 41
Packet Pg. 63
7.1.a
available to
talk about policies like this.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the policy would come back in two weeks, recalling
Councilmember Paine suggested August 18th in the memo. Councilmember Paine said she
would like to bring the policy back in August because the administration has not had an
opportunity to review the policy because they have been busy coordinating an emergency and
she did not envision that slowing down until probably August. She wanted to bring the policy
back in two weeks to get it closer to compliance with the RCW and WAC. The WAC has a long
list of requirements for the CEMP. One that is not required in the WAC and likely does not
need to be detailed in the code is placing notices on all
school doors. When the Council next reviews the policy, she planned to request that be
removed. The
City will be better served by having the emergency coordinator do this work in August and
Augustwill
also provide an opportunity for the public to provide input.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council may make an amendment and find
out the administration wants something different. She acknowledged the policy would
still be in limbo until
August.
From: Clara Cleve
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 20219:43 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code
Dear Edmonds City Council,
I would like to add to my message from yesterday. We have a Climate Crisis. Our Edmonds
Tree Canopy are our lungs for our community. To increase our tree Canopy maybe we need to
give an incentive to our community to help increase the planting of trees. And an incentive not
to cut them down, for instance in our own back yards.
Thank you for all your work helping us to become a better community.
Sincerely,
Clara Cleve
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 42
Packet Pg. 64
7.1.a
Edmonds, WA
98020
From: Clara Cleve
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 3:42 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code
Dear Edmonds City Council,
I am a residence here in Edmonds. I am alarmed at the fact that we allow building lots to be
completely stripped of any trees especially old growth trees. It will take years to replace the
carbon reducing element of those trees. The sheer beauty of our tree canopy needs to be
maintained and enlarged. We need to preserve our existing tree canopy and make it better,
plant more trees and stop cutting down trees.
We need to have a Tree Code that does not allow builders to strip lots of trees! The Tree Code
needs to only allow trees to be cut down that are in the way of the Actual Building! The Code
needs to not allow exceptions, period! "No net loss" is a weak policy. We need to have a
strong tree replacement within the Code.
There were two other areas that makes this version of the tree code rather ineffective. There
are too many exemptions in the code that circumvent a good tree retention plan and too many
situations included where administrative decisions can be made to accommodate the
landowner.
I would like to see the council send the Tree Code update back to the Planning Board to come
up with a strong and more effective tree code. You need to rid some of the exceptions and
administrative accommodating sections of the code and strengthen the no net loss policy.
Thank you for the work you are doing to improve our community.
Sincerely,
Clara Cleve Edmonds, WA
From: K Keefe
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 7:42 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment- Draft Tree Regulations
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 43
Packet Pg. 65
7.1.a
Dear Edmonds City Council Members,
First of all, thank you for the work you do on behalf of our city.
Second, please consider my comments regarding the draft tree regulations, I cannot make the
public hearing meeting due to conflicting medical appointments, but I sincerely hope that you
will read this and consider it before the hearing.
Allow me to relay a great example as to why tree regulations are important in our city:
Tomorrow, Tuesday (ironically the same day you will be holding a public hearing on tree
regulations), my neighbor is being forced to cut down two of her beautiful, tall cedar trees
because her next door neighbor does not like them. He finds them to be "too messy," which is
silly as cedars loose very little foliage or branches. He has bullied her for nearly two years about
this, and as a single, disabled, older woman, she has very little recourse to stand up against him.
Why should SHE be forced to remove HER trees on HER property because he simply does not
like them? This has devastated her and caused her chronic health condition to flare. This a
situation where a strong tree regulation code could help save trees.
Further, the removal of her trees will have a domino effect on my trees which benefit from
southern wind block from her trees. Their removal could potentially cause more damage to my
trees. Will my trees be damaged and need to be removed? If that is the case, the initial
removal of two trees will become the loss of thirteen trees.
Because of one neighbor who "doesn't like" trees, we all loose out as a community who enjoys
clean air and wildlife. This is allowable in our city because there are no regulations preventing
senseless acts of tree removal such as in the example I just gave.
Situations such as this CAN be prevented and CAN be prevented by elected officials such as
yourself.
I implore you to pass the tree code as it is for now, because something is better than nothing,
however please don't stop here! Move towards strengthening regulations on private property
(where the majority of Edmonds tree canopy exists) before it is too late! Our native tree
canopy is a gem and is part of what makes Edmonds, Edmonds. Let's not loose something that
we cannot get back.
With thanks,
Killy Keefe
Edmonds
From: Gayla Shoemake <gaylashoemake@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 10:36 PM
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 44
Packet Pg. 66
7.1.a
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code Public Hearing
Dear City Council,
In this time when the world, the US, the state, and Edmonds City are all taking climate change
and saving the planet, exceedingly seriously, and because our time is down to 9 years before it
is too late, it is critical for us to look at every possible way to reduce our carbon and increase
our carbon sequestration. As I understand, the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee is in the
process of preparing the framework for a new Climate Action Plan for the City of Edmonds, and
one of the items to be included will be increasing the number of trees in our home town to
assist with carbon sequestration. Clearly, not only are trees essential for our canopy to protect
us from the increased heat of the sun, but they sequester carbon in miraculous ways, over 48
pounds per tree per year; that's over 1 ton during a 40 year lifetime times the number of trees.
Once a tree is lost or gained, the impact on our communitiy is immense. While Edmonds is
looking for ways to sequester the carbon we keep generating, one fairly easy way to sequester
a lot of that carbon is to increase the number of trees in the city, by 1) Maintaining the ones we
have and 2) Planting more.
The current TreeCode being presented simply does NOT do either to a sufficient
extent. Changes are needed: First, there must be attention paid to current, healthy trees on
private property since MOST of the trees in Edmonds are on private propery. Those healthy
trees must remain on that private land, and incentives devised to make it easy for property
owners to keep the trees. Various incentives have been suggested and they should be
enacted. Second change, additional trees on private land must be encouraged, and on public
land and new to-be-devoped land must be required. Again, incentives for private land,
requirements for public land, and increased requirements for land to be developed.
These changes are not difficult, and they can be a win -win for everyone, especially our children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. We are the adults who can make a difference now,
please take action now to save and increase the trees in Edmonds, which can help save our city
and planet.
Sincerely,
Gayla Shoemake
From: Finis Tupper
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 11:37 AM
To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: CEMP City Response
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 45
Packet Pg. 67
7.1.a
Good morning Susan
Who authored the City response that you provided to the Edmonds Beacon?
As you should be now well aware the response contained misinformation which needs to be
admitted to by the City and corrected. Or does the City really think the CEMP is optional?
Is it your decision to not respond to a citizens request for information? Or have you been advise
not to respond because it's hard to admit you misspoke for the City?
Let's clear this matter up and create a functional CEMP for the purpose of providing Public
Safety and Welfare to the Citizens of Edmonds. Also let's do an accountability audit of the
Disaster & Safety Manager including an evaluation of tasks and accomplishments since his date
of hire.
Finis Tupper
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 3:05 PM
To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>;
Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>; Lora Petso <votepetso@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel"
as a Permitted Use in the CW zone
Council,
Here is an additional email, sent on February 4, related to the previous discussion of adding
"Hotel" as a permitted use.
For Council President Paine's reference, the email I forwarded earlier was dated February 18,
2020.
Joan Bloom
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>;
Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 46
Packet Pg. 68
7.1.a
Cc: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>; Lora Petso <votepetso@aol.com>
Subject: Conditional hotel use at waterfront
Council,
Ken Reidy alerted me that Council will again be discussing the issue of "Conditional hotel use at
the waterfront." He also noted that my email, below, is not in your packet for this Tuesday's
meeting, so I am re -sending the email.
Council President Paine,
I request that in the future, the Council President makes sure that previous public comments
received on issues be included in your packets for review. This simple task could be delegated
to Council assistant, Maureen Judge. Valuing citizen input in this manner would demonstrate
respect for citizens and for their time spent following Council agenda and providing input for
your consideration.
Joan Bloom
Council member Olson, Council, and Mayor Nelson,
Thank you, Council member Olson, for your response to my email regarding hotel use at the
waterfront. I appreciate the time you took to respond to my concerns.
As you suggested, I listened to the council discussion on February 4, and continue to urge every
Council member to vote AGAINST adding conditional hotel use at the waterfront. The following
points were not satisfactorily addressed by staff:
(1) Council member Buckshnis raised concerns regarding parking. The pending waterfront
multi -generational center will bring added burden to parking at the waterfront.
(2) Council member Buckshnis asked for data on whether or not Edmonds Harbor Inn is
consistently full throughout the year. The EDC should have been provided with that information
in advance of making a recommendation to Council, yet staff was unable to provide that
information to Council at your meeting.
(3) Mr. Doherty presented nothing to support his "argument" that a hotel would be more
accessible to the public. A "boutique hotel" would cater to wealthy tourists. The Edmonds
public would not be welcome inside to enjoy the facilities, ambience, or views, unless they were
paying customers.
My major concern, however, remains the fact that our staff continues to ignore a critical
element of our environmental code related to seismic hazard areas, in which the entire
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 47
Packet Pg. 69
7.1.a
waterfront is located. To refresh Council members' memories, the code I refer to is the
following:
"which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;"
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2380.html#23.80.O6
0
"ECDC 23.80.040 Geologically Hazardous areas
B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area,
whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment
or public assembly;
2. Additions to existing single -story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and
3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]."
Under our former administration, staff presented the Harbor Square Master plan for Council
review. The entire plan is in direct violation of ECDC 23.80.040, above.
And to state the obvious, the new multi -generational center is also in direct violation of ECDC
23.80.040.
Why does the COE administration and staff continue to ignore this code, and continue to bring
uses for approval to Council that violate this code? My trust level of our city government is so
low that every time I look it up, I expect the code to have disappeared.
Please consider future environmental challenges when making any decisions about changes to
code at our waterfront. Please vote against adding a conditional hotel use at our waterfront.
I have copied Ken Reidy because he has brought many violations of our code to Council's
attention. I have copied Lora Petso because she was referenced in Council member Olson's
response to me.
Regards,
Joan
From: Katy Levenhagen
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:28 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Perrinville Trees
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 48
Packet Pg. 70
7.1.a
Hello,
I understand that the Edmonds City Council is meeting tonite to review the Tree Code update
about the trees remaining in the Seaview/Perinnville woods. As an Edmonds resident living very
close to the woods and what would be the new proposed development I would like to weigh in
on the tree code proposal. I advocate that as many trees as possible be left standing to ensure
the integrity of the tree corridor between Seaview Park and South County Park on both sides of
Olympic View Drive. I understand some development is important for the city's revenue. That
should never supersede the natural habitat that makes Edmonds the very appealing livable
place that it is. Removing large swaths of those trees would decrease the livability of the area
for the wildlife, increase noise levels, and possibly impact run-off and remove the natural
progression of trees and shrubs for a 1 mile area.
Please be very thoughtful about your choices to greatly change this area of the
Seaview/Perrinville woods.
Sincerely,
Katy Levenhagen
Edmonds, WA 98026
Thank you.
Public Comment submitted in writing by Dawna Lahti 1/30/21
Dear Revered Councilmembers:
Please allow me to join the conversation again.
--Perrinville Woods contains irreplaceable canopy of mature trees with all of the ecological
benefits that entails; I urge you to make every effort to preserve it intact as a city park and
habitat -rich greenspace. In the world of wildlife corridors, canopy and naturally sculpted earth,
the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. There are ways to extend city dollars
through grants such that the cost becomes nominal. But the will to do it must be shown now
while the acreage and its biodiversity remain a unit.
--As a person enthralled by the beauty and benefits of trees, I ask you as city leaders to take a
favorable stance on the proposed Tree Code. I would, however, ask you to broaden the stated
uses of the "fee in lieu" kitty. As currently understood this fund would be restricted to tree
purchase. In fact, this would buy more trees than Edmonds has space to plant them —probably
in the first year. Manpower must be diverted to the task and saplings must have protection and
maintenance. Broaden the language to include the cost of anything required to have a healthy
urban forest. I thank you for the gracious, tree -rich city you will bequeath us.
Respectfully,
Dawna L. Lahti
Mrs. Lahti asked that the following excerpt be placed in the public record as well:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 49
Packet Pg. 71
7.1.a
FORESTS AND CARBON • 35
the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is very easy to
measure, but it seems very difficult to do anything about.
- When we lose forest cover, which we have been doing globally, con-
tinually, for the last five thousand years, we lose one of our best carbon
sinks. An estimated third of the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750
is due to removal of forests. But forests can only be protected locally,
can't they? And if the local decision makers don't care about global
effects, the tragedy of the commons is something we all have to live
and breathe, literally.
We are frequently reminded to turn off the lights to save electric-
ity —because burning fuels that release carbon dioxide provides most of
our electricity —but we are less frequently reminded to save the forests.
The faster a tree grows, the more carbon dioxide it takes out of the
atmosphere in a unit of time. This is true, but how do we know how
fast a tree grows? We used to rely on foresters to answer that question.
lheywould screw a long, thin hollow metal tube into a tree and extract
ra core about the size of a long drinking straw. On this core one could see
stripes that each corresponded to ayear's growth. The wider the stripe,
the more wood the tree had added to its trunk that year, and hence the
more carbon it had sequestered. As the trees got older, the stripes (tree
rings) got narrower and narrower. This led the foresters to assume that
the growth rate of the trees was slowing down. If you are growing trees
for money, this is the point at which you might want to take them down.
Remember that economics principle about diminishing returns? It is
looking at forests in this way that leads to short rotation times (years
between harvests). In Maryland the rotation time is only about forty
years now for loblolly pines.
And if trees are growing more slowly, they are taking in less car-
bon dioxide, right? And it's better for the environment to have young
actively growing trees, right? Wrong.
The problem with the former rationale is that while growth rings
get narrower, they also gain in circumference as a tree grows. A little
mathematics shows that a narrower ring of greater circumference can
w c 0 d a 01 d -Gw-c evil) v-e, s�s
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 2, 2021
Page 50
Packet Pg. 72
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #246015 through #246086 dated February 4, 2021 for $220,084.69 (re -issued
check #246039 $191.57).
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64600 through #64602 for $637,557.57, benefit checks
#64603 through #64608 and wire payments of $649,272.64 for the pay period January 16, 2021 through
January 31, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit 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 02-04-21
FrequentlyUsedProjN umbers 02-04-21
Payroll Summary 02-05-21
Payroll Benefits 02-05-21
Packet Pg. 73
7.2.a
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
02/03/2021
2:27:28PM
City of Edmonds
aD
L
3
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
.y
Amoun 0
a
aD
246015
2/4/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
INV-2-7951
INV-2-7951 - EDMONDS PD - LOCK[
EXTERNAL CARRIER
r
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
200.0(
2 NAME TAPES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
ui
16.0(
2 VELCRO
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
t
10.0( U
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( d
HEAT PRESS - EDMONDS PD
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
RADIO CASE
f°
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
35.2E 0-
TOURNIQUET POUCH
>+
�a
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
36.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
32.0, fd
Total:
349.25 ,-
0
246016 2/4/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 41388 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
0
L
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
90.0( a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
9.3E
Total :
99.3(
0
246017 2/4/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC 012921002 FINANCE DEPT WATER
cm
Finance dept water
0
V)
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
27.8( .
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
2.8� ;
012921004 WWTP: 1/29/21 ACCT: COEWASTE:
(D
Acct COEWaste:-
E
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
t
20.8E u
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246017 2/4/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC (Continued)
246018 2/4/2021 077968 ANIMAL MEDICAL CTR OF SEATTLE 580963
246019 2/4/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1992083791
1992083793
1992092972
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total :
INV 580963 - EDMONDS PD - ACE
CLINDAMYCIN CAPSULES - ACE
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
CARPROFEN-ACE
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
Total
WWTP: 1/20/21 UNIFORMSJOWEL
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.1
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
WWTP: 1/27/20 UNIFORMSJOWEL
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.1
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
7.2.a
Page: 2
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
'D
53.71 m
L_
N
40.2E y
z
U
44.8,
85.1E c
c
�a
51.4E —
0
1.4- a
5.3E •�
U
0.1.' o
7a
0
29.5E Q
a
Q
3.0;
N
4
0
51.4E c�
0
1.4- E
5.3E U
c
a�
0.1E E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 3
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246019 2/4/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
0
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
as
61.1 E -0
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
m
6.3E .L
1992092973
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0 1
1992098071
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
c
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6-
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1- 0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1- a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1- 1i
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1- 0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
>
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0£ o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1 � Q
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6,
10.4% Sales Tax
c
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z o
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z -9
10.4% Sales Tax
z
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6-
10.4% Sales Tax
0
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z t
1992098072
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
246019 2/4/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
Total :
246020
2/4/2021
064452 ARMSTRONG SERVICES
4262
WWTP: 1.2021 JANITORIAL & COVI
1/2021 JANITORIAL SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
1/2021 COVID DISINFECTANT SER
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total :
246021
2/4/2021
071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
0290639-IN
WWTP: 1/19/21 DIESEL FUEL
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
Total
246022
2/4/2021
064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC
S118761
alerton system-PW
alerton system-PW
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total
246023
2/4/2021
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
70068
ROUGH BOX - EGHAREVBA
ROUGH BOX - EGHAREVBA
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
7.2.a
Page: 4
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
246023 2/4/2021 001801 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO (Continued)
246024 2/4/2021 001527 AW WA 7001880968
246025 2/4/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC
246026 2/4/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY
Description/Account
Total ;
PW: KRIS KUHNHAUSEN MEMBER;
PW: KRIS KUHNHAUSEN MEMBER;
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
Total
5736256
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
5736555
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
5737506
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
5738116
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
5738758
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
Total
94891119 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
7.2.a
Page: 5
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
627.0( 0
U
d
L_
86.0(
86.0(
m
z
501.7E (D
c
50.1 £ -a
c
�a
199.3�
�a
a
19.9z E
U
390.1E o
Ta
39.0, c
L
a
a
Q
N
24.0, c
N
O
V)
160.1z E
16.0"
1,640.81 as
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246026 2/4/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY
246027 2/4/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
Tota I :
26024247
INV 26024247 - EDMONDS PD
12/20 BW USAGE - C55501
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
12/20 CLR USAGE - C55501
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
1/21 CONTRACT - C55501
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
26024250
INV 26024250 - EDMONDS PD
1/21 CONTRACT- FAXBOARD
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
26024253
INV 26024253 - EDMONDS PD
1/21 CONTRACT - 3BB01296
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
1/21 CONTRACT - 2W U 12307
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
1/21 CONTRACT - 2WU09103
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
1/21 CONTRACT - 3CE00901
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
26024254
INV 26024254 - EDMONDS PD
1/21 CONTRACT- 3AP01257
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
1/21 CONTRACT - 3AP01257
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
7.2.a
Page: 6
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
372.2' 'D
r
U
d
37.5� .L
409.8,
N
Y
V
m
20.2(
m
c
69.2( �
185.7z
0
28.6,
�a
a
36.0,
3.7E o
Ta
0
L
53.1 z a
Q
53.1 z
N
53.1 z o
N
53.1 z
E
22.1'
c
a�
175.9E z
U
175.9E Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
246027
2/4/2021
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
Tota I :
246028
2/4/2021
075728 CARDINAL HEATING & A/C
BLD2020-1345
REFUND -PERMIT FEES
BLD2020-1345-
001.000.257.620
Total
246029
2/4/2021
064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
683357
CITY & COMM. DEV CODE & ORDIN
city and dev services code updates n
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
68500
CODE PUBLISHING PRINT SUPPLE
code publishing print supplement
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Tota I :
246030
2/4/2021
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
8498310300732547
PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
Total
246031
2/4/2021
063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC
275859
STORM - CATCH BASIN
7.2.a
Page: 7
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246031
2/4/2021
063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC
(Continued)
0
STORM - CATCH BASIN
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
2,397.0( u
10.4% Sales Tax
L
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
249.2E
Total:
2,646.21
m
246032
2/4/2021
061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03
INV 663193
INV 663193 - EDMONDS PD
v
CALIBRATE GHD-20547
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0(
CALIBRATE SHD-04163
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0(
CALIBRATE GHD-03890
sa
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0( o
CALIBRATE GHD-12646
>,
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0( a
CALIBRATE GHD-14955
E
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0( 'ji
CALIBRATE GHD-15003
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0( 0
CALIBRATE GHD-20076
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0( o
CALIBRATE FH10284
a
a
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0( Q
CALIBRATE GHD-20922
T"
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
70.0(
FUEL SURCHARGE
o
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
30.0( c
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
68.6z •�
Total:
728.6z U
246033
2/4/2021
006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
FredP-OPS3APP
WWTP: FPANGELINAN OPS 3 APPI.
a�
FPANGELINAN OPS 3 APPLICATIO
E
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
67.0( U
�a
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246033 2/4/2021 006626 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY (Continued)
246034 2/4/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 21-4066
246035 2/4/2021 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 22473
22508
246036 2/4/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2047
ai1+71,
2051
PO # Description/Account
Total
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1/26
council meeting minutes 1/26
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Total
PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND IN
PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND IN
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
STORM WATER HOUSE - FURNISH
STORM WATER HOUSE - FURNISH
422.000.72.531.20.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.20.48.00
Total
CITY PARK BUILDING - SUPPLIES
CITY PARK BUILDING - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: CAULK
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: CAULK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
FAC MAINT SHOP & M.C.H. - SUPPI.
FAC MAINT SHOP SULLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
M.C.H. - SUPPLIES/ FAUCET
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.2.a
Page: 9
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
67.0(
U
d
L_
367.2( T3
367.2( tf
m
z
5,563.0( (D
578.5E -a
c
�a
681.0E
�a
a
70.8
6,893.4; .E
0
5.5� >
0
a
0.5£ Q
N
2.4E
0
N
23.9, c
V)
E
M
49.9E
c
129.9� E
z
U
18.7-
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246036 2/4/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
246037
246039
246040
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
2052
KIT-1
ME-
2/4/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR184305
2/4/2021 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT
2/4/2021 078108 ESTATE OF JAMES JOHNSON
2/4/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
312 000 093
2-05100
EDH917837
PO # Description/Account
PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT
PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
Maintenance 01/21/21 - 02/20/21 Car
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total
ES REF # 94513310 7
04-20 Unemployment Claims
001.000.39.517.78.23.00
Total
#20-227120 UTILITY REFUND
#20-227120 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE DRAFT l
7.2.a
Page: 10
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
r
U
d
74.2E
7.7;
m
4.3(
m
c
0.4E
c
�a
16.5E 0
L
1.7, a
336.31
U
0
307.2( Ta
0
L
31.9E a
339.1E Q
N
0
8,868.2- N
8,868.21 N
E
191.5 c
191.5j E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246040 2/4/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
E D H 917923
246041 2/4/2021 075381 EVERETT POLYGRAPH SERVICES LLC 2021-0126E
2021-0129E
246042 2/4/2021 074613 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 869-422957380
246043 2/4/2021 076542 GRANICUS 136247
246044 2/4/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5024552
246045 2/4/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0551912030
PO # Description/Account
public hearing notice draft tree regs
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
PLANNING - ADVERTISING
Planning - Legal Ad-
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
Total
INV 2021-126E ENTRY LEO POLYGI
ENTRY LEVEL POLYGRAPH 1/26/21
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
INV 2021-0129E FOLLOW UP POLYi
FOLLOW UP POLYGRAPH 1/29/21
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
EOGA.SUBDIVISION/PLAT CERTIFIC
EOGA.Subdivision/Plat Certificate
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
Total
CIVIC STREAMING, AGENDA & MIN
civic streaming, agenda and minutes
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
Total
WWTP: PO 487 CASTER STEEL S1l\
PO 487 CASTER STEEL SWIVEL &
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.2% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
7.2.a
Page: 11
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
47.6( u
50.4( Y
98.0(
m
c
200.0( �
c
�a
250.0( o
450.0(
�a
a
E
384.3(
384.3( c
Ta
0
a
1,417.5" Q
147.4' N
1,564.9' Iq
0
N
V)
36.3E
3.7E
40.11 E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 84
7.2.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 12
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM City of Edmonds
a�
L
3
Bank code : usbank
c
�a
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun y
246045 2/4/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET (Continued)
0
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
644.9� u
0551912031
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
L
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
439.6( Y
0551912032
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
246.0(
0551912033
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
c
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4.E
0551912034
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
sa
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
o
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
0551912035
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
a
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
221.6E 'ji
0551912036
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BI
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BI
o
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4.E >
0551912037
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
o
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
a
a
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,514.1 , Q
0551912038
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
N
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E o
0551912039
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
c
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
,n
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
118.2.E .
Total:
3,666.41
246046 2/4/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3438942
WWTP: PO 491 COPY PAPER
PO 491 COPY PAPER
a�
E
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
85.9E U
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246046 2/4/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
246047
246048
246049
2/4/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
2/4/2021 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3439986
DEV SVCS SUPPLIES
New rubber dater for dater stamp
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
3440537
WWTP: PO 494 KITCHEN TRASH I
PO 494 KITCHEN TRASH LINERS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total:
300-10082159 FLEET - PARTS
FLEET - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
300-10082244 FLEET - PARTS
FLEET - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Total :
6303 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
Feb-2021 Fiber Optics Internet
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Total
2/4/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0253489
UNIT 284 - PARTS
UNIT 284 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7.2.a
Page: 13
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
8.9z 'D
r
U
d
36.9E
N
3.8z
190.7z
a�
19.8z
346.25 sa
0
�a
a
364.8f
37.9E U
4-
0
Ta
216.0( o
L
a
a
22.4E Q
641.25
N
0
N
590.0( N
E
61.3E R
651.3E U
c
a�
E
t
U
354.8 ,
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246049 2/4/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC (Continued)
246050 2/4/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
246051 2/4/2021 078285 NPDESPRO LLC
246052 2/4/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
0604060-IN WATER - BIBS & JACKETS
WATER - BIBS & JACKETS
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
0604362-IN SEWER - CH4 50% LEL IN AIR
SEWER - CH4 50% LEL IN AIR
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total :
1021 NPDESPRO ANNUAL LICENSING FI
3-Year License with Unlimited Users
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
One Time Fee for Migration,
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
Total
3685-112763 UNIT 51 MARKER LIGHT
UNIT 51 MARKER LIGHT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-113073 UNIT 51 MARKER LIGHT
UNIT 51 MARKER LIGHT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7.2.a
Page: 14
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
36.9- u
391.7f
N
m
146.3E v
15.2,
d
145.0(
0
15.0�
321.6E a
E
U
17,000.0( c
Ta
3,800.0( p
L
a
2,163.2( Q
22,963.2f
N
0
N
21.9" o
V)
E
20 .M
c
7.11 E
t
0.7.'
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 87
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 15
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
246052
2/4/2021
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
(Continued)
0
3685-113748
UNIT 796 - PARTS/ CAPSULE
UNIT 796 - PARTS/ CAPSULE
U
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
m
19.1( .L
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.9(
Total:
53.2(
246053
2/4/2021
070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
122872
INV 122872 - CS 21-2059 - EDMONE
TOW TAHOE -CS 21-2059 1.51-IRS
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
276.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
28.9E
Total:
304.9f o
0
246054
2/4/2021
071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS
2021-02
INV 2021-02 - EDMONDS PD - JENSCL
ca
SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
515.0( •�
Freight
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
20.0( c
Sales Tax
Ta
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
45.4E p
Total:
580.4f a
a
246055
2/4/2021
028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
1 E23693
WATER - 5-CORNERS MOTION SW I
Q
WATER - 5-CORNERS MOTION SWI
N
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
172.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
c
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
N
17.9�
1 F04612
W WTP: PO 490 CH DH221 NRK, FLI`
N
E
PO 490 CH DH221 NRK, FLNR020,)
M
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
449.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
46.7( E
1 F19889
WWTP: PO 490 APP HUB
PO 490 APP HUB
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 16
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246055 2/4/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
(Continued)
0
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
as
10.0 1
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
m
1.0E .L
1 F89489
WWTP: PO 503 THHN STIR CU, PEN
PO 503 THHN STIR CU, PEN CRMP
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
229.2(
10.4% Sales Tax
U
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
23.8,
Total:
950.9' c
246056 2/4/2021 064167 POLLARD WATER
WP015049
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
�a
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
841.7� o
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
87.5, a
Total :
929.X
246057 2/4/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
200002411383
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
U
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
43.8( ii
200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
>
0
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
a
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
445.3� Q
200009595790
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
943.5z c
200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
N
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
92.4< E
200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
2
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,916.1 < C
200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
E
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,171.7�
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246057 2/4/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued)
200017676343
200019375639
200019895354
gi1111w1:&VM
200024711901
PO # Description/Account
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
Total
246058 2/4/2021 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC N8687762 MACHINE LEASE NOV 2020 TO FEE
machine lease nov 2020 to feb 2021
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
N8700210 MACHINE LEASE FEB TO MAY 2021
machine lease feb to may 2021
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
7.2.a
Page: 17
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
575.8E
N
404.3z
325.3� c
aD
44.1 E
0
167.7� `5%
M
a
167.7E E
167.7� u
4-
0
167.7� >
0
L
167.7E a
Q
463.2E
7,265.0( c
N
O
V)
E
1,542.6( u
160.4< y
E
t
U
192.0(
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 18
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
246058
2/4/2021
075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
19.9 1
Tota I :
1,915.0(
246059
2/4/2021
030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
30070
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ELLIS
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ELLIS
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
384.0(
Total :
384.0(
246060
2/4/2021
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-030216
UNIT 284 & 527 - BATTERIES
UNIT 284 & 527 - BATTERIES
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
197.7E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
20.5,
Total :
218.3:
246061
2/4/2021
078286 RUTHERFORD, DEBRAJ
2005708.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
182.0(
Tota I :
182.0(
246062
2/4/2021
073066 SAFARILAND LLC
I010-348423
INV I010-348423 - CUST 3000703 - E
GAS MASK VOLUME CONTROL
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
1,017.0(
Tota I :
1,017.0(
246063
2/4/2021
033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL
2477367
STORM - SPEEDCRETE & CMU SOI
STORM - SPEEDCRETE & CMU SOI
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
1,654.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
172.0,
Total :
1,826.0:
246064
2/4/2021
036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
14-409090
FLEET - PARTS
FLEET - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
110.8�
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 91
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246064 2/4/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
246065 2/4/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Tota I :
200348233
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200468593
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
200493146
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200638609
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201236825
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201572898
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201611951
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201656907
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN!
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN!
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201751476
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201782646
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
7.2.a
Page: 19
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
11.5< u
122.4:.L
N
m
46.1 ,
m
c
420.8E �
c
�a
18.3, o
�a
a
334.9-
U
118.5E o
Ta
0
L
593.4E m
Q
52.4, N
0
N
36.9E N
E
2
276.2 ,
c
a�
E
55.8E U
�a
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 92
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246065 2/4/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
201907862
202087870
202289120
202421582
202807632
204292213
246066 2/4/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2020-6654
2020-6654 CM
246067 2/4/2021 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 3257
PO # Description/Account
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
Total
INV 2020-6654 EDMONDS PD - DEC
INMATE ER & DIAGOSTIC TESTS 11
001.000.39.523.60.41.00
INMATE MD CARE IN HOSPITAL 11/,
001.000.39.523.60.41.00
INMATE MEDS 12/20
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
INV 2020-6654 CREDIT FOR OCT-N,
CREDIT FOR OCT/NOV INMATE PH,
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
Total
FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA-
7.2.a
Page: 20
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
18.8� u
34.9(
m
U
191.2�
m
c
d
69.8f
�a
0
220.9E `5%
M
a
E
21.71 'ij
U
4-
0
157.7E
2,669.2' o
a
a
Q
2,041.0( N
0
1,964.0( c
U)
28.0E E
U
-20.8- y
4,012.2° E
t
U
co
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 93
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246067 2/4/2021 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911
10,1011I. ?
246069
246070
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
2/4/2021 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER January 2021
2/4/2021 077172 SONSRAY MACHINERY LLC
2/4/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
W 02050-09
103583
103583
103585
103585
103586
PO # Description/Account
FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA-
001.000.39.528.00.41.50
FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA-
421.000.74.534.80.41.50
FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA-
423.000.75.535.80.41.50
Total
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140
Total
UNIT 3 - FABRICATION OF NEW BU
UNIT 3 - FABRICATION OF NEW BU
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.3% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
7.2.a
Page: 21
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
70,384.0E u
L
1,852.2- ui
1,852.2-
74,088.5( u
m
c
as
294.9E
294.9f
0
�a
a
750.0(
U
819.7; c
Ta
0
a
626.0( Q
N
626.0(
0
N
0
644.6, E
M
671.9' c
aD
E
t
U
605.1 f
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 94
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246070 2/4/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
246071
246072
246073
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
103586
103587
103587
103588
103588
2/4/2021 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1747924
2/4/2021 071585 STERICYCLE INC
2/4/2021 040924 TMG SERVICES INC
3005411481
0046104-IN
PO # Description/Account
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE & RECYC
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE & RECYC
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
Total
EBJA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/2020
EBJA.Services thru 12/31/20
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
Total
INV 3005411481 - CUST 6076358 - E
1 MIN STOP FEE
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
Total
WATER QUALITY - TUBE BLUE - WI
WATER QUALITY - TUBE BLUE - WI
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
7.2.a
Page: 22
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
605.1 E
N
1,022.9z
v
1,022.9z c
a�
459.8�
0
L
464.4z a
6,749.1 ,
U
4-
0
3,778.3, 7a
3,778.3, c
L
Q
Q
Q
10.3( N
10.3( c
N
0
V)
E
15.0(
aD
E
79.5(
�a
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 95
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
246073
2/4/2021
040924 040924 TMG SERVICES INC
(Continued)
Total :
0
843.9( 0
246074
2/4/2021
070774 ULINE INC
128903555
INV 128903555 - CUST 2634605 - El
TYVEK SUITS - XL - DETECTIVES
001.000.41.521.21.31.00
185.0(
13 X 18 RECLOSABLE BAGS 500/
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
234.0(
4 X 6 RECLOSABLE BAGS 1 M/
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
82.0(
3 X 60 PRESSURE SEN KRAFT TP
c
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
519.0(
20" POLY BAG SEALER
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
210.0(
20' SERVICE KIT FOR H-1029
0
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
31.0( j,
12 X 12 X 8 LRG BINS
M
a
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
58.7E
Freight
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
78.5 u
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.21.31.00
19.2,
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
126.1E a
129012970
INV 129012970 - CUST 2634605 - El
Q
2 X 60 PRESSURE SEN KRAFT TAP
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
77.4( N
Freight
o
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
13.8, c
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
9.4E .
Total :
1,644.51
246075
2/4/2021
071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC
48918292
WWTP: 1/21 CAUSTIC SODA
1 /21 Caustic Soda
E
423.000.76.535.80.31.52
6,716.0( U
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 96
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246075 2/4/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC
246076 2/4/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.31.52
Tota I :
9871823796 C/A 571242650-0001
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.35.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs
001.000.62.524.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.518.21.35.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
7.2.a
Page: 24
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
698.4E 'D
7,414.4E m
L_
N
639.9,
36.1.'
m
c
199.3( a
1,159.1E
0
722.6(
�a
a
257.0,
321.1 E u
4-
0
50.2E
0
L
794.8E a
Q
1,473.3<
N
227.0( o
N
0
72.3( E
100.8z
397.4( (D
E
t
372.9( L)
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 97
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246076 2/4/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin
001.000.64.571.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec
001.000.64.571.22.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
Air cards PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning
001.000.62.558.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/SeWe
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewe
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
7.2.a
Page: 25
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
100.5E u
L
50.2E
N
321.1E
v
140.5
m
c
1,963.3E m
c
1,160.2E f°
0
L
120.0'
a
26.6E E
7.6, ,-
0
26.6E >
0
L
7.6, a
Q
7.6E N
216.7< c
N
0
50.2E E
95.4<
c
95.4,
z
336.7E M
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 98
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246076 2/4/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued)
9871955855
246077 2/4/2021 075138 VIPRE SECURITY 105036
PO # Description/Account
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Disco
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
C/A 772540262-00001
Cradlepoint 1 - Court/IT
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm
421.000.74.534.80.49.20
Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm
423.000.75.535.80.49.20
Trimble 1 - Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
Lake Ballinger monitor
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Te
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Te
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Total
VIPRE ANTIVIRUS MAINTENANCE I
VIPRE Antivirus Maintenance Renew
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
7.2.a
Page: 26
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
436.5< u
L
156.4E
N
240.0E
v
240.0E 4-
m
c
669.2E m
c
40.0" f°
0
L
�a
100.0" a
E
3.3"
3.3- 0
Ta
3.4( o
a
a
10.01 Q
N
32.2( Iq
0
19.8( o
E
19.7E
13,525.5,
c
a�
E
t
5,716.0( um
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 99
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
246077
2/4/2021
075138 VIPRE SECURITY
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Tota I :
246078
2/4/2021
069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
8803525908
WWTP: PO 480 STATICMASTER MC
PO 480 STATICMASTER MOUNT & 1
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
246079
2/4/2021
067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
213083
INV 213083 - CS 21-2050 - EDMONE
TOW MAZDA - CS 21-2050
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
65965
INV 65965 - CS 20-22859 - EDMONE
MOVE CAMRY - CS 20-22859
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Tota I :
246080
2/4/2021
075283 WAVE
3201-1027483-01
FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF
High Speed Internet service 02/01/21
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Tota I :
246081
2/4/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
11321345CR
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12107096
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
7.2.a
Page: 27
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 100
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 28
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246081
2/4/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
0
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
as
566.0( -0
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
m
58.8( .L
12109072
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
763.0z
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
79.3E
12109073
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
c
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
656.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
sa
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
68.2, 0
12111070
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
886.5(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
92.2( u
12112941
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
0
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
849.0( o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
88.3( Q
Total:
3,935.2(
N
246082
2/4/2021
064800 WEHOP
643598
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
0
FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS
N
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
0
117.3, V)
10.4% Sales Tax
E
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.2'
Total :
129.5f };
c
246083
2/4/2021
077188 WELCOME MAGAZINE
1657 LTAC
SPRING/SUMMER AD 2021 IN WED
E
E
SPRING/SUMMER AD 2021 IN WED
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
3,456.0( Zu
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 101
vchlist
02/03/2021 2:27:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
246083
2/4/2021
077188 077188 WELCOME MAGAZINE
(Continued)
Total
246084
2/4/2021
063008 WSDOT
RE 41 JZ0186 L009
E20CE.PROJECT COSTS FOR DEC
E20CE.Project Costs for December 2
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
RE 41 JZ0605 L008
GATEWAY SIGN RELOCATION PLAT
GATEWAY SIGN RELOCATION PLAT
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
246085
2/4/2021
051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY
9005892931
FLEET - SUPPLIES
FLEET - SUPPLIES
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
Total
246086
2/4/2021
011900 ZIPLY FIBER
425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA}
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA}
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-776-6829
CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION A
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
509-022-0049
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACC[
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Tota I :
72 Vouchers
for bank code : usbank
Bank total
72 Vouchers
in this report
Total vouchers
7.2.a
Page: 29
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
3,456.0( 0
U
d
L_
3,175.9E
N
m
222.9 1 v
3,398.9!
m
c
d
1,471.& a
153.0E o
1,624.85 a
E
U
141.1< o
7a
141.1' a
a
Q
26.4, N
308.6f
0
220,276.2E c
220,276.2E .E
ca
U
c
a�
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 102
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Proiect
Engineering
Accounting
Proiect
vi
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
E
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13
Q.
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
c
tv
STIR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
r
U)
STIR2019
Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
m
STIR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
STIR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
=
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGAlid
ui
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
U
O
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
t
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
r
m
c
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
c
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
O
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
tv
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
Q.
STIR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
O
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
>
O
L
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
Q-
O.
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
Q
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21CA
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
o
N
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
c
N
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
m
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
E
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
?
O
STIR76th
Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
a
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
d
rn
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
r
m
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
L
u_
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
c
m
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
E
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
r
r
Q
STIR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
Revised 1/21/2021
Packet Pg. 103
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Proiect
Engineering
Accounting
Proiect
Funding
Proiect Title
Number
Number
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s0l l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E71FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
STIR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STIR
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
ESHA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 104
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
ProiectTitle
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
STIR
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STIR
E21CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
'IW
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
IKSWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
Ir FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab i
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
o STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
ESGB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalizatio
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) aw
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 105
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
ProiectTitle
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
NEIV2018
Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
E6JC
-loffr2018
Waterline Replacement Project
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STIR
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Savinq Salmon)
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
i028
220th Adaptive
STIR
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212t
STIR
E8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STM
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Updat
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
STIR
HAD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 106
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
ElCA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
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
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STIR
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
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
EBFC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
WTR
E6,113
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 107
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STIR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
STIR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STIR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
STIR
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
STIR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
STIR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STIR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
STIR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
STIR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
EOCC
i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
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
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STIR
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 108
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
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
EBFB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E91FA
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E71FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
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
EOAA
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 109
7.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1 CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STIR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STIR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STIR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s0l l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
Revised 1/21/2021 Packet Pg. 110
7.2.c
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 999 (01 /16/2021 to 01 /31 /2021) c
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
37.00
0.00
112
ABSENT
NO PAY NON HIRED
53.00
0.00
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
403.50
17,993.84
122
VACATION
VACATION
574.50
27,079.09
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
36.00
1,533.45
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
9.00
418.50
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
141.50
6,086.61
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
3.75
144.98
130
COMP HOURS
Holidav Compensation Used
8.00
321.30
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
10.00
608.25
135
SICK
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEY
2.00
43.35
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
20.00
854.75
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kellv Dav Used
36.00
1,533.56
152
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME BUY BACK
36.75
2,414.14
153
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
20.00
1,313.82
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
177.39
9,667.34
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
401.23
26,330.52
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
465.51
28,612.10
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
11.00
785.35
174
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY
0.00
300.00
175
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP
0.00
3,496.07
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
16,831.00
713,681.54
191
REGULAR HOURS
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
4.00
5,126.84
194
SICK
Emerciencv Sick Leave
73.00
2,541.43
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
49.50
3,010.83
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
163.25
7,821.55
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
48.00
2,686.90
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
16.00
1,601.96
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
204.25
12,588.40
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
0.50
43.14
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,019.44
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
1,825.67
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
82.50
0.00
02/03/2021
Packet Pg. 111
7.2.c
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 999 (01 /16/2021 to 01 /31 /2021) c
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
603
COMP HOURS
Holidav Comp 1.0
36.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
116.50
0.00
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
67.01
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
177.41
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
96.39
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstruction ist
0.00
87.93
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
179.12
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
404.96
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
1.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI
0.00
89.56
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
122.69
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
1,222.72
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
623.11
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
747.50
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
5,950.92
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
481.56
fmis
SICK
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
60.00
1,982.50
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
1,348.10
60,556.99
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
251.53
less
MISCELLANEOUS
LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR
0.00
85.68
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
1,066.95
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
692.74
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,451.51
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
1,308.13
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
1,287.20
Ig15
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 7.5%
0.00
583.73
Igo
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
365.21
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,122.60
Ig6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
366.12
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
277.76
Ig9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
193.99
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
122.69
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
589.95
02/03/2021
Packet Pg. 112
7.2.c
Hour Type Hour Class
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
pto
MISCELLANEOUS
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
st
REGULAR HOURS
str
MISCELLANEOUS
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 999 (01 /16/2021 to 01 /31 /2021)
Description
Public Disclosure Specialist
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
Traininq Officer
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
Serqeant Pav
STREET CRIMES
TRAFFIC
Hours
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21,478.73
Total Net Pay:
c
�o
Amount y
0
a
aD
101.78
2,313.20 L
194.64 =a
163.58
650.50
194.64
141.08
521.80
a�
122.69
c
�a
$971,445.79
0
0
$637,557.57
E
0
El
N
LO
O
N
O
L
M
E
E
N
0
L
a
c
a�
E
U
R
Q
02/03/2021
Packet Pg. 113
7.2.d
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 999 - 01 /16/2021 to 01 /31 /2021
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit
64603
02/05/2021
bpas
BPAS
19,668.72
0.00
64604
02/05/2021
epoa
EPOA-1 POLICE
46.00
0.00
64605
02/05/2021
jhan
JOHN HANCOCK
408.56
0.00
64606
02/05/2021
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,413.72
0.00
64607
02/05/2021
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
4,241.14
0.00
64608
02/05/2021
afscme
WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO
2,244.76
0.00
30,022.90
0.00
Bank: wire -
US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
3155
02/05/2021
pens
DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
329,307.38
0.00
3157
02/05/2021
aflac
AFLAC
5,780.30
0.00
3160
02/05/2021
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
38,509.11
0.00
3161
02/05/2021
us
US BANK
119,354.38
0.00
3162
02/05/2021
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
119,397.88
0.00
3164
02/05/2021
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,836.19
0.00
3165
02/05/2021
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
1,064.50
0.00
0.00
619,249.74
Grand Totals:
649,272.64
0.00
2/3/2021
Packet Pg. 114
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2021
Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add "Hotel" as a Permitted Use in
the CW Zone
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty / Rob Chave
Department: Economic Development
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
This code amendment was originally proposed by the Economic Development Commission. The Planning
Board recommended this code amendment after a public hearing on December 11, 2019. City Council
considered this item initially at its February 4, 2020 meeting and then again after a Public Hearing at its
February 18, 2020 meeting. Three members of the public spoke at the Public Hearing: two in favor of
the proposed amendment; one stating that there is already a hotel near the Waterfront. Minutes of
both City Council meetings are attached here. The matter was scheduled on the March 3, 2020 City
Council Action Agenda, but was postponed due to the late hour of that meeting. After that time COVID-
19-related restrictions did not allow its return to City Council agendas this time.
This issue was brought back to City Council on 2/2/21 for continued consideration. Council directed that
it be forwarded to the 2/9/21 regular agenda for continued consideration and potential action.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of the Ordinance as proposed.
Alternative: Approve alternative Ordinance including amended definition of Hotel.
Narrative
Summary of Issue:
Hotels are an allowed use in the Downtown Business (BD) zoning districts. However, in the waterfront
district of Downtown Edmonds - the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone district - hotels are not included
on its list of "permitted primary uses." The CW zone encompasses all of the properties waterward of
the BNSF railroad south of Brackett's Landing South park to the City's southern limits (see attached
map). That being said, only limited opportunities may exist for hotel uses to be developed in the CW
zone, given that there are few, if any, viable, vacant properties. If a property owner or investors were to
respond to market demand for hotel rooms, it would likely be in the form of re -use of an existing
commercial building.
A review of the history of several of the extant commercial buildings along the waterfront indicates that
they have housed a succession of different uses over the decades, including such marked changes in use
Packet Pg. 115
8.1
as apartments to offices, offices to restaurants and back again, retail to office, etc. These changes have
occurred in response to changes in market demand over the decades and in response to changing
economic conditions. The one, otherwise standard, commercial use that has not been available in this
zone is lodging.
The Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered this issue over the past two to three years,
spurred by their interest in potentially capturing more economic impact from the thousands of visitors
who come to Edmonds. While day-trippers spend on average from $44 to $85 per person, per day
(depending on their activities) in our local economy, overnighters in Snohomish County spend up to
$179 per person, per night, a substantial increase in local economic impact (Dean Runyon Associates,
May 2019).
What's more, in proposing this potential code amendment, the EDC believed that additional lodging
opportunities in and around greater Downtown Edmonds would also serve as a welcome complement to
the important arts, culture, entertainment and culinary scene.
See attached memo from EDC Chair supporting this proposal.
For these reasons, the EDC proposed consideration of adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted
uses" in the CW zone.
It should be noted that since this matter was first considered, the COVID-19 crisis has up -ended the
local, national and global economies and substantially impacted the financial viability of traditional
mainstays of our local economy, including retail, office -based and other establishments. Many business
and property owners are facing an uncertain future with their traditional business models. Office -
building owners have been left wondering if pre-existing and/or traditional tenants will return once the
pandemic has receded, given the current work -at-home environment. It is quite possible that previously
well -occupied office buildings may see long-lasting vacancies. Such property owners may start to seek
and consider any possible alternative uses that could be more financially viable. Re -use of such
buildings for lodging should be an available option.
Proposal:
For these reasons, and in an effort to expand the opportunities for developing potential lodging
establishments in and around Downtown Edmonds, the Administration forwards the EDC proposal to
consider adding "hotel" to the listed of "primary permitted uses" in the CW zone.
The current version of the CW zone is attached. Generally, the City's zoning code provides for hotels in
commercial zones, and includes this definition:
21.40.060 Hotel.
Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are
rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior
accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not
included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical
attention or care. (See also, Motel.)
The current proposal can be accomplished by adding hotels to the list of Permitted Primary Uses in
Chapter 16.55.010 (CW zone). Staff does not recommend adding'motel' as a permitted use since the
purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area, and
the definition of a motel is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access.
Packet Pg. 116
8.1
This potential amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which allows this type of
use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments.
The City Council had some discussion regarding parking during its review on 2/4/20 and again on 2/2/21.
Briefly, the standard for all commercial uses in the downtown area is as follows:
"All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a
flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a
mixed use or residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for
residential uses shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit.
For purposes of this chapter, "residential uses" shall refer to lobbies, stairwells,
elevators, storage areas and other similar features." [ECDC 17.50.010.C]
If the Council is concerned that the normal downtown commercial parking rate is insufficient for hotels,
the Council could instead specify that hotels use the residential parking rate of "one stall per {dwelling}
unit". This could be accomplished by amending the proposed ordinance to permit hotels as:
"Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit"
Another issue that was raised last year and again on 2/2/21 was whether the existing definition of Hotel
in ECC at 21.40.060 should be amended. The current definition reads as follows:
21.40.060. Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented
out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services
catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing persons under legal
restraint or requiring medical attention or care. (See also, Motel.)
While admittedly outdated, City staff have not encountered any difficulty in applying this definition to
proposed projects in the past. No other use has been construed to meet this definition (such as
apartments, boarding houses, half -way houses, etc.), and in fact those other uses have their own
definitions.
If City Council believes an amended definition of Hotel would be an appropriate companion to
consideration and approval of the subject request to add Hotels as a permitted use in the CW zone, here
is a proposed alternative:
21.40.060. Hotel means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations on a daily or weekly basis
to the general public and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms,
and recreation facilities. (See also, Motel).
An "Alternative" Ordinance and Attachment is attached here for this purpose.
In summary, the Administration believes it is incumbent upon the City to provide a fertile platform for
robust economic opportunity within our local business community - such as opportunities to pivot from
traditional business models to keep businesses and property owners viable in the new economic
realities we will be facing. The potential of a mostly vacant office building at the Waterfront does not
serve our community's nor nearby businesses' best interests. If market conditions warranted re -use of
such a building as a hotel, the Administration believes such an opportunity should be available, as it is
elsewhere in Downtown Edmonds.
Packet Pg. 117
8.1
Attachments: Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that would implement the Planning Board's
recommendation to add "Hotels" to the permitted uses in the CW zone. Exhibit 2 contains the existing
CW Zone language (ECDC 16.55) showing the proposed change allowing hotel uses. Exhibit 3 contains
the minutes of the Planning Board discussion and public hearing. Exhibit 4 contains the EDC Memo to
the Planning Board asking that lodging be allowed in the CW Zone. Exhibit 5 is a map of the CW zone.
Exhibit 6 is a summary of responses to recent questions raised. Exhibit 7 contains the 2/4/20 City Council
minutes. Exhibit 8 contains the 2/18/20 City Council minutes. Exhibit 9 contains an "Alternative"
Ordinance that would include amending ECC 21.40.060, definition of Hotel.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: 2020-02-13 Ordinance adopting revised CW zone
Exhibit 2: Edmonds CW 16.55 with Hotels
Exhibit 5: Zoning Map
Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes - Hotels in CW
Exhibit 7 - City Council 2-4-20 minutes
Exhibit 8 - City Council 2-18-20 minutes
Exhibit 6: Summary of Responses to Recent Councilmember Questions
Exhibit 4: EDC Memo to Planning Board
Exhibit 9: 2021-02-09 Ordinance adopting revised CW zone -ALTERNATIVE
Packet Pg. 118
8.1.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW
HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW)
ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's zoning code generally provides for hotels and motels in
commercial zones; and
WHEREAS, this amendment allows only hotels, but not motels, in the CW zone; and
WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which
allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public
hearing on December 11, 2019; and
WHEREAS, this code amendment was originally requested by the Economic
Development Commission; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 16.55 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike
through).
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Packet Pg. 119
8.1.a
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
IM
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 120
8.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE
COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2020.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
3
Packet Pg. 121
8.1.b
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
Chapter 16.55
CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
Sections:
16.55.000
Purposes.
16.55.010
Uses.
16.55.020
Site development standards.
16.55.030
Operating restrictions.
Page 1/2
16.55.000 Purposes.
The CW zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. To reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians to the
waterfront;
B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the waterfront;
C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public.
16.55.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Marine -oriented services;
2. Retail uses which are either marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented, excluding drive-in businesses;
3. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics;
5. Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation;
6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070-;
7. Hotels.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use.
C. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC;
2. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 6, 2001; Ord. 2366 § 9, 1983; Ord. 2307, 1982; Ord. 2283 § 6, 1982].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.
Packet Pg. 122
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Chapter 16.55 CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
16.55.020 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum Minimum Minimum' Maximum Maximum
Lot Area Width Setbacks Height Coverage
CW None None 15' landward of 30' None
bulkheads for
buildings; 60'
landward of
bulkheads for
parking
1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property.
2 Tanks which are part of a petroleum products storage and distribution facility are allowed
to be 48 feet in height.
B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC.
Page 2/2
C. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and
reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 2526 § 7, 19851.
16.55.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for:
1. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats;
3. Public parks;
4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
5. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3902 § 4, 2012; Ord.
3320 § 4, 2000].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.
Packet Pg. 123
8.1.d
Board Member Pence suggested there is a way to get the public engagement program right from the beginning of a project so
that the situation doesn't escalate later in the process. However, that is a topic for a different meeting.
Board Member Monroe asked why the additional language related to existing, developed sites was added to Subsection C
instead of another subsection. For example, the language might fit better in Subsection B. Mr. Clugston responded that
Subsection C is application related, and staff felt that a little bit more explanation was warranted.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (AMD20190005) BE
FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER
PENCE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE CW ZONE (FILE NO.
AMD20190006)
Mr. Chave recalled that this item was also introduced to the Planning Board on November 13' by Patrick Doherty, the City's
Economic Development Director. He reviewed that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) has requested an
amendment TO the City's zoning code to allow lodging -type uses in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. As noted by
the EDC, there are very limited areas for hotels to locate in the downtown waterfront area at this time. The amendment is
intended to promote the economic well-being of the City by expanding these opportunities.
Mr. Chave advised that the EDC's request could be addressed by adding "hotels" to the list of "Permitted Primary Uses" in
ECDC 16.55.010. At this time, staff is not recommending adding "motel" as a permitted use since the purposes of the CW
zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area and the definition of a "motel" is more focused on
supporting vehicle use and access.
Chair Cheung opened the hearing, but no members of the public were present.
Board Member Monroe asked if the amendment would change the height or parking requirements, and Mr. Chave answered
no. The amendment would simply allow a "hotel" as a permitted use. He pointed out that the Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) already envisions hotel uses on the waterfront, so the amendment would actually bring the zoning code into
compliance with what the SMP envisions. Board Member Monroe voiced support for the proposed amendment.
Student Representative Bryan said he also supports the proposed amendment and likes the idea of having more hotel
accommodations on the waterfront. He noted that the hotels would be within walking distance of downtown Edmonds, as
well. Expanding opportunities for hotel uses could bring more people to Edmonds, adding to the local economy.
Board Member Pence said he supports the idea behind the proposed amendment. However, his recollection is that the SMP
requires water -related uses within 200 feet of the shoreline, and a hotel would not be considered a water -related use. Mr.
Chave explained that the CW zone is located within an area that is designated as Urban Mixed Use in the SMP, and lodging -
type uses are allowed even if they are not water -related.
Chair Cheung asked staff to share any arguments against the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave pointed out that it is pretty
common for waterfront towns to have lodging in and around the waterfront area. At this point, Edmonds is unusual in that
the use is not currently allowed.
Vice Chair Robles said he supports the concept, but it might end up being too good of an idea. There are at least five existing
buildings along the waterfront that would be fantastic locations for hotels. Once the use is allowed, it would be difficult to
stop if it proliferates. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment is a haphazard approach, and he would rather look at
the entire CW zone as a whole and come up with an overall plan similar to what was done with the Westgate and Highway 99
areas. The waterfront property is unique and there is limited land on the west side of the railroad tracks. It is possibly the
most coveted piece of real estate in the State of Washington. Property owners could benefit tremendously from the
amendment, which could dramatically increase property values based on the higher use allowed. Perhaps there should be
some limits placed on the use, or at least a filter so they can get the good ideas and have an opportunity to reject bad ideas.
He summarized that the waterfront area is a public amenity (a park) that belongs to the citizens of Edmonds.
Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 125
8.1.d
Mr. Chave emphasized that the proposed amendment would not allow a park area to be redeveloped into a hotel. The park
spaces are zoned Open Space (OS). The amendment would be limited to the properties zoned CW, and there aren't very
many. A lot of the properties that Vice Chair Robles is concerned about are not zoned in a way that allows hotel
development, and they are publicly owned. Therefore, the danger is extremely limited.
Board Member Monroe asked if Vice Chair Robles is concerned that existing apartment buildings would be replaced with
hotels. Vice Chair Robles said he is more concerned about properties where single-family homes are currently located.
Board Member Monroe agreed that these homes are great places for people to live, but they are currently underutilized
properties. He said he would love to have a place for friends and family to stay in hotels close by.
Chair Cheung said he can understand that people might be concerned that allowing hotel uses in the CW zone might result in
additional traffic impacts, less public access to the waterfront, etc. However, providing additional lodging opportunities
would be a nice addition that benefits the local businesses. It is a great location in that employees would be able to get to
work via the Sounder Train. Mr. Chave pointed out that the existing office buildings in the CW zone do not provide public
amenities. He would argue that a hotel use would encourage more public access and amenities.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (FILE
NO. AMD20190006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD
MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung reminded the Board that the December 25'i' meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be January 8th, and
the agenda will include an update on the Housing Commission's work. The January 22" d meeting agenda will include a
quarterly report from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, the February 121 meeting agenda will include
an update on the Climate Goals Project, and the February 261 meeting agenda will include updates on the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2050 and Buildable Lands processes. He noted there are a number of items on the list of
"pending projects," as well.
Board Member Pence asked if the Board holds an annual retreat, and if so, when will it be added to the extended agenda.
Chair Cheung answered that the 2020 Chair and Vice Chair will be responsible for scheduling and establishing an agenda for
the Board's annual retreat. In the past, the retreat has been held earlier in the year, rather than later. Board Member Pence
said that would be his hope, given that there will be a new Mayor and several new City Council Members.
Chair Robles said he will be meeting with the Development Services Director soon to discuss the Board's extended agenda,
including a possible date for a retreat. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback regarding the items they see as
priorities for 2020.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung thanked the Board Members for their hard work and participation as he chaired the meetings throughout 2019.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe thanked Chair Cheung for doing such a great job of setting the Board's agendas and leading the
meetings. He made the meetings fun to attend, and the Board got a lot of business done, as well.
Student Representative Bryan referred to Vice Chair Robles earlier comment that allowing lodging uses in the CW zone
might be too good. He recalled the Board's earlier discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about their desire
to be involved earlier in the permit process. He suggested that perhaps it would be possible for the ADB to provide feedback
to help weed out the bad ideas, like too many hotels ruining the waterfront. Vice Chair Robles emphasized that the Board
doesn't have that power. The Board's job is to make recommendations, and it is up to the City Council to make the final
Planning Board Minutes
December l 1, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 126
8.1.d
decision. The optimum approach is for the Board to populate the record to the maximum extent possible so the City Council
has adequate information to fully understand the public's wishes.
Student Representative Bryan asked if it would be possible for the ADB to have the power to review projects and deny those
that do not fit in with the City's vision. Mr. Chave explained that, depending on where a project is located, the ADB can
make recommendations or approve design, but it cannot say whether or not a use is appropriate. The uses allowed are set by
the zoning code. Adding "hotels" as an allowed use in the CW zone is essentially saying that type of use is fine in the zone,
period. The ADB can rule on whether the design is adequate for the location, but it cannot rule on whether or not the use is
appropriate.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
December 11, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 127
8.1.d
POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
(CW) ZONE (File No. AMD20190006
Mr. Doherty advised that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is interested in ways to enhance the economic
vitality of the City, and one potential option is to encourage greater lodging opportunities in the City center to be adjunct to
the attractions (events, activities, restaurants, performance venues, etc.) that already exist. He explained that, over the years,
they have tried to entice hotel developers to the downtown and even paid for a hotel demand report a few years ago that
quantified the demand for hotels. The report pointed out there are few opportunities to develop hotels in the downtown given
the small site size and height limit. While there is potential for small, boutique hotels that are run by independent operators,
the name brand hotels usually won't invest in a market for anything less than 75 rooms, and there are no properties in the
main downtown that could accommodate a hotel of that size.
Mr. Doherty pointed out that the waterfront is another part of the greater downtown where there are opportunities to
adaptively reuse existing office and residential buildings for hotel uses. In fact, he was approached a few years ago by a
person who was interested in converting a waterfront office building to a lodging use, but he had to advise him that it was not
allowed by code. The building was later purchased by someone else and is currently used as office space.
Mr. Doherty said the EDC became excited about the notion of a waterfront hotel, and it was discovered that if a waterfront
office building were converted to a hotel use, it would be the only beach front hotel in the Puget Sound area. It could become
an attraction for Edmonds and improve the economic vitality of the entire downtown core. He explained that the EDC is
requesting that the zoning code be amended to allow lodging as a permitted primary use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW)
zone (ECDC 16.55.010).
Mr. Chave pointed out that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which already
allows lodging uses in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environment. He also pointed out that the City's code typically
addresses hotels and motels together; but in this case, the amendment would apply to properties along the waterfront that are
in close proximity to public walkways, parks, etc. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to limit lodging uses in the
CW zone to hotels only.
Mr. Chave suggested that, in addition to the proposed amendment to add "hotels" as a permitted primary use in the CW zone,
it would also be appropriate to do minor updates to the definition of "hotel." If the Board is willing to move the proposed
amendment forward, it could be scheduled for a public hearing in December.
Mr. Doherty explained that the overarching concept for the SMP is to have either marine -related or marine -dependent uses on
the waterfront. If that is not possible, then there is a hierarchy of uses that can be considered, and hotels are higher on the list
than offices. Office uses typically serve the same crowd every day, whereas a hotel would serve different people every day
and would likely provide some public space, as well. In many cases, a hotel use would provide more opportunities for public
enjoyment of the shoreline than an office use would.
Board Member Monroe said he believes the proposed amendment is a great idea. He asked about the boundaries of the CW
zone, and Mr. Chave said it includes all of the property along the waterfront except the ferry property, the port property east
of the railroad tracks, and the parks. The Port property east of the railroad tracks is zoned General Commercial (CG) and the
park and ferry properties are zoned Public (P). He summarized that it is a fairly narrow strip, but there are some significant
properties that could be repurposed or redeveloped for lodging uses. Board Member Cloutier provided a zoning map to
illustrate the extent of the CW zone, which includes part of the Port property, but not Harbor Square.
Board Member Monroe asked about the parking requirement for hotel uses. He suggested this will be important information
to provide at the hearing where it will likely be raised as a concern. Mr. Chave answered that the parking requirement is one
space per room or unit. Board Member Monroe asked if employee parking is also required, and Mr. Chave answered no.
Mr. Doherty observed that the average occupancy for a hotel is between 60% and 70%, and typically, 100% occupancy only
occurs during special events. During these times, employees would end up parking on the street.
Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 128
8.1.d
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how creative an applicant could be in meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Chave
responded that not all parking must be provided on site. Development in the downtown is allowed to take advantage of
parking elsewhere within the area to meet the parking requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if other methods of
transportation, such as Uber or Lyft, could be used by an applicant to meet at least part of the parking requirement. Mr.
Chave reminded the Board that all new uses in existing buildings are considered to comply with the parking requirement. If
an applicant is renovating an existing building on the waterfront for a hotel use, whatever parking is there would satisfy the
parking requirement.
Vice Chair Robles pointed out that there is no emergency access solution for properties on the west side if a train is blocking
the track. He asked if there is something in the hotel laws that would prohibit a hotel from being placed on the west side of
the tracks for safety reasons. Mr. Doherty said he does not know of any restrictions. He said he has spoken to a few hotel
developers, as well as a hotel development broker, who were conceptually interested in property on the waterfront, and they
didn't seem to find a problem. In general, there is concern about noise and vibration from the trains going by, and he
occasionally hears from the Harbor Inn that guests complain about it. This is something a developer would need to address
as part of a project design.
Vice Chair Robles asked if the proposed amendment would increase the value of properties in the CW zone. Mr. Doherty
explained that, typically, the appraised value is based on the highest and best use of a property. There are no hotels in the
area and office development is currently considered the highest and best use. He does not believe that the properties would
be appraised higher because there are no large under -developed or undeveloped properties that would impact the value.
Vice Chair Robles said he understand that the amendment is being proposed to attract and accommodate tourists to the
downtown and waterfront. He asked if a waterfront hotel is considered the only way to accomplish this goal or if there are
other options available such as short-term rentals that can absorb a lot of occupancy but do not require development. This
would give local residents an opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits, too. Mr. Doherty said the Airbnb phenomenon is
growing in Edmonds, as evidenced by the surge in business licenses and lodging taxes. This is largely because they do not
have a lot of other options. However, short-term rentals are not always to everyone's taste, and a hotel scenario is preferred
by some. The proposed amendment would widen a very narrow door that a potential developer could walk through to
provide more lodging in the downtown area.
Vice Chair Robles suggested they open the scope of the discussion so that it is not based solely on the premise of bringing
more people to the waterfront and downtown to take advantage of the fairs and events. Mr. Doherty responded that a lot of
people use lodging in neighboring cities, and the goal is to recapture some of this market to improve the City's economic
vitality.
PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROCEDURE
(File No. AMD20190005
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the unit lot subdivision process was adopted in 2017 and has been well received. Since that time,
three projects have been approved and several others are in the works. Based on experience, staff has identified the need for
a minor change to the application timing within the unit lot subdivision process to make the associated building permit
review more efficient. He explained that the current code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot subdivision concurrent
with design review, concurrent with a building permit application, or after a building permit application is received.
However, applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to inefficiencies. It requires
additional staff time to create, change, update and re -review applications, and it also requires applicants to prepare new
documents and pay additional fees.
In order to streamline the process, Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending that unit lot subdivision applications no longer be
accepted after building permits are submitted. As proposed, staff will know to process buildings permits as single-family
residential developments rather than having to start the process as a commercial development and change further down the
road when a unit lot subdivision application is submitted. The proposed amendment to ECDC 20.75.045 would alter just a
few words to implement the change in process (See Exhibit 2).
Planning Board Minutes
November 13, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 129
8.1.e
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
February 4, 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
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the 0`
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, w
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their 4'
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land c
and water." E
0
N
3. ROLL CALL I
N
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
0
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- V
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
x
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS w
c
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the Councilmembers who were elected and selected, E
commenting it was a good process. During the Councilmember selection process, at approximately ballot
number 18 when Councilmembers were describing why they had nominated a person, he was shocked by
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page ]
Packet Pg. 130
8.1.e
the negative comments made by Councilmember Buckshnis regarding one of the applicants, Lora Petso.
He was most bothered by Councilmember Buckshnis lying in her statement about the $5 million which Ms.
Petso had nothing to do with. The topic of the $5 million happened during a previous administration and
finance director. Ms. Petso was not on the Finance Committee, and was only the Council President. He said
Councilmember Buckshnis' comments were out of character for a Councilmember. Ms. Petso was polite
enough not to say anything although those around her have been speaking out including comments made
on My Edmonds News. He summarized the people of Edmonds did not care for Councilmember Buckshnis'
performance that night and she owes the Council and Ms. Petso an apology.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE SEAVIEW PARK INFILTRATION FACILITY
PHASE 2
6. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MICROSOFT OFFICE 365
7. ACTION ITEM
HIGHWAY 99 PHASE ONE PROJECT
Mayor Nelson said he was very excited about this project and his hat was off to staff, particularly Public
Works who, even in light of the challenges the City faces due to the lack of state and federal transportation
fund, have developed a project that jumpstarts what the City has been trying to do on Highway 99 for a
long time to protect pedestrians, prevent vehicle crashes, and enhance and revitalize Highway 99. This
E
project endeavors to that on a quick and affordable pace.
Co
IT
Development Services Director Shane Hope reminded of the work that went into the Hwy 99 planning
04
process including Council approval of the Highway 99 Plan, a vision for Highway 99 that includes
U
opportunities for development as well improving the function, walkability, and safety of the corridor. The
o
corridor improvements are costly and the City has struggled with a way to move forward with a project that
U
brings the vision closer and is helpful for traffic and pedestrians.
r
U
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is very complicated, matching the possible funding
'�_
sources with the work planned for Hwy 99 and accomplishing as much as possible with the initial funding
in hopes of attract more money. He reviewed:
w
9 Introduction
o Aerial view of project
0 244th St SW to 212th St SW (— 2.3 miles)
E
o Speed limit: 45 mph
o Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 40,000 vehicles per day
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 2
Packet Pg. 131
8.1.e
o City Limits: approx. 25,000' both sides
■ Edmonds (approx. 20,000' frontage — 80%)
■ Esperance (Snohomish Co. approx. 1,500')
■ Mountlake Terrace (approx. 1,000' north of 220th)
■ Lynnwood (approx. 2,500' total, 1,900' south of 212t")
o Other Nearby Transportation Assets
* Interurban Trail
■ Lynnwood Link
■ MLT Transit Station
o Funding
■ $10 million Connect Washington funding in 2018
■ $450,000 spent to date
■ $9.55 million available in 2021
■ $290,000 in local funds
Project costs ($Million/2020 dollars)
Segment
Limits
Roadway Cost
Utility Cost
Utility U/G Cost
Total Cost
1
244" to 238" Streets SW
$20.6
$2.4
$8.8
$30.0
2
2381h to 2341h Streets SW
$10.3
$1.4
$5.1
$15.8
3
2341h to 2281h Streets SW
$18.3
$2.4
$6.9
$26.0
4
228' to 2241h Streets SW
$13
$1.8
$5.9
$1.3
5
2241h to 220" Streets SW
$14.1
$3
$9.4
$26.5
6
2201h to 2161h Streets SW
$14.0
$1.8
$8.2
$24.0
7
216111 to 2121h Streets SW
$23.1
$3
$10.2
$36.3
Total Costs
$113.4
$15.8
$54.5
$183.7
Proposed Scope Change
o Current scope (estimated project cost $183,000M)
■ New sidewalks with new street lighting in most locations
■ Center landscaped medians for access control and turning movements
■ Utility improvements
■ Landscaping and other softscape treatments
■ Capacity improvements at existing signalized intersections
■ Potential undergrounding of overhead utilities
o Revised scope
■ Center medians for access control and turning movements along entire corridor
■ Traffic signal or HAWK installation (location TBD)
■ Considered a traffic signal at 234t", have enough funding but not enough warrants to
justify so likely not approved by State
Existing
o Geometry cross sections
■ 84' curb to curb roadway
■ 8' sidewalks
■ 13' transit lanes
■ Two 11' travel lanes each direction
■ 12' center turn lane
o Signal
■ 244t" St SW
■ 238t" St SW
■ 228th St SW
■ 224th St SW
■ 220th St SW
■ 216t" St SW
* 212" St SW
0
d
E
0
N
I
N
c
0
t�
U
x
W
c
d
E
t
V
cC
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 3
Packet Pg. 132
8.1.e
• Future improvements with cross sections
o Raised median
• No Hwy 99 widening
■ Add raised/planted medians between intersection with left -turn openings
• Add C-curbs along left turn lanes at intersections
■ Add HAWK or traffic signal (specific location: TBD)
• Future build -out
o Widen Hwy 99 at 238"' St SW
• Add dual left -turn lanes NB at 238t" St SW
o Keep raised, planted medians between intersections completed as part of Raised Median
Project
o Replace C-Curb with concrete hardscape median at intersection
o Add ITS and upgrade existing traffic signals
o Potential undergrounding of overhead utility lines
• Cost estimate of revised scope
o Raised median total project cost $.5M (funded through Connecting Washington 2021-2023
Biennium
• Design phase $1 M
■ Construction phase $5.5M
o Traffic signal or HAWK signal (location: TBD)
• Total project cost: range from $1M to $6M (based on selected options)
• Funding sources
- Remaining connecting Washington funds ($9.55M)
- Some or all of the $6.2M allocated to the Waterfront Connector project
- Future grant opportunities (Highway Safety Improvement Program/HSIP)
• Next Steps
o Raised median
• Approval of scope change by WSDOT Early 2020
■ Design 2020
• Construction 2021 (early 2021 advertisement)
o Future build -out
• Design TBD (secure funding)
• Construction TBD (secure funding/future development)
Mr. Williams referred to development along the City of Shoreline's frontage which has dramatically
increased activity; he anticipated the same would happen in Edmonds. Each project, particularly large
mixed use and residential projects, can be asked to dedicate property along their frontage and can be
required to build the frontage improvements.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said before serving ten years on the City Council, she was on the
Highway 99 Committee for five years. She liked the idea of a planting strip, envisioning it would improve
safety. She also encouraged staff to continue looking a HAWK signal at 234"' as the area between 238"' and
228' as there are bus stops along that section with pedestrians trying to cross seven lanes of traffic which
result in fatalities and personal injuries. She recognized the importance of traffic safety, commenting she
has seen at least ten accidents in the area between 220"' and 2241", but she was also concerned with
pedestrian safety. The new apartments in process next to the community health center will increase the
number of people trying to cross seven lanes of traffic. She summarized the planting strip was a great first
step to improving safety.
Mr. Williams agreed a HAWK signal would be a big step forward if WSDOT would approve it which he
believed they would since they approved two in Shoreline. He said the HAWK signal would not necessarily
be located at 234" and may be slightly north or south. He reviewed highlights of the crash history:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 4
Packet Pg. 133
8.1.e
• 8.61 crashes per million miles traveled, 3.5 times the state average.
r One -quarter of accidents involve vehicles coming to or from two-way left turn lane
■ 220"' to 220 has the most accidents followed by 2281h to 228th
Mr. Williams said center turn lane improvements will change the dynamic of the accidents and can address
all the segments at the same time. Another benefit of the center median improvements is they begin to make
a visual statement, a commitment to the entire frontage along with the future gateway improvements that
identify when drivers are entering/leaving Edmonds. The gateway improvements have not yet been
designed; staff is hopeful they can be incorporated into this project.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the HAWK signal did not necessarily need to be located at 230
but the lack of a crossing in that ten block section has created lot of problems. She pointed out Shoreline
has HAWK signals in front of the ice arena and further south and there are also areas where drivers can
make left turns which has created a much safer environment. Shoreline has also been successful in reducing
the speed limit from 45 to 40 and she was hopeful that could be accomplished with this project. Mr.
Williams said WSDOT is reluctant to reduce the speed limit without any improvements. Construction of a
median provides a visual clue to drivers to slow down which may justify lowering the speed limit to 40.
Although not the intent, if a person chooses to cross Highway 99, the median provides some semblance of
a refuge. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed but said that was not a substitute for a crosswalk and a
HAWK signal.
Councilmember L. Johnson commended staff for developing a plan that did not wait to address safety on
Highway 99, specifically a plan that would address safety on the entire stretch of Hwy 99. During the last
year she has heard a number of concerns about safety on Highway 99 and as the mom of teenage drivers,
she is very aware of the disproportionate number of accidents that occur on Highway 99. She was also
interested in the gateway signs to welcome people to the City. Although she recognized the center island
improvements could provide a place of refuge for pedestrians, she cautioned her children not to do that.
Recognizing that 20% of the frontage is owned by other cities, Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the
a)
City would partner with the other jurisdictions. With regard to a signal at 234`h, she asked how far off the
M
warrants were, noting signals are evenly spaced except in that area. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss
E
answered level of service (LOE) is based on intersection delay; A is no delay and E is over 55 seconds of
O
delay. That intersection is currently LOS B-C which indicates there is not a lot of traffic using 2341h and
there minimal increase with development planned on the northwest corner. With a 20 year growth rate, the
intersection is still at LOC C.
c
E
Councilmember L. Johnson observed the warrants have been met for a HAWK signal. Mr. Williams said
N
that will be negotiated with WSDOT as the criteria is for a HAWK signal is more flexible. Few pedestrians
that use that intersection even though legally there is a crosswalk at any road that intersects with another
N
road. It is a very challenging area for pedestrians to cross 100 feet. With regard to the 20% frontage located
in other cities, Mr. Williams said staff has had discussion with the other cities and Snohomish County; the
c
City would sponsor the project. The cost estimates include all the frontage improvements; the partner
V
jurisdictions will need to approve the design.
v
Student Representative Bauder commented when a road is revamped, drivers tend to drive faster because,
there are fewer bumps. He asked if there were any plans for additional speed cameras to keep the roadway
safe. Mr. Williams said traffic cameras cannot be used for speed control except in school zones.
w
Councilmember Paine said she spent much of the summer talking to people and often heard that when going
north on Highway 99 and crossing into Edmonds, it looks like you've entered 1950. She appreciate the z
effort to move forward on this project quickly. She asked if this was the first time residents and businesses
have heard about the change in scope. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Paine envisioned an a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 5
Packet Pg. 134
8.1.e
active community engagement plan so businesses and residents in the area understand what the project
looks like. Mr. Williams agreed frequent and high quality contact with businesses and residents is
anticipated, especially with property owners who will be keenly interested in limiting left turns.
Mr. Hauss recalled public outreach when the conceptual project was developed with the seven segments.
Although the complete project was not described, there were discussions about a raised median and mid -
block left turn pockets during public outreach. Councilmember Paine asked if residents and businesses
knew the project will potentially be constructed in the next 1'/z years. Mr. Williams said if the Council sees
merit in moving forward as staff has presented, the project consultant will develop a plan for public
outreach.
Councilmember Paine asked about the timeline for the project. Mr. Williams anticipated design in 2020,
going to bid in early 2021 and construction in 2021.
Councilmember Paine referred to warrants, commenting it was a term particular to the industry. It was her
understanding warrants were the number of people or vehicles involved in crashes. She asked if any other
data sets could be considered such as school bus stops to sway the decision to install a signal or a HAWK
signal. Mr. Williams said there are warrants for everything related to traffic engineering. For example a
stop sign, if a driver uses a stop sign 4 times a day and only sees another driver once every three weeks, the
stop sign stops having any value because it does not seem to provide any benefit. The idea behind warrants
is the installation of a traffic control measure should mean something and control a hazard that actually
exists, not just a hazard that might happen but only infrequently. The same is true for a signal although
there is a desire to avoid interfering with traffic flow if there is not a need. A certain amount of pedestrian
traffic and cross -street traffic is necessary to justify the traffic control. He explained Mr. Hauss is good at
warrant analyses and staff will maximize the case as much as possible. However, there are limits and with
the limited amount of congestion at that intersection, a signal does not appear to be the right answer. A
HAWK signal may be better option; the issue is finding the right location.
Councilmember Paine asked if a warrant analysis was done for the HAWK signal at City Park crossing SR-
104. Mr. Williams said that was a WSDOT warranted, funded and constructed project. The City contributed
approximately $10,000 to the $500,000 project. He never saw the warrant analysis. Mr. Hauss said a
HAWK signal will be added at SR-524 and 84t". The threshold in the warrant analysis is 10 pedestrians
during the peak hour. A pedestrian count at Highway 99 & 234" found was one pedestrian crossed during
the entire day, well below the 10 pedestrian/hour threshold
Councilmember Paine asked about a HAWK signal at 7`' & SR-5241" near Holy Rosary. Mr. Hauss
answered nine intersections will be improved as part of the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project, including
SR-524 & 9t" and a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) at SR-524 & 7t". Mr. Williams said the cost
for a RRFB is $30,000 versus $200,000 for a HAWK signal.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $6.2M legislative re -appropriation which Mr. Williams
advised was state funding. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $9.6M in Connecting Washington
funds and asked if the total was $15M. Mr. Williams clarified the re -appropriation of the $6.2M was on the
City's legislative agenda. After the passage of I-976, all the state -funded projects were examined; funds for
ongoing projects were preserved, projects that had not had any efforts were absorbed and several projects
were placed on a pause list. Edmonds' project is on the pause list which suggests there may be an
opportunity to have funds re -allocated from the pause list to the active list. The $6.2M for the Waterfront
Connector is currently unassigned but that does not mean Edmonds has access to it. There have been
discussion with legislature about using some or all of those funds to add elements to the center turn lane
improvements.
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 6
Packet Pg. 135
8.1.e
Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is $9.6M remaining from the existing Connect Washington
funds. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Shoreline where the utilities were
undergrounded, pointing out if 5G is installed, they will be located along Highway 99 so the City may not
want to spend the money to underground utilities. Mr. Williams answered 5G can be mounted on existing
utility pole but if the existing utilities are undergrounded, dedicated poles, even decorative poles, can be
installed and 5G antennas can be shielded/masked in a way that they are unnoticeable.
Councilmember Buckshnis said for the $54M cost of undergrounding utilities, she preferred to construct
pedestrian safety measures instead of aesthetic improvements. She agreed it would be great to have all the
utilities underground but it was costly to underground and to repair them. Mr. Williams said some of that
cost could be borne by development that funds future frontage improvements. For example, the GRE
development on the northwest corner of 234"' & Highway 99 will be undergrounding the utilities in front
of their project as well as doing frontage improvements. The community health center to the north will also
be installing frontage improvements. Over time, the utilities can be undergrounded without City funds.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE INITIAL LANDSCAPING MEDIAN PROJECT ALONG THE ENTIRE
HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO REQUEST FROM THE LEGISLATURE RE -
APPROPRIATION OF THE $6.2 MILLION INITIALLY ALLOCATED TO THE FORMER
WATERFRONT CONNECTOR PROJECT TO THE HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT IN ORDER TO
FUND COMPLETION OF THIS FIRST PHASE IN THE 2021-2023 BIENNIUM.
Councilmember Olson expressed support for the motion. She commented there are circumstances and
projects that highlight how amazing City staff is. She thanked staff and Mayor Nelson for this interim
solution to what has been a long term problem for the City. With regard to the gateway signs, she said
citizens like to be involved in providing input and she hoped there was a process in place for getting input
from businesses and residents in that area, particularly the International District. Mr. Williams assured there
would be outreach to the public.
Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated staff s creativity in developing this project and bringing it forward.
He asked if this modular approach would limit any future elements in the larger plan or require any rework.
Mr. Williams answered not that staff could foresee; the design process will consider each intersection. The
intent is to install mid -block left turn pockets as well as U-turns at intersections which will require
p
maintaining turning radius. It may be possible to obtain a deviation to reduce the turning radius from 52
N
feet to 48 feet. There will be property takes at the intersections to provide adequate space for turning
movements.
E
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Co
IT
8. STUDY ITEMS
N
U
c
1. POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENT TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
o
PROCEDU1ZC (AMD20190005)
V
r
Planner Mike Clugston explained the Council adopted a Unit Lot Subdivision code a few years ago that
v
allows the subdivision of townhomes, an alternative for fee -simple ownership instead of a
condominiumization process. Three fee -simple projects have been approved to date and several more are
at various stages of the review process. Based on that experience, staff has identified the need for a minor
w
change to application timing within the unit lot procedure to make the associated building permit reviews
more efficient for both staff and applicants. The existing code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot
subdivision together with design review, together with a building permit application, or after a building
E
permit application is submitted. Applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application
leads to processing inefficiencies for both staff and applicant. To streamline the process, staff is proposing
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 7
Packet Pg. 136
8.1.e
a minor change in 20.75.045.C, to change "subsequent to" to "preceding." The intent is to ensure applicants
are aware of the need to apply for the unit lot subdivision earlier in process which will save staff and the
applicant time and money. Staff has educated a couple applicants in -the past 1-2 months while this change
has been in the work to encourage them to apply for the unit lot subdivision upfront and they were agreeable.
Councilmember Paine said she was familiar with unit lot subdivision in other municipalities. She liked the
change as well as ensuring predictability in the development process. She asked about the additional
language in subsection C, "For existing developed sites, a preliminary unit lot subdivision application may
be submitted at any time." She asked if this was prior or post occupancy. Mr. Clugston answered this
technique can be applied post occupancy for existing developed sites. For Councilmember Paine, Mr.
Clugston explained unit lot subdivision is only available to townhomes; flats would use the
condominiumization process.
If a tenant was unable to remain in a unit that was going through the unit lot subdivision, Councilmember
Paine asked if the developer was required to provide funds for displacement costs. Mr. Clugston said he
was not aware of anything like that in the City's code. Councilmember Paine remarked that is required in
other cities.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a public hearing was necessary for such a small change. Mr.
Clugston answered a public hearing is required for a code amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if
the reason this did not go through a Council committee was due to the public hearing at the Planning Board.
Mr. Clugston answered yes.
Mr. Clugston advised a public hearing at City Council has been scheduled.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised a study session and public hearing was held at the Planning Board M
in response to a request from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to include hotel as potential
use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) Zone. He displayed a map of the Shoreline designations, M
c
identifying the Urban Mixed Use II and Urban Mixed Use I; the CW Zone encompasses both basically west
of the railroad along the waterfront. The Planning Board considered the amendment and found it appropriate O
to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW Zone. The Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code would
also apply. He reviewed the applicable code sections:
r 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments
Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment c
commercial and recreational uses. N
Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high- N
intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation.
• 24.40.040 Public access and views.
11. View Protection Regulations. t�
a. Within the urban mixed use I, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II
shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the v
following required view corridors:
i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained_
across 30 percent of the average parcel width.... s
x
w
Mr. Chave commented most of the existing buildings on the waterfront do not comply with the 30% view
requirement. Given that the height limits in the CW zone are 30 feet and with the view corridor requirement, E
the amendment would not result in a large building usually associated with a hotel; it would be a boutique 0
or small scale hotel.
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 8
Packet Pg. 137
8.1.e
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the EDC has discussed this
over the last couple years; the principal motivations were to capture more economic impact and enhance
the economic vitality of Edmonds as well as increase the limited supply of lodging in downtown Edmonds.
Although the City has a lot of visitors, overnight visitors either stay in the few rooms available in downtown
Edmonds or in Lynnwood where there are upward of 2,000 hotel rooms. The EDC's interest was to capture
a fraction of that economic impact; based on national averages, a day tripper spends $50-75/day and an
over-nightery spends $200/day. A hotel would also be a complimentary feature in Edmonds' downtown
where there are many activities, events and venues but limited lodging opportunities.
Mr. Doherty explained it was envisioned as reuse of existing buildings on the waterfront; there may be only
one building large enough to accommodate a hotel use. The existing buildings are all older and do not meet
today's standards; if they were demolished, it was likely to be replaced with a smaller building.. He relayed
a couple years ago an office building on the waterfront was for sale and the owner contacted him due to an
interested party who wanted to use it for a hotel. He informed them that a hotel was not allowed. If this
amendment was approved, there could be interest in the future for reuse of an existing building on the
waterfront.
Mr. Chave explained this only an introduction to the issue. A public hearing is scheduled on February 18th
Councilmember K. Johnson was troubled that the EDC Chair sent a memo to the Planning Board Chair.
She did not recall any other time since she has been on Council that that had occurred. According to the
memo, it was pursuant to the EDC's work plan. The EDC meets with the City Council once a year and
presents their work plan; she did not recall this issue being on their work plan. She felt this was an end run
and it would have been more appropriate to ask the City Council to consider this and for the City Council
to refer it to the Planning Board. She clarified her concern was not with the content but with the process.
Mr. Doherty relayed the code states the EDC and Planning Board are encouraged to collaborate on issues. E
When the EDC raised an issue and discovered it required Planning Board input/approval, they interpreted
that as they should approach the Planning Board. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was the Planning
Board liaison to the EDC when it was first established in 2010; there was a format for that collaboration c
and both the Planning Board and EDC worked on multiple projects such as Westgate redevelopment. She
reiterated this was first time she had seen a memo sent from the chair of one committee to the chair of O
another and then to City Council and said it did not feel right. w
m
Councilmember Olson acknowledged she was a newcomer but as the Council liaison to the EDC, she was
aware there is a liaison from the Planning Board to the EDC. In her opinion, there could not be too much o
collaboration. She suggested perhaps collaboration between commissions could be a topic for the upcoming C�
retreat or another discussion. c�
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that something went awry in
c
the process. The City Council directs policy and makes decisions about how to proceed. To have the EDC
t�
and Planning Board coordinate on this before there was a discussion at Council did not feel right. For
example, if the Council was not interested in proceeding, the EDC and Planning Board have unnecessarily
v
spent time coordinating.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented some of the buildings on the waterfront that might be
X
repurposed are over the height limit. Mr. Doherty agreed most of the buildings do not conform to today's
W
standards. The likelihood that someone would demolish one to comport with today's standards was low
because the result would be a smaller building. The City allows reuse of existing buildings; the current code
E
allows a building owner to change from office to retail/commercial. The proposal is to add hotel to the list
0
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 9
Packet Pg. 138
8.1.e
of allowed uses so someone could repurpose an existing building even though the building may be larger
than allowed in today's code.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not object to repurposing a building provided it met the codes related
to parking, etc. She was concerned that an office building over 30 foot height would want a rooftop
restaurant or something that would increase the height. Mr. Chave assured that would not be allowed,
especially if the building already exceeded the height limit. He recognized it would be challenging to
repurpose an existing building that was not built as a hotel because the building codes would be different.
It was quite likely that the buildings were old enough that they would not comply with current building
codes. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it would be more likely the building would be
demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Chave said would be challenging for older buildings to comply with current
codes and change the use to a hotel.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified if a building were converted to a hotel, it would need to meet
the fire code, codes related to parking, , etc. Mr. Chave answered yes. He explained in the downtown
waterfront area, if an existing building is converted to commercial, they can work with the existing parking
and not add parking. In his experience, hotels want more than the minimum parking, especially in an area
like Edmonds waterfront where the availability of overflow parking would be extremely limited. The one
advantage of the waterfront was potentially commuter rail could attract travelers between Seattle and
Vancouver who would not need a car.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if allowing a hotel would also allow a boarding house. Mr. Chave
answered it would need to meet the definition of a hotel. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed it
could not be a kids summer camp. Mr. Chave reiterated it would need to meet the definition of hotel in the
code. The definition of hotel in the code is out of date but the intent is clear especially when coupled with
the definition of motel. In reviewing the intent of the shoreline environments and zoning, a hotel makes
sense, but motel does not have the pedestrian component that is important for the shoreline.
Councilmember L. Johnson agreed with need for adding overnight lodging in Edmonds; however, she
questioned whether the best use of the shoreline was a public amenity. As this would apply to Urban Mixed
Use I and Il, she asked whether the number of waterfront hotels would be limited. She also questioned the
tradeoff for a waterfront hotel versus the waterfront as a public amenity for visitors and residents.
With regard to public amenity, Mr. Doherty said the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) places a high
priority on uses that maximize the public's enjoyment of the shorelines. That includes direct access to the
water as well as passing through a site, visual access, etc. An office building has less exposure to the general
E
public than most hotel uses. All saltwater shorelines are considered shorelines of the state and access for
0
all is encouraged, not just Edmonds residents. A hotel use with a greater number of people accessing the
C�
building and site maximizes the amount of physical and visual access to the shoreline over an office
N
building. Many hotels also have a semipublic area such as a lobby, cafe or bar that is often on the water
side which maximizes the potential public enjoyment of the shoreline.
c
t�
Related to parking, Mr. Doherty explained reuse of a building for another commercial use is allowed to the
extent the existing parking works for that new use. The new uses in the building need to be formatted to
v
meet the available parking. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the parking requirement for hotels,
r�
recalling a residential building that was constructed recently that did not provide parking. Mr. Doherty
explained to encourage the reuse of building stock in the downtown zones including CW, the new use can
x
be designed to use the existing parking. For example, if there are 40 spaces, the size of the hotel would be
w
designed for that number of spaces.
E
Mr. Chave explained Urban Mixed Use I, the privately owned commercial area, is pretty limited. The Urban
Mixed Use II is Port property and their uses are fairly established and the opportunity for a hotel is pretty
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 10
Packet Pg. 139
8.1.e
limited, especially when there is already a hotel at Harbor Square. It was unlikely the Port would be
interested in adding hotel rooms to compete with the existing use on their property. The more likely location
for a hotel would be Urban Mixed Use I, however, the existing buildings make that very challenging. He
summarized the opportunity for a hotel was remote.
Councilmember Paine suggested cleaning up the hotel/motel language. Ultimately the goal is to have a
hotel/motel in Edmonds either in the downtown core or elsewhere. Mr. Chave said the only hesitancy was
the impact that changing the definition had on other locations in the code. He agreed it was definitely an
outdated term.
Councilmember Paine pointed out there was a small area of CW in the north end of Edmonds by Haines
Wharf. She suggested having a hotel as a conditional use instead of adding it to the zoning. Mr. Chave
explained a conditional use permit (CUP) applies conditions to an allowed use. A CUP cannot be used for
a use that is allowed. The SMP does not allow hotel uses at Haines Wharf. A property would need to be
zoned CW as well as have the Urban Mixed Use I or 11 designation.
Councilmember Paine referred to parking, recalling the Port Commission meeting included discussion
about commuters parking in the Harbor Square parking lot and possibly implementing a tow policy. She
suggested a hotel on the waterfront be required to acquire an off -site lot for parking with a shuttle service.
Mr. Doherty explained when a use is conditional, it requires more scrutiny than other commercial uses. In
his, the Planning Board, and the EDC's opinion, a hotel is simply another commercial use and doesn't
particularly raise egregious issues. The parking issue exists for all uses; for example, an office building has
a parking demand and the hotel use would be right sized to meet the existing parking. When constructing a
new building on a vacant site, parking is a consideration. In the case of reuse of an existing commercial
building with existing parking, parking should be a wash because they are using the same parking. A CUP
would be an extra step that doesn't seem to make sense for one commercial use versus another allowed
commercial uses.
Councilmember Paine asked if adding add hotel to CW would be consistent with environmental goals and
long range plans for the waterfront. Mr. Chave answered type of use fits the purposes and descriptions of
the environments in the SMP. The goal is to establish uses that are water dependent or take advantage of
the location next to water; uses like lodging that support those activities fits the long term goals for the area.
Councilmember Paine asked if a hotel was consistent with open space plans, recalling there was interest in
purchasing a parcel on the waterfront and expanding the beach. Mr. Doherty said it ever made sense for an
investor to pursue a hotel, for example the building south of Bracket Landing South, there would be a
continuation of the beach as the building has a sandy beach in front. If the use were changed to a hotel, the
c
beach would be more accessible to public and it would be the only hotel in the Seattle metropolitan area on
C�
the beach. The notion of a walkway and connectivity is not affected by the reuse of an existing building.
cm
Mr. Chave said public walkways, beaches, etc. are protected areas and changing the use does not affect
those.
0
t�
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the concern about the process, that it should have come to the
Council first. She did not recall that this was on the EDC's 2019 work plan. The City has limited open space
v
and she agreed a hotel should be a conditional use. She was not in favor of hotel on the waterfront due to
the limited space and because there is already a hotel in the waterfront area. The waterfront is precious and
limited and should be retained for citizens and tourism. She was unsure that Edmonds needed to have the
s
x
first hotel on the beach and she preferred a boutique hotel be located in the downtown area.
w
Councilmember Olson commented these are existing buildings and other uses should be considered unless
c
E
the City wants to purchase the property for more beach or public space. The proposal is to allow an
additional use in existing building and some of the concerns are not relevant. Mr. Doherty recalled the EDC
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 11
Packet Pg. 140
8.1.e
recognized another potential reason to have lodging in proximity to the waterfront environment was rental
events at the Waterfront Center. He did not envision a hotel of greater than 40-50 rooms could be
accommodated -in any -of the -existing buildings. A hotel would -complement -activities on -waterfront.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested obtaining hotel vacancy rates from the existing waterfront hotel,
especially in the summer months.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed there hasn't been any specific interest in the past couple years about
repurposing an existing building. Mr. Doherty said there was an inquiry a couple years ago when one of the
buildings was for sale; a potential purchaser was interested in the possibility of a hotel if it were allowed.
No one has specifically identified a building for purchase for a hotel. There was an inquiry in November
whether hotels were allowed in the waterfront area; he told them no, but that it would be considered in
2020.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
City Clerk Scott Passey explained after the election, he met with the Mayor and new Councilmembers to
discuss City processes. Those discussions included ways to promote more understanding and cooperative
working relationships and he mentioned the Rules of Procedure that the Shoreline City Council adopted.
The draft rules are based on Shoreline's rules and modified to fit Edmonds. In Shoreline, these rules
facilitated mutual understanding about procedures as well as promoted collegiality and cooperative
interaction among Councilmembers, the Mayor and Staff. For the most part, the rules articulate processes
the City already follows but there are a few changes. Tonight is an introduction; the packet includes a
resolution to adopt the rules.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled financial policies were adopted via resolution and posted on the City's
website. She suggested doing the same with the Council Rules of Procedure.
Councilmember Olson suggested reviewing the Rules of Procedure sequentially.
Councilmember L. Johnson said as a new Councilmember, she needed something to help her understand
the processes. Updated, comprehensive rules of procedure will provide clear direction on how the Council
should conduct business. She suggested posting it on the City Council's webpage so constituents are clear
regarding procedures.
Councilmember Paine said the Rules of Procedure are wonderful and it will be nice to know the rules of
the road. She particularly liked the addition of behavior outside Council Chambers.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule 60 minutes on a future agenda to review the proposed Rules
of Procedure section by section. Councilmembers were encouraged to send questions to Mr. Passey in
advance.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported at approximately 5 a.m. today, a gentleman turned onto an access road that
paralleled the BNSF train tracks at the Dayton intersection and his truck was sideswiped by a train. Mayor
Nelson said he asked Public Works to contact BNSF to request a barrier or signage to prohibit future access
to the road. As a temporary measure, Public Works has erected temporary barriers.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
as
c
E
Co
N
IT
N
U
c
0
U
r
U
x
w
r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 12
Packet Pg. 141
8.1.e
Student Representative Bauder relayed the good news that he received a nomination from U.S. Senator
Patty Murray to the U.S. Naval Academy. He thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for making phone
calls on his behalf.
Councilmember Distelhorst reminded the public that the Edmonds School District is hosting a series of
events about Black Lives Matter. The first was on Sunday and events continue on Wednesday and Friday
evenings, a good opportunity for the community to listen and learn. He thanked the school district for
organizing these events.
Councilmember Olson referenced ballots that voters have received for the February 11 election. She
encouraged voters to drive around school properties so they can make an informed decision about the school
district's needs and to vote.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Olson comments about ballots and encouraged voters
to have their voices heard and to turn in their ballots by February 1 I".
Council President Fraley-Monillas told Student Representative Bauder it was easy to talk about him. The
congressional office was very impressed with him and the work he did.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded of the Council retreat on Friday, February 7 from 8:45 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall. The retreat will include training for new Councilmembers.
She encouraged Councilmembers to think about topics for the next retreat, possibly in April.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Council has used study sessions and committees in the past.
She felt committees are were efficient; study sessions take longer. The Council needs to decide whether to
continue with committees or to hold study sessions. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised that topic
was on the agenda in about 2 weeks. Two Councilmembers have proposed different processes.
Councilmember K. Johnson looked forward to discussing parliamentary procedures at the retreat. During
tonight's meeting, Councilmembers spoke regarding Highway 99 and then a motion was made. The proper
procedure is to start with motion and then have discussion. That is another topic the Council needs to
discuss.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to information about Wallace Falls Creek and an article in the Everett
Herald that directed the public to contact Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. However, because
County Executive Somers cannot veto a resolution, the public should contact Department of Natural
Resources District Manager A] McGuire, DNR Allen McGuire.
Councilmember Paine commented the Council survived its fourth week. She thank staff for their
presentations, particularly the study topics. She looked forward to providing a report on the Port of
Edmonds including environmental mitigation for parking lots.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
MICH L NELSON, MAYOR PA SEY, CITY CLE
as
c
E
0
N
It
N
U
c
0
U
r
U
x
w
c
m
E
R
r
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 13
Packet Pg. 142
8.1.e
d
O
m
U
U
W
Cd
E
m
d
c.i
m
L
Q
N
d
r
7
C
E
O
N
I
N
C
7
O
U
i
Q
Packet Pg. 143
8.1.f
E D M ONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
February 18, 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
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDERIFLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Acting Police Chief
Ken Crystal, Police Sergeant
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Mike Clugston, Planner
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
PULL ITEM 10 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PRESENTATIONS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 1
Packet Pg. 144
8.1.f
PROCLAMATION FOR JOE DWYER'S 100TH BIRTHDAY
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation honoring Joe Dwyer's 100"' Birthday and declaring February 20, 2020
as Joe Dwyer Day in Edmonds.
2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OFOFFICE FOR POLICE: DEPARTMENT PR()MC , ION
Acting Police Chief Jim Lawless said this is an opportunity to celebrate the achievement of a department
member, Ken Crystal, who is receiving a promotion to rank of police sergeant. Joining Sergeant Crystal
tonight are his daughter Mattier, son Jake, and girlfriend Lisa. An oath is an important public recognition
of personal achievement. Most importantly an oath is a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and
professional standards that are so critical to the law enforcement mission.
Sergeant Crystal has served the Edmonds community for nearly 22 years after being hiring as a lateral
officer on July 6, 1998. He came to Edmonds with several years of police experience with the New Castle,
Delaware Police Department and the Delaware State Police. During his time with Edmonds, Sergeant
Crystal has been a property crimes detective, a narcotics detective, a motors officer as well as a patrol
officer and has been a patrol corporal for the last 5'/z years. An interesting side note to Sergeant Crystal's
work as a narcotics detective is that after leaving that assignment, he served a six month term as the law
enforcement liaison to the Snohomish County Adult Drug Treatment Court, a therapeutic court that works
with adult offenders whose charges stem from drug addiction or abuse. Off duty, Sergeant Crystal has for
many year coordinated the EPOA sponsored Thanksgiving dinner for seniors as well as the EPOA
Christmas gift giving program in Edmonds area schools. Sergeant Crystal has received two letters of
commendation, a medal of valor for rescuing an individual from a fire and was the David Stern Officer of
the year in 2012.
Chief Lawless administered the oath of office to Sergeant Crystal. His daughter Mattier pinned his badge
and his son Jake presented his hat which also displays a badge of rank. Chief Lawless presented a Certificate
of Promotion to Sergeant Crystal.
Sergeant Crystal thanked Council, Mayor, co-workers, family and citizens for attending. He explained he
was being promoted because Sergeant Bob Barker is retiring. A poll at a recent shift briefing revealed the
average age of officers in the department at the time was 56 and the minimum amount of experience on that
day was 28 years. Conversely, the graveyard crew has an average age of about 30 and the average amount
of experience is 3 years. There is a huge transition in the department and it is an exciting time to be invited
into the leadership to help new officers as they grow in their career and he pledged to do the best he can to
share what he has learned.
3. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts explained he is the Hearing Examiner for about 20 jurisdictions including
Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, and Kenmore as well as larger cities such as Lakewood and Federal Way.
His clients range geographically from Mt. Vernon to Port Townsend to Mason County. Edmonds is one of
favorite jurisdictions as some issues become contentious because people really care what happens in their
community. He highlighted the three cases he held this year:
Hitchens Shoreline Variance (3/27/19): Shoreline variance approved to build 4,690 square foot home 15
feet into a 50-foot shoreline buffer. The lot had an existing nonconforming home that was located 5-6 feet
from the shoreline. If the variance had been denied, the Applicant could have expanded the home landward
from its existing location, creating far more view impacts to surrounding properties. In the alternative, if
the variance were denied the Applicant could have built a new albeit smaller home further up the slope,
also creating more view impacts to adjoining properties. There was no opposition to the project. However,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 2
Packet Pg. 145
8.1.f
one resident noted that neighbors were concerned that a narrow private drive would be used to access the
new home. Staff took care of this issue by recommending a condition (which was adopted) that the private
drive access be barricaded.
Sound Transit Conditional Use Permit (4/25/19): Conditional use permit approved for 25 parking spaces
at Edmonds Methodist Church at 828 Caspers Street to be used for commuter parking for users of the
Sounder, with the Edmonds stop located about a mile away. Adjoining the church site is a Community
Transit bus stop that the commuters can use to access the Sound Transit Station. Sound Transit and
Community Transit have synced their schedules to facilitate use of the parking lot. No opposition.
Edmonds Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment (6/7/19, reconsideration denied
7/20/19): Approved three shoreline substantial development permits, a conditional use permit and design
review to redevelop the Edmonds Senior Center at 220 Railroad Avenue and to construct an adjoining
overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium at 200 Beach Place. The proposal drew
significant opposition from the residents of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, who's uninterrupted waterfront
views of Puget Sound were to be interrupted by an overwater extension of the Edmonds waterfront trail
built upon a concrete foundation similar to Seattle's monorail tracks. The overwater trail was to have the
same elevation as the bulkhead for the condominiums. Ebb Tide condominium owners filed an appeal of a
determination of non -significance 1 issued for the project in addition to opposing approval of the land use
applications. The environmental appeal was overturned and the decision to issue a determination of non -
significance was upheld.'
The primary issues raised by Ebb Tide residents were impacts to forage fish, pedestrian safety, noise and
easement rights. The evidence presented establishes that although the project may create some minor
impacts to forage fish, overall project mitigation in the form of 3,000 square feet of new forage fish habitat
was found to more than compensate for these impacts. As to pedestrian safety, the overwater walkway was
only proposed to be ten feet wide with no significant guardrails. Guard rail requirements are addressed by
building code standards. The final decision deferred guardrail implementation to building permit review,
with the caveat that the City would have to implement measures to prevent access to the overwater walkway
during storm events. As to easement rights, the City has an easement for the proposed trail extension but
the Ebb Tide owners asserted that the scope of the easement did not authorize the elevated walkway
proposed by the City. The decision concluded that easement rights are beyond hearing examiner
jurisdiction.
There was no opposition to redevelopment of the Edmonds Waterfront Center. The Ebb Tide residents were
very accommodating in separating their appeal and concerns from the Waterfront Center so that
construction on the Waterfront Center could move forward without delay.
'A determination of non -significance is a decision by the City's State Environmental Policy Act
Responsible Official that an environmental impact statement is not necessary to review the impacts of the
proposal because all impacts will not rise to the level of probable significant adverse impacts.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the reconsideration on the Edmonds Waterfront Center and
Waterfront Redevelopment that was denied but the permits were approved. Mr. Olbrechts answered the
reconsideration was related to the trespass issue which was outside his jurisdiction so reconsideration was
denied.
4. PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT
Jim Zachor, Junior, Zachor & Thomas, introduced Yelena Stock, Ms. Stock has been an attorney since May
2009. She began her career at Zachor at Thomas in 2009. In 2014, she left Zachor and Thomas for the City
of Seattle prosecutor's office. There she quickly excelled and became one of the City of Seattle's top trial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 3
Packet Pg. 146
8.1.f
attorneys, with a special emphasis on prosecuting crimes of domestic violence. During her tenure there, she
also gained experience and knowledge, handling cases in many of the various community court programs
offered by the City of Seattle. In June 2019, she came back to Zachor and Thomas and brought with her the
knowledge and experience in prosecuting DV cases, but also her knowledge and experience with
community courts. Ms. Stock is one of two supervising attorneys and handles the bulk of all City of
Edmonds criminal matters as well as all cases currently in the newly formed Edmonds community court.
Mr. Zachor introduced Sara Anderson who has been an attorney since October 2019. In her short time as
an attorney, she has shown herself to be a smart and capable attorney who is passionate about the
prosecution of misdemeanor cases. She currently assists Ms. Stock in the prosecution of the Edmonds
criminal caseload and appears frequently at on the jail, arraignment, and review calendars.
Mr. Zachor explained he has been an attorney since 2009. He is currently a supervising attorney for the
City of Edmonds. His primary responsibilities are defending the City of Edmonds on RAU appeals and
representing the police department in drug, felony and firearm forfeitures. He also handles the out -of -court
administrative functions required by the court, assists Ms. Stock in preparing the legal updates and trainings
for the police department, is the primary point of contact for police officers needing review of search/arrest
warrants or with charging/arrest questions and is "on -call" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He is also
responsible for all charging review cases
Ms. Stock reviewed criminal filings 2018 compared to 2019:
Other
Criminal
Total
Traffic
Non -Traffic
DUI/Physical
Criminal
Non-
Total
Criminal
Infractions
Infractions
Control
Traffic
traffic
Filings
2018
4547
29
144
328
466
5514
938
2019
1 2804
1 38
1 135
343
507
1 3827
1 985
Mr. Zachor explained the Edmonds Police Department (EPD)is one of the more active departments for
pursuing DUI offenders; even though 2019 decreased slightly compared to 2018, he liked to think that was
due to the emphasis Edmonds Police Department places on DUI. The prosecution of DUI has become a
much more burdensome and lengthy process. The primary mode of determining blood alcohol level is via
blood testing where the EPD draws someone's blood at the hospital, sends it to the Washington State
toxicology lab who runs tests on the blood to determine the alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, prescription
drugs, etc. That process has become quite burdensome; 4-5 years ago the turnaround was 2 weeks; early
last year the delay was 6 months, the current average delay to get results is 10-12 months even though the
toxicology lab has hired more people. Toxicology results are important, especially for repeat offenders who
typically have more experience with defense attorneys telling them how to get out of a DUI. The wait time
for toxicology results does not deter the EPD or their office from prosecuting DUIs. On occasion a case has
to be dismissed temporarily and refiled when the toxicology results are available.
Ms. Stock reviewed jury trials
• Number of Jury Trials: 7
o Number of guilty convictions at trial: 4
o Number of not guilty convictions: 1
o Number of trials ending in a mistrial: 2
■ Jury Trials by case type and result:
o DUI — 2 trials — 2 guilty verdicts (both on appeal)
o Assault 4 Domestic Violence: 3 trials — 1 guilty verdict (on appeal) and 1 mistrial and on
retrial defendant was found not guilty.
o Domestic Violence No Contact order violation — 1 trial, resulted in mistrial, not re -tried
o Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officers — 1 trial with a guilty verdict (on appeal)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 4
Packet Pg. 147
8.1.f
Mr. Zachor said a common question is why are the guilty verdicts on appeal; In Washington, defendants
have what is called a direct appeal or appeal as a matter of right, meaning the defendant has a right to appeal
a finding of guilty to a higher court. Most often, appeals are a result of a defendant being found guilty after
a jury trial. Currently, all jury trial guilty verdicts from 2019 are in the appeal process. Including appeals
from 2017 and 2018, bring the total to 8 pending appeals (total also includes 2 new appeals already filed in
2020). Appeals from jury trials often take several months to process for transcriptions, reviewing, brief
writing, and oral arguments before the court are conducted. One such example, is a current DUI case on
appeal resulted in a 660-page transcript.
Mr. Zachor and Ms. Stock highlighted notable cases in 2019:
• Edmonds v. Sanchez — The defendant was charged with his 41h DUI in the last 10 years, 2 in the
last two years in Washington and 2 in Texas. That case went to trial in April and he was found of
DUI and is currently serving a one-year jail sentence because he was a repeat offender. The case is
currently on appeal and has a transcript of 660 pages.
• Edmonds v Bendzak — This was the defendants 3`d DUI. The jury trial took two days and was
successful as a result of the Police Department and witnesses. In talking to the jury afterwards, they
indicated the Edmonds Police Department and Prosecutors had done an excellent job. The
defendant was found guilty at jury trial and sentenced to 30 days, 5 days in jail and 25 days on
EHM, and 5 years of probation with requirements to obtain alcohol/drug treatment. The case is
currently on appeal. The case highlights the difficulties posed by the long delay in receiving
toxicology results from the State Toxicology lab. This case was originally filed in 2018 but had to
be dismissed and re -filed almost 8 months later when the toxicology results were finally received.
• Edmonds v. Curtiss — This stalking case began in 2012 and involved a young lady who was stalked
for over 5 years by the defendant, resulting in her spending much of her time at home protected by
her mother. The case was finally resolved in 2019, originally filed in 2017. His and Police
Department's primary concern was to protect the victim; the case resulted in diversion agreement
and a permanent/life-time stalking protection order and securing significant mental health treatment
for the defendant. While the defendant is on this diversion agreement, should he violate any
provisions or conditions, he will likely spend a year or more in jail. The diversion agreement also
saved the victim from having to testify and relive the horrors she endured during this part of her
young life. Mr. Zachor thanked the Edmonds Police Department for the time and effort they put
into this case.
Ms. Stock and Mr. Zachor reviewed prospects for 2020:
Community Court — Edmonds Municipal Court began its newly formed community court in January of
2020. Currently, the program has had two court calendars and the new program appears to be heading in
the right direction by improving the success rate of defendant's on probation. The location allows
defendants to take the bus and the court is one -stop -shopping. Most of the defendants are indigent and do
not know what resources are available.
DWLS 3post-filing, re -trial diversion program — The prosecutor's office is currently developing a
program to improve the re -licensing of criminal defendants charged with driving on a suspended license in
the third degree. While there are various reasons for such a driving status, it primarily is a result of not
paying or responding to traffic tickets. This program is designed to help people become lawful licensed and
insured drivers and therefore less likely to be in the criminal justice system.
Domestic Violence prosecution — Adding Ms. Stock as one of the supervising attorneys for the City of
Edmonds instantly brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the firm's DV prosecution.
Additionally, having the City's DV coordinator, Jill Schick, significantly increases the contact and success
rate of DV prosecutions. Combined, the effect has seen a reduction of repeat domestic violence offenders
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 19, 2020
Pa e 5
Packet Pg. 148
8.1.f
and improvement in victim/police/prosecutor interaction and this office looks toward continued
improvement on Domestic Violence prosecution cases. Thanked Edmonds Police Department officers.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her appreciation and shared in the excitement of implementing
community court. She referred to the decrease in traffic infractions from 4547 in 2018 to 2804 in 2019 and
asked why there had been a 40% reduction. Mr. Zachor said that was best answered by the Police
Department, but it can be related to a reduction in staffing levels, officers pulling over drivers and
discovering there is an associated crime, people are driver better, etc. He summarized there were a number
of factors that could result in the reduction.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked about domestic violence cases; how many cases have there been, whether
they are brought to community court and how Ms. Stock works with the Domestic Violence Coordinator.
Ms. Stock answered she did not have exact number of domestic violence cases, they are included in criminal
non -traffic. Mr. Zachor estimated 1/3 are domestic violence so about 150-200. Ms. Stock said community
court is a post -conviction court, cases only go to community court if there is a disposition, the defendant is
on probation and there has been a guilty finding. Defendants qualify for community court as long as there
is no safety risk since the community court is held offsite at Swedish. If there any safety risks, defendants
are seen at the Edmonds courthouse. Her work with Domestic Violence Coordinator Jill Schick includes
multiple emails and phone calls and she staffs select cases with Ms. Schick at least once a week.
Councilmember Paine thanked the firm for their work in the domestic violence community. She spent
nearly seven years of career in that field and found it tough and interesting and required a lot of heart. She
was excited by community court and asked if there was any interest in clearing post and pre -conviction
warrants closer to Hwy 99. Mr. Zachor answered the Public Defender's Office, Judge Coburn and their
office have bench warrant quash motions filed routinely. The difficulty with people with warrants is getting
in touch with them. That question is probably better answered by the Public Defender who actively reaches
out to people before court and after court if they do not appear. As long as there has been some contact with
the Public Defender's Office, Judge Coburn tries not to issue warrants because she would rather have them
in court than in jail. Edmonds has liberal policy of quashing warrants; Judge Coburn makes it as easy as
possible for someone to quash their warrant; typically they simply need to show up and the Judge will quash
their warrant.
Councilmember Olson referred to the staffing issue at the toxicology lab effecting the time it takes to issue
results. She asked if that was an issue nationwide or locally. Mr. Zachor answered it was statewide. Ms.
Stock explained the toxicology lab has hired people but they must complete a certification process that
takes up to a year. Councilmember Olson suggested that could be an opportunity for a public service
announcement for young adults and asked what background was required. Ms. Stock answered chemistry.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Zachor & Thomas for their report and their work on domestic violence
and community court. He asked if 2 of 7 trials ending in mistrial was more than normal, whether there were
significant lessons learned, noting one was retried and one was not guilty. Ms. Stock answered mistrials are
usually due to something procedural. The rules of evidence are set at the beginning where evidence that
will/will be allowed is determined. The most common is information that is supposed to be suppressed ends
up comes out during trial and the trial has to start over. Once a case has begun, everyone has seen everyone
else's hand and it is more difficult to "play poker" the next time when you know everyone's hands. So the
prosecutor has to reevaluate to see if the case can be won knowing the strategy and what evidence will/will
not be allowed as the rules of evidence still apply to the next case.
Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the lengthy delay in receiving toxicology reports and the delay in
processing rape kits. She asked the timing to process rape kits. Mr. Zachor answered rape is a felony which
is filed by the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 6
Packet Pg. 149
8.1.f
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Zachor & Thomas for participating in Judge Coburn's
community court program. She also served on Judge Coburn's team and she appreciate them being flexible
and willing to go where issues are occurring. The cooperation of the prosecutor and defense attorneys made
a huge difference in the ability to implement community court. Mr. Zachor said they too are excited about
community court, finding it a great benefit to the community.
5. POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT PROCESS
Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson introduced Gary Peterson, President & CEO, Public Sector
Search & Consulting, Inc. She clarified there is no action required of Council.
Mr. Peterson explained PSSC, a California corporation authorized to work in Washington; is a boutique
firm with 5-7 employees that specifically focuses on executive searches for police chiefs. They pride
themselves on being response to their clients and limit the number of searches they take on at any one time.
He is the President/CEO of the firm and will be the Search Consultant and lead this project. He has
personally led over 35 executive search projects over the past 5 years, including 23 police chiefs searches.
All 23 searches resulted in a selection; all selections are still in place. He highlighted the qualifications of
the recruiters involved in this search:
Gary Peterson, President/CEO
30 years public safety/recruiting
experience
Retired Police Chief — Martinez, CA
JD, MS, BA
FBI National Academy
Senior Management Institute for Police
(SMIP)
Training Committee, California Police
Chiefs Assoc
Mr. Peterson reviewed:
• Track Record
o 2019
Mark Helms, Search Consultant
32 Years Public Safety Experience
Ret. Chief— Lodi PD (CA); former deputy chief, Stockton PD
(CA)
Executive Fellow, National Police Foundation
Board of Directors, California Police Chiefs Assn.
MPA, BA
FBI National Academy
CA Law Enforcement Command College
■ Yakima WA — Police Chief
a Redmond, WA —Police Chief
■ Grand Rapids, MI — Police Chief
■ Payson, AZ — Police Chief
Wheat Ridge, CO — Police Chief
o 2018
■ City of Seattle, WA — Police Chief
• University at Buffalo (SNY) — Police Chief
• Rohnert Park, CA — Police Chief
■ City of Syracuse, NY — Police Chief
• City of Albany, NY — Police Chief
• City of Seaside, CA — Police Chief
o 2017
■ Los Rios Community College, Sacramento, CA Chief/Director of Public Safety
• City of Kansas City, MO — Chief of Police
■ City of Dallas, TX — Chief of Police
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 7
Packet Pg. 150
8.1.f
■ City of Sacramento, CA — Police Chief
■ City of San Francisco, CA — Police Chief
+ City of Fairfield, CA — Chief of Police
■ University of California, Davis — Chief of Police
■ University of California, Los Angeles — Chief of Police
■ City of Shafter, CA — Police Chief
Search Process
o Establish candidate profile
o Develop recruitment materials
o Advertise the position
o Source/recruit quality candidates
o Screen/vet candidates
o Forward candidates with recommendations
Selection process
o Goal: Inclusive Process
0 1" round interviews
■ Law Enforcement Panel (Partners and Edmonds)
■ Intergovernmental Panel (Leaders e.g. Schools, Mental Health, Fire)
■ Community Panel (e.g. Youth Commission, Senior Center, Diversity Commission and
Other Community Partners)
■ Interview with the Mayor
o Debrief Panels — Provide the Mayor with Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement for
each candidate
o Select Finalists
Finalist Process
o Suggested Multi -Day Process
Community Forum
■ City staff forum
■ Meet and greet City — directors team
■ Interview with Mayor
■ Mayor selects 3 finalists
■ City Council interviews three finalists
■ Mayor makes the final selection and forwards to City Council for approval
o Entire process 90-120 days
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Peterson was from California and recalling Edmonds'
Police Chief prior to Chief Compaan was also from California. She asked if that was because there were
more police departments in California. Mr. Peterson answered there are 350 police departments in
California.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how Councilmembers should provide their input. Ms. Neill
Hoyson suggested Council could provide input now or email input to her. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said it may be better if Councilmembers have an opportunity to think about it for a bit. Ms. Neill
Hoyson commented this would not be the Council's only opportunity; it will take 7-10 days to develop the
recruiting materials so there is time to provide feedback.
Councilmember Paine said she has been a public employee and has had bosses who conducted national
searches. She asked if there would be a public records request to obtain all the employment information
regarding the top candidates. Mr. Peterson answered it would depend on where they come from. A records
check will be done through First Check who will provide a screening report that includes a lot of information
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 8
Packet Pg. 151
8.1.f
but he was uncertain it would provide all the employment data. Councilmember Paine assumed they would
also do a thorough internet search. Mr. Peterson agreed.
Councilmember Paine asked what he perceived to be the biggest challenge in the recruitment process for a
city Edmonds' size. Mr. Peterson answered mainly the cost of living; it is expensive to live in the Seattle
Metropolitan area which may dissuade some candidates. He recruited for Redmond which is similarly
situated and had a very strong candidate pool. Councilmember Paine commented Redmond also has unique
qualities.
Councilmember Olson asked if the City would be responsible for moving expenses if an out-of-state
candidate were selected. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that can be part of the negotiation process once a
candidate is selected.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the population of cities he generally conducts searches for. Mr. Peterson
answered it ranges from small (18,000) to very large. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if their questions
take into consideration the knowledge of the area, the area the chief will be managing, crime history, etc.
Mr. Peterson said all that information is relevant and important to know and is taken into consideration and
factored into the assessment. Councilmember Buckshnis warned him the City had experts involved in the
Fire contract who provided some very valuable information that saved the City approximately $1M/year,
but that went terribly with the union.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Peterson was involved in hiring Seattle's Police Chief
Carmen Best who was an internal candidate. She asked how many total candidates there were for that
position. Mr. Peterson recalled there were a total of 65 candidates; their process called for advancing five
candidates to the mayor. Eight candidates were interviewed by a 24-person search committee who reduced
the number to five. PSSC's involvement ended once the five candidates were forwarded to the mayor's
process.
Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled Carmen Best was not Seattle mayor's top choice. Mr. Peterson
said that was well documented in the newspapers and he did not want to comment. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said she was not necessarily interested in Mayor Durkan's reasoning but how Carmen Best was
appointed. Mr. Peterson the five candidates submitted were reduced to three, one candidate dropped out,
Carmen Best was added and was ultimately selected.
Councilmember Olson commented it was a relief to see so many layers of community engagement in the
process, recalling recalled the hearing examiner's comment that Edmonds citizens care a lot about the
community. She encourage him to listen to the citizen feedback at every step in the process.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, speaking for herself, referred to an article she wrote recently and asked if
Councilmembers had read it; several indicated they had. She posed the following questions: What does the
Mayor believe is broken at the Police Department that needs fixing? What is the Mayors' direction for the
Edmonds Police Department; citizens would like to know the plan before it is implemented. Is it his intent
bring Edmonds into the sphere of influence of Seattle policies and politic and if so, is that in the best interest
of the Edmonds community? What message, perhaps a loss of confidence, are you sending to rank and file
of the department that you would look outside for new leadership when the department has qualified
leadership within and is already a successful, cohesive organization? At this point with so many retirees, it
is critical that new staff have cohesive education and support for their inexperience. As pointed out earlier,
there is an average of 3 years' experience on the graveyard and the department is losing 38 years of
experience. Bringing in new, outside leadership at this point doesn't seem wise from a management
standpoint. A change of leadership should be stabilizing and use of this recruiting company does not seem
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 9
Packet Pg. 152
8.1.f
to move in that direction. She was concerned that the amount of money spent was excessive and
recommended individuals in the department be strongly considered.
Marlin Phelps referred to a 2015 phone conversation with City Attorney Jeff Taraday in which Mr.
Taraday told him the City had a new public defender. Prior to that time, the City used Feldman and
Associates in Lynnwood who was heavily corrupt. He went to Feldman's office because he was fighting
corruption in Edmonds; Mr. Feldman slammed his office door to the amusement of receptionist. When he
left, he saw Mr. Feldman's silhouette through his half -open blinds, on the phone screaming "that expletive
expletive is here right now." He commend on the crimes that went on in the Edmonds courthouse, the things
they did and that there were no trials. James Zachor has trials but his father James Zachor, Junior, is a
murderer, a cold blooded, old school gangster, murderer. Given adequate time and his story of what
happened to him, he can point to the that James Zachor, Junior was responsible for the murder of a U.S.
Attorney. In 2001 U.S. Attorney Tom Wells was shot 4 times while sitting at his computer in his Queen
Anne home. James Zachor, Junior had his own grandson's father murdered. To know the history of this
room and what went on will empower the Council. He encouraged the Council to know what they did and
not be fooled.
Jim Ognisty, Edmonds, highlighted State House and Senate Bills that could have a dramatic impact on
the character of the City, SB 6536 and HB 2780, related to the elimination of single family zoning across
the state, similar to what Oregon has enacted. He assumed the Council was passionate above the issue and
wanted to bringing the bills to their attention as they are moving quickly through the House and Senate. He
was curious whether the City would take a specific stance on either bill and if so, how that would be
communicated to state representatives and residents.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was unable attend earlier to watch the Hearing Examiner's report so did not
what know what questions the Council asked. He hoped someone asked how for the second consecutive
time the Hearing Examiner's term and contract expired without putting the position out to competitive bid.
The Hearing Examiner office has been problematic for the City and citizens for some time. He encouraged
the City Council to do a detailed investigation into the history of the Hearing Examiner position and to
involve citizens in that process and allow citizens to participate in the evaluation of that office before putting
it out to bid. The Hearing Examiner has a four year term; the December 31, 2014 expiration was overlooked,
10 months later citizens made the City aware and his new term expired December 31, 2019 without going
to bid. The process is to go out to bid, the Mayor makes an appointment, and the City Council confirms and
a contract is entered into. He urged the Council to do a detailed look into the Hearing Examiner's office
and look at Chapter 10.35 which is an absolute mess
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS FOR POLICE COVERAGE AT SCHOOL
DISTRICT EVENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 10
Packet Pg. 153
8.1.f
5. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE CALL TO ARTISTS
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MURRAYSMITH FOR THE PHASE 8 SEWERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE PHASE 11 WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Finance Committee
Councilmember Distelhorst reported on topics the committee reviewed:
• Finance Committee Orientation — information only
• Preliminary December 2019 Quarterly Financial Report — future full Council
2020 Carryforward Budget Amendment Ordinance — full Council in future
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Paine reported on topics the committee reviewed:
1. Authorization to Advertise Call to Artists (Civic Park and library) — approved on Consent Agenda
2. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with The Blueline Group for the Phase 11
Waterline Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda
3. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Murraysmith for the Phase 8 Sewerline
Replacement Project — approved on Consent Agenda
4. Level 3 Communications LLC Franchise Ordinance — future Consent Agenda
Public Safety, Personnel &. Planning Committee
Councilmember K. Johnson reported on topics the committee reviewed:
1. Discussion Executive Assistant to Council Contract — consider extending current contract and
possibly hold executive session to discuss performance. May be further discussion by Council
2. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Between Edmonds School District and City of Edmonds for
Police Coverage at School District Events — approved on Consent Agenda
3. Edmonds School District Security Camera Inter -Local Agreement — full Council
4. Field Arborist Job Description — Consent Agenda following union approval
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
PROCEDURE(AM 11701900051
Planner Mike Clugston explained staff has identified the need for a minor change to the unit lot subdivision
application procedure so that a building permit would precede the unit lot division application. Applying
for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to processing inefficiencies for both
staff and applicant. The change will save the applicant and staff time and money. Staff recommends
approval of the ordinance following the public hearing.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented in the past the Council has not made a decision at the same meeting
as the public hearing and has made the decision at a future meeting to allow for additional questions and
comments. She asked what process the Council intended to follow.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 11
Packet Pg. 154
8.1.f
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Councilmember Paine plan to bring that issue up as part of a study
session regarding Council procedures. She recalled times in the past when the Council did not take action
at the same meeting as the public hearing and other times the Council did take action following the public
hearing. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that the Council should take action at the meeting
following a public hearing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said her research found there was nothing in writing either way. In the
past there have been numerous instances where a decision follows the public hearing. Councilmembers
always have the right to make a motion. It would be good to have a written policy that the Council does not
take action at the same meeting as the public hearing.
Councilmember Paine said she preferred the Council have time to digest the information and consider
comments received via email.
Development Services Director Shane Hope clarified the intent of memo was not that the Council make a
decision tonight, but simply to relay that staff recommends approval.
Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said when it comes to subdivision application procedures, the critical part is
enforcement of the laws the City Council adopts. Enforcement of application procedures for subdivisions
should not be contingent upon citizens monitoring applications and ensuring they file an appeal before the
21 day LUPA period expires. Citizens do not have time to monitor subdivision applications to ensure they
are complete, consistent and legal; it is mayor's job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully
enforced. He feared the 21 day LUPA appeal period creates a problem for citizens. Whatever the Council
adopts, he recommended strong enforcement of the procedures.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed a diagram of the zoning on the waterfront, identifying the CW
(Commercial Waterfront) zone west of the railroad. The other parts of downtown allow hotels; the CW
zone is the only commercial zone in the downtown area that does not. The Planning Board recommended
adding hotels as a permitted use in the CW zone. He reviewed the applicable code sections:
• 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments
Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment
commercial and recreational uses.
Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high -
intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation.
• 24.40.040 Public access and views.
11. View Protection Regulations.
a. Within the urban mixed use 1, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II
shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the
following required view corridors:
i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained
across 30 percent of the average parcel width....
Mr. Chave reviewed amendment options:
1. Planning Board recommendation draft ordinance: add "hotels" to the list of permitted uses in the CW
zone
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 12
Packet Pg. 155
8.1.f
2. If parking is a concern, this can be substituted in the ordinance: add "Hotels that include parking at
one stall for every unit" (current residential parking requirement)
Mr. Chave referred to the Council packet which includes questions and answers based on previous Council
discussion as well as background from Economic Development Committee (EDC) related to permitting
hotels in the CW zone.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referenced the two buildings that have had some level of discussion, one
has plenty of parking and the other has minimal parking and adjoins City's parking. She questioned how
parking would be made available if there is only so much space. Mr. Chave answered the standard parking
rate is 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area; another option would be to require the language in option
2, "Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit." If that amount of parking was not available, a
hotel could not be established at that location. Another option would be "Hotels that include parking at 1
space per 500 square feet of floor area." In either option, that much parking would need to be provided to
establish a hotel use.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented that prohibits current waterfront buildings. Mr. Chave
answered it would depend on the existing circumstances and what property was available. Economic
Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the 1 space per 500 square feet of floor
area that is uniform across downtown recognizes the changes in uses that have occurred downtown over
the decades. Downtown buildings have had a variety of uses in response to market demands. Having a
consistent parking requirement of 1 per 500 allows the same parking for the next use. Changing the parking
requirement for hotels would mean other uses could continue to provide 1 per 500. Anyone interested in
developing a hotel would need to determine the size based on available parking.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if that was the same for the Port property, noting a majority of the
CW zone was on Port property. Mr. Chave answered the CW zone applies to the Port property as well; the
one exception is Harbor Square which has its own unique zoning and standards.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the zoning diagram and inquired about the green space with
a P on it. Mr. Chave answered that was zoned Public. He identified the shoreline, noting the area zoned
public is basically the beach. Developing a hotel on the Edmonds waterfront would not result in inaccessible
waterfront because via covenants, public ownership, etc. public access to most of the waterfront is
protected.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she believes zoning is an extension of the police powers as was before the
U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid V. Ambler. It is the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
One factor that hasn't been discussed is noise. She did not feel it was appropriate to have a hotel renovated
in an existing location because in her experience while in those buildings, conversations have to stop due
to the train noise. If the City had a quite zone or adequate passage to the waterfront area, it could be
reconsidered. In the meantime, she did not find renovating an existing building for a hotel appropriate. She
has heard complaints about the train from people at Harbor Square. In theory, Edmonds needs more hotels
and in theory the waterfront is a beautiful area but this proposal is not appropriate at this time. She was also
concern with how this was communicated and transmitted directly from the EDC to the Planning Board
without first coming to the City Council.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed Brackett's Landing North is also colored green on the zoning map
and asked why the area south of the ferry terminal was not also green. Mr. Chave answered it was never
zoned that way; it is owned by the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 13
Packet Pg. 156
8.1.f
Councilmember Olson said the comments about parking are relevant for today including concern with
overflow onto the streets and using parking that should be available for other uses. She pointed out
automation will change things, as well Uber and rental cars that park away from the hotel. In the short term
and for the reality of today, possibly some parking language should be added, but it was important for the
Council as a legislative body to readdress that as reality changes and not as much parking is needed even if
a hotel has not come to fruition. With regard to noise, that is an issue for a developer to consider in
developing a hotel, and there are great noise proofing construction methods. The proposal is changing the
zoning so it is an option if the right developer can make a project work. She was in favor of the proposed
change.
Mr. Chave commented it is difficult to predict the clientele that would be attracted to a hotel in this location.
One of the factors is the proximity to rail and ferry traffic; some people seeking lodging may not even have
a car. Mr. Doherty referred to uses that are currently allowed, noting there are currently no restaurants north
of the fishing pier. Restaurants are currently allowed and have the highest parking demand of all the uses
being discussed, whether office, hotel or residential. Any one of those building could be reused for a
restaurant at any time. The concept is to add another use to the pallet of possible uses. A hotel is not an
outlier from a parking perspective when compared to the current list of uses.
Councilmember Paine asked if one of the buildings were rehabilitated as a hotel, do they have access to
parking permits beyond their employees. Mr. Doherty said no, recalling a two unit hotel on Dayton applied
for parking permits and were denied because the current language does not state hotel guests.
Councilmember Paine asked if hotel employees could obtain a parking permit. Mr. Doherty did not think
the Railroad & Admiral area was in the permit area.
Councilmember Paine said the noise concerns are impactful but are not much different than other uses in
the area. She was not entirely opposed if it was related to renovating an existing building. If a new building
were proposed, she would have more concerns. Mr. Doherty pointed out most of the existing building
substantially exceed today's development standards and some do not provide any view corridor. If a
building were demolished to construct a new building, they would be required to provide 30% of the lot as
a view corridor which potentially could be 30% less building as well as potentially a lower height.
Therefore, it would be very unlikely someone would demolish a building to rebuild a hotel. Mr. Chave
agreed several of the existing building exceed the height limit. A new building would have to provide a
view corridor as well as likely be shorter.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was baffled; the code is messed up, there are four different definitions
for hotel and motel and there are higher priorities than adding hotels to the CW zone. She cited parking
issues, sound issues, public issues, potentially rezoning the entire area, and concern with hotel creep into
the MP Il zone. Had the Planning Board come to the City Council first, she would have said no. She
summarized the definition of hotel motel is a can of worms.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to staff s indication that restaurants have the highest parking needs,
commenting in her experience hotels often have a restaurant. Mr. Doherty said the issue is there is not a lot
of square footage in any of the buildings. If anyone were to determine there was a higher economic return
to renovate a building for lodging, they likely would want to maximize the number of units and meet the
parking requirements. He did not envision there being enough parking onsite to accommodate a restaurant
other than a small bar for guests and/or a breakfast room. It would be difficult to accommodate both a hotel
and restaurant with the limited parking that exists unless they were to acquire additional property within a
reasonable distance. He summarized it was unlikely there would be a hotel of any size and a full service
restaurant because there would not enough building space or parking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 14
Packet Pg. 157
8.1.f
Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the building north of the newly created waterfront/senior
center used to have a very large restaurant and nearly their entire first floor is parking. That building would
make the most sense for development as a hotel. She was interested in hearing from citizens. She recalled
the building north of the fishing pier previously had a number apartments and are now offices; that building
is set up for hotel rooms.
Councilmember Olson said she was interested in citizen input. As someone who has served on citizen
boards, she was aware of the frustration due to the lack of action on the work and proposals those citizen
boards have done. This is likely an opportunity in one building closest to the waterfront/senior center and
would only happen if a developer was interested. The EDC has considered this and talked to a lot of business
owners and stakeholders; this could be an economic driver for the City. The City needs more hotel rooms
and are losing room nights to Lynnwood because there are inadequate accommodation in Edmonds. She
urged the Council to keep an open mind and remember the citizens who volunteer their time on EDC put
their time and effort into this which was good enough reason for her to look at it more closely.
Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, small business owner and EDC member, spoke in support of amending the
ECDC to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW zone. There are so many fantastic reasons to visit Edmonds
and it makes sense to capitalize on visitors and the dollars they spend. For example, research shows that
day-trippers spend $45-85/day; overnight guests spend $175+. With the development of new
waterfront/senior center, it is a natural partnership to allow existing building space to become a hotel and
to create a true waterfront event experience. There is an opportunity for Edmonds to have one of the only
beachfront boutique hotels in the greater Seattle area. As a member of the EDC and Downtown Edmonds
Merchants Association, who also supports the amendment, they see the opportunity this change could create
for economic growth and ask that the Council to consider the amendment.
Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, recalled speaking with a few Councilmembers two weeks ago when this
amendment was first presented. His overall opinion was the amendment would be a great idea. The concerns
expressed about noise, parking, etc. will play themselves out. It will be a business decision by the person
who chooses to develop a hotel. In this day and age where people provide online reviews, if noise becomes
an issue, the hotel will not attract customers. It will be up to the business owner whether a hotel would be
profitable. He agreed a hotel could not operate restaurant, more likely they would form relationships with
existing waterfront restaurants. The location of hotel on the waterfront in close proximity to the train station
is a perfect match because people can walk to the hotel. This change offers nothing but opportunity. Any
redevelopment would improve the architecture profile of the waterfront. He was looking hard for a
downside and the only downside he saw was the hullabaloo in previous years about safety on the waterfront.
David Preston, Edmonds, agreed code issues are an important point. He noted there is already a hotel on
the waterfront, the Port of Edmonds has over 5,000 overnight stays on the water in boats per year.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about occupancy of Harbor Inn. Mr. Doherty answered the manager's
email, which arrived after the Council packet was assembled, stated 55-65% occupancy is average during
non -peak times such as this time of year; in the summer occupancy is 95-100%. He summarized there are
times of the year where there is a need for more rooms and other times when another hotel would be a
competitor in the marketplace.
10. STUDY ITEMS
1. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES. STUDY SESSIONS, AND STUDY ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 15
Packet Pg. 158
8.1.f
This item was removed from the agenda via action during Agenda Item 4.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson advised he will be a tasting judge at the Chamber of Commerce International Clam Chowder
Cookoff on Saturday, February 22. There will be ten local restaurants participating and one participant from
Japan.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember K. Johnson announced she has reappointed Scott Merrick to the Economic Development
Commission. She announced the 28"' Annual Chocolate and Wine Gala presented by Domestic Violence
Services of Snohomish County on Friday, April 3' at the Tulalip Resort Casino.
Councilmember L. Johnson reported the South Snohomish County Cold Weather Shelter opened last night
when temperatures dropped below 34 degrees. The shelter will be open through Thursday due to projected
low temperatures. It is a lifesaving service that is staffed by volunteers and they are always looking for
more volunteers. She plans to volunteer tomorrow; varying length shifts are available morning and evening.
More information is available at weallbelong.org.
Councilmember Buckshnis reminded dogs are not allowed on Brackett's Landing beach or any Edmonds
beaches except the dog park south of Marina Beach.
Council President Fraley-Monillas wished Mayor Nelson luck at the Clam Chowder cookoff as she does
not like clam chowder.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked everyone who participated in the Citizens Housing Commission
(CHC) open house last week. The survey is open until Friday and available in multiple languages. He
thanked the CHC for providing an opportunity for those for whom English may not be their first language
to complete the survey.
Councilmember Olson reported the Memorial Day event will be expanded this year with an invitation to
people who have been touched by the art of Michael Reagan's Fallen Heroes Project. There are a lot of
special events for Gold Star families who have lost loved ones to the war on terror. She invited the public
to contact her via the City website or at her talk then walk at 85°C Bakery Caf6 on Hwy 99 tomorrow at
8:00 a.m.
Councilmember Paine thanked everyone who came to the Housing Commission open house, coming it was
very interesting and there were many perspectives. She estimated the number of attendee at 100. She was
pleased with the attendance and was encouraged about having traveling open houses.
Councilmember Paine reported on her Police Department ridealong, five hours with Sergeant Barker, that
she found fascinating and a terrific education. She did not expect so much to be going on behind the scenes
in Edmonds.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
of L J/J
MIC £L NELSON, MAYOR
PASSEY, CITY CLE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 18, 2020
Page 16
Packet Pg. 159
8.1.g
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO RECENT COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS
1. Q: Should hotels be allowed in the CW zone only as a conditional use?
A: In the Edmonds City Code, "Conditional use means a use allowed in one or more zones as
defined by the zoning code but which, because of characteristics peculiar to such use, because of
size, hours of operation, technical processes or equipment, or because of the exact location with
reference to surroundings and existing improvements or demands upon public facilities, requires
a special permit in order to provide a particular degree of control to make such uses consistent
with and compatible with other existing or permissible uses in the same zone or zones."
Since offices, restaurants, and other commercial uses are already allowed in the CW zone, it is
not clear that hotels would be out of character or have "peculiar characteristics" above and
beyond the other types of commercial uses allowed. In fact, some marine -related allowed in
the CW zone may arguably have greater impacts. For these reasons, it does not appear to be
necessary to subject hotel uses to the greater scrutiny, process and expense of a conditional use
process. In addition, the Planning Board did not raise the potential need for a conditional use to
accommodate this additional permitted use in the CW zone.
2. Q: Should the definition of "hotel" in ECC be updated?
A: The definition of "hotel" could certainly be updated, and we have considered doing that
sometime soon — perhaps bundled with other "clean-up" amendments. As to specific questions
raised regarding the existing definition: The current definition of hotel could allow for B&Bs,
which are a reasonable lodging type. Other uses, such as senior home or apartments, etc., are
already governed by their respective definitions, so there would be no confusion that they could
somehow be construed to be "hotel" uses.
3. Q: Would this proposal include motels?
A: No, motels are auto -oriented lodging establishments which we do not believe are compatible
with the downtown environment.
4. Q: Will sufficient parking be required for a hotel use?
A: Throughout Downtown Edmonds (in the BD zones) the parking requirement for all
commercial uses is 1 space for 500 square feet of gross building area. This includes hotel uses in
the Downtown Business (BD) zones. This uniform requirement is intended to allow our existing
building stock, including historic buildings, to be readily adaptable to a full range of commercial
uses over time and as market demand dictates. To require specific parking ratios for each
possible use could result in certain uses being unavailable for certain buildings, and/or could
even render certain buildings unadaptable or even obsolete. Wishing to promote a rich variety
of interchangeable commercial uses in Downtown Edmonds, the City has implemented this
standard parking ratio requirement and staff believes it should be continued in the CW zone for
hotel uses also. If the Council wishes to consider another option, we have included the option
of using the standard of 1 space per hotel room unit.
Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be compatible with the City's plans to complete the
waterfront walkway and otherwise provide physical and visual access to the waterfront?
A: Yes. Re -use of existing buildings for lodging would in no way impact the City's efforts in this
Packet Pg. 160
8.1.g
regard. What's more, two factors may argue in favor of hotel uses as providing greater public
access to and enjoyment of the shoreline (a central tenet of the Shoreline Management Act)
than some private uses, such as office: the common inclusion of semipublic spaces and functions
in hotels (lobbies, cafes, bars), especially when fronting an amenity like a public beach, and the
larger and ever -changing daily population of users of a hotel.
6. Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be required to observe the view corridor requirements of the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP)?
A: Yes. All new buildings in the CW zone, within the shoreline environment, would have to
observe all development standards of the SMP, including view corridors. However, given that
most, if not all, existing commercial buildings in the CW zone predate current SMP requirements
(most do not include view corridors, e.g.), it is unlikely that a property owners or developer
would demolish an existing building to accommodate a new structure, given that the result
would be a smaller new building. Re -use of an existing building as a hotel would not trigger view
corridor requirements.
Packet Pg. 161
MEMORANDUM
TO: MATT CHEUNG, CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD
ROB CHAVE, PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
VIA: MARY MONROE, CHAIR AIM
SUBJECT: Amendment of Edmonds Community Development Code to Allow Lodging
Uses in CW Zone.
DATE: September 18, 2019
In pursuit of one of the 2019 EDC Work Plan Goals, as presented to City Council earlier this year, at its
September 18, 2019 meeting the Economic Development Commission recommended that the
Commercial Waterfront "CW" Zone "permitted use" provisions be amended to allow lodging uses.
There has been discussion in previous EDC meetings over the past two years about this issue, which
Commissioners believe would potentially allow for development of additional lodging facilities within
walking distance of Downtown Edmonds, thereby serving to enhance economic vitality, jobs and
revenue.
We hope that by transmittal of this memo, in addition to our work in the past and stated goals to City
Council, the Planning Board and Development Services Department will be able to commence work on
this rather minor code amendment in the near future.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me or Patrick Doherty, Economic Development and
Community Services Director.
Packet Pg. 162
8.1.i
ALTERNATIVE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW
HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW)
ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City's zoning code generally provides for hotels and motels in
commercial zones; and
WHEREAS, this amendment allows only hotels, but not motels, in the CW zone; and
WHEREAS, this amendment would update the codified definition of hotel; and
WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which
allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public
hearing on December 11, 2019; and
WHEREAS, this code amendment was originally requested by the Economic
Development Commission; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 16.55 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike
through).
Section 2. Chapter 21.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Amendment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike
through).
Packet Pg. 163
8.1.i
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 164
8.1.i
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE
COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
3
Packet Pg. 165
8.1.i
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 16.55
CW — COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT
Sections:
16.55.000 Purposes.
16.55.010 Uses.
16.55.020 Site development standards.
16.55.030 Operating restrictions.
16.55.000 Purposes.
The CW zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes listed in Chapter
16.40 ECDC:
A. To reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians
to the waterfront;
B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the
waterfront;
C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public.
16.55.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Marine -oriented services;
2. Retail uses which are either marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented, excluding drive-in businesses;
3. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics;
5. Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation;
6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.;
7. Hotels.
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use.
C. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC;
2. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 6, 2001; Ord. 2366 § 9, 1983; Ord. 2307, 1982; Ord. 2283 § 6, 1982].
El
Packet Pg. 166
8.1.i
16.55.020 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum Minimum
Lot Area Lot Width
Minimum'Maximum
Setbacks
Maximum
Height Coverage
CW None None
15' landward of
30' None
bulkheads for
buildings; 60'
landward of
bulkheads for
parking
1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property.
z Tanks which are part of a petroleum products storage and distribution facility are
allowed to be 48 feet in height.
B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC.
C. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC
16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 2526 § 7, 1985].
16.55.030 Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except
for:
1. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats;
3. Public parks;
4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
5. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3902 § 4,
2012; Ord. 3320 § 4, 2000].
Chapter 21.40
DEFINITIONS - "H" TERMS
21.40.060 Hotel.
Hotel means aft), building eantaining five or more sepafately aeeupied reems that afe F-ented alit fe
sleeping pui-7pases. A eentfal kitehen and dining room and inter-ior aeeessar-y shops and ser-viees eater-ing to
the general publie ean be provided. -Nat ineluded afe insfitutions he]] i - '
int of
a facility offering transient lodging accommodations on a daily or
weekly basis to the general public and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting
rooms, and recreation facilities. (See also, Motel.)
0
Packet Pg. 167
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/9/2021
Overview of WCIA Annual Audit
Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson
Background/History
The City of Edmonds is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) which is a
pooling organization for purposes of insuring and addressing liability. Member organizations complete
and audit annually with WCIA as part of their compact requirement. The 2020 audit covers the claim
period 2015 - 2019.
Staff Recommendation
No action requested. For information only.
Narrative
See attached PowerPoint which will be reviewed during the committee meeting.
Attachments:
2020 WCIA Audit Overview
Packet Pg. 168
9.1.a
WCIA 2020 Annual Audit
For claims years 2015 - 2019
Overview of audit information
Q
Packet Pg. 169
9.1.a
ITEMS FOR REVIEW
• WCIA Overview
• Stewardship Report
• Coverage and coverage levels
• S year Risk Profile
• 2021 Assessment
Packet Pg. 170
9.1.a
WCIA Overview
• The Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) is a municipal organization of Washington public entities that
join together for the purpose of providing liability and property financial protection to its members.
• Formed in 1981, as the first liability risk pool in Washington State. WCIA has evolved from the original nine
members to a financially strong liability and property pool of over 150 members, with one common goal; to
aggressively manage members' financial risk.
• WCIA is fully funded by its members, who make annual assessments on a prospectively rated basis, as
determined by an outside, independent actuary. The assessment covers loss, loss adjustment, reinsurance and
other administrative expenses.
• An investment committee, using investment brokers, produces additional revenue by investment of WCIA's
assets in financial instruments which comply with all State guidelines.
• A Board of Directors governs WCIA, which is comprised of one designated representative from each member.
The Board elects an Executive Committee and appoints a Treasurer to provide general policy direction for the
organization. The WCIA Executive Director reports to the Executive Committee and is responsible for conducting,
MQ�o
the day to day operations of WCIA.
1pc IA90
Packet Pg. 171
9.1.a
Stewardship Report (Edmonds use of discretionary services)
A9XTITITAV9 1MMIla:4:4M :41W11i2MWO11i1:7
Edmonds
Summary of Benefits
Consultation
Pre -Defense
Reimbursement
$3,014.60
$80,765.11
$27,936.20
Total: $111,715.91
a
C
a
a
U
0
3
m
a�
0
3
2
0
a
a
U
3.1
N
O
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a
Packet Pg. 172
9.1.a
Comparison With Other Group Members Edmonds Usage of WCIA Member Services
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Edmonds Costs = Group 4 Average Costs
Packet Pg. 173
9.1.a
Coverage & Coverage Levels
LIABILITY PROGRAM
Liability Joint Protection Program
Auto Liability, General Liability, Police Liability, Errors or Omissions Liability, Employment Practices
Liability, Employee Benefit Liability and Stop -Gap Liability. 100% occurrence form.
Layer: Limits:
Self -Insured Layer Limit $4M per Occurrence
Reinsured Layer — Governmental Entities Mutual, Inc. $3M per Occurrence
Reinsured Layer — Argonaut Insurance Company $8M per Occurrence and Aggregate per Member
Reinsured Layer — Allied World Assurance Company, Inc. $5M per Occurrence and Aggregate per Member
Reinsured. Layer — Markel Global Reinsurance Company $5M per Occurrence and. Aggregate per Member
Total Limit:
$25M per Occurrence, subject to aggregates and
Packet Pg. 174
9.1.a
AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE PROGRAM
Auto Physical Damage Joint Protection Program
Limits:
Deductible:
Gl
a
Actual Cash Value (ACV) for scheduled vehicles except optional replacement cost coverage for
vehicles over $25,000. Deductible Waived for glass repair and damage caused by fire or 3
lightning. E
Deductible shown only if program member.
It should be noted that WCIA has changed the replacement cost base for vehicles to $50,000
starting in 2021. Edmonds has reviewed and updated coverage for the fleet based on this.
0
WWI
d
Packet Pg. 175
9.1.a
PROPERTY PROGRAM
a
Property Joint Protection Program
WCIA self -insures (pools) the first $750,000 of covered perils other than flood and earthquake. We a
a
purchase and follow a Lloyd's of London policy with the limits provided below.
Limits: $400,0001,000 per Occurrence 3
Sub -Limits: $150,000,000 Earthquake per Occurrence and Annual Pool Aggregate
$100,000,000 Flood per Occurrence and Annual Pool Aggregate, except $50,000,000 Flood o
Sub -Limit within Flood Zones A and V. 3
Other sub -limits may apply. L
Deductible: Earthquake: 2% of Values Involved Subject to $250,000 Minimum per Occurrence o
Flood: $2501000 per Occurrence, except within Flood Zones A and V 3% of the total
building/facility values involved in the loss subject to a $500,000 minimum occurrence. a
U
All Other Perils: III Deductible shown only if program member:
N
r
1 a
- d
E
.EDM t
O V
v 4,O fC
• I a
Packet Pg. 176
9.1.a
EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN (BOILER AND MACHINERY) PROGRAM
Insured by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company
Limits: $100,0001,000 Maximum Limit (Equipment Breakdown)
Sub -Limits: $1010001000 Business Income, Service Interruption
$51)000,000 Demolition, Ordinance of Law
$ 1,000,000 Extra Expense
$5001000 Perishable Goods, Expediting Expenses, Hazardous Substances
$1001000 Off Premises Equipment Breakdown, Contingent Business Income,
Data Restoration
Deductible: $10,000 Combined All Coverage Except:
$25 per KW Turbine Generator Units with a $50,000 Minimum
*$25 per HP Motors, Pumps, and Deep Well Pump Units
*$2.50 per KVA Transformers
*$25 per HP A/C and Refrigeration Systems
*$25 per HP Internal Combustion Engines and Generators=500 HP
*Subject to a $10, 000 Minimum Deductible
® Checked only if program member.
A
Packet Pg. 177
9.1.a
w
POLLUTION LIABILITY PROGRAM
Insured by Chubb Insurance Company
Limits: $21000,000
Limit of Liability
$10,0005000 Total Policy and Program Aggregate Limit of Liability for all
Pollution Conditions and Indoor Environmental Conditions
Sub -Limit: $250,000
Deductibles: a) $100,000
b) 5 Days
r
Q
a
a
Per Condition Pollution Condition or Indoor Environmental Condition 3:
0
3
a�
0
Maximum for "Catastrophe Management Costs" Arising out of all Pollution
Conditions and Indoor Environmental Conditions L
Per Pollution Condition or Indoor Environmental Condition o
Days per Pollution Condition or Indoor Environmental Condition for a
a
U
Q' N
4 N
N
r
C
. d
E
4 of EDA,
V
v ,6 +�+
Business Interruption Loss
Packet Pg. 178
9.1.a
CRIMEIFIDELITY PROGRAM
Insured by AIG — National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA
r
Q
a
a
$2,500,000: Employee Theft - per Loss Coverage, Forgery or Alteration, Inside Premises - Theft
of Money and Securities, Inside Premises - Robbery or Safe Burglary of Other 3
Property, Outside the Premises, Computer Fraud, Funds Transfer Fraud, Money Orders and
Counterfeit Money, Credit/Debit Card Forgery, and Faithful Performance of Duty as prescribed o
by law. Blanket coverage for all employees unless excluded under the insurance policy. 3
Deductibles: $10,000 ® Checked only if program member.
$50,000 Impersonation Fraud Coverage Deductible with a $250,000 sub -limit. o
a
a
o
N
O
¢� N
. r
C
E
OF EDA,
V
Q
Packet Pg. 179
9.1.a
INFORMATION SECURITY INSURANCE (CYBER INSURANCE)
Insured by AIG Specialty Insurance Company
a
Limits: $10,000,000 Aggregate Pool Policy Limit and per Member $1,000,000 Limit a
Sub -Limits: $1,000,000 Security and Privacy Liability Insurance per Member
$1,000,000 Regulatory Action per Member o
$1,000,000 PCI-DSS Assessment or Fine per Member
751,000 Affected Individuals Privacy Event Services per Member/5M Aggregate Affected Persons
$1,000,000 Event Management Electronic Data per Member o
$1,000,000 Event Management Event Response per Member 3
$1,000,000 Bricking L
$1,000,000 Cyber Extortion Including Bitcoin Ransom Coverage
0
Deductibles: $25,000 Security and Privacy Liability Insurance Including Regulatory Action a
$251000 PCI-DSS Assessment a_
100 Affected Individuals Privacy Event Services
$25,000 Event Management, E-Discovery None N
E
OF EDA,
V
Inc. 1 890
Packet Pg. 180
9.1.a
5 Year Risk Profile 2015 - 2019
Member Claims by Coverage
Member Group
Member Sub Coverage
Expected Claim Count
Actual Claim Count
4
Edmonds Auto Liability
30
20
4
Edmonds Employment Practices
3
2
4
Edmonds Errors & Omissions
9
4
4
Edmonds General Liability
146
102
4
Edmonds Public Safety
33
12
Totals:
221
140
Group Claims by
Coverage
Member Group
Sub Coverage
Group Claim Count
Group Average Claim Count
4
Auto Liability
448
21.33
4
Employment Practices
53
2.62
4
Errors & Omissions
135
6.43
4
General Liability
2,213
105.38
4
Public Safety
506
24.10
Totals:
3,355
159.76
Expected Total Incurred
428,010.46
278;696.84
243,426.62
921,685.88
1,042,409.63
2,914,229.43
Group Total Incurred
6,486,549.35
4,223, 032.57
3,688,590.63
13,966,105.65
15,795,406.32
44,158,684.52
Q
Q
Actual Total Incurr Q
38,662. U
18,401. —
115,760. 3
d
347,635. '
65,576. >
586,255. 0
3
2
L
Group Average Total Incun >
O
308,835.
201,096.
175,647. Q
665,052. V >
752,162. >
O
2,102,794. N
O
N
y
E
pF EDyo�
�0�
U
fC
rr
r
Ia
Packet Pg. 181
9.1.a
2021 Coverage Year Assessments
Total Assessment: $920,264
Coverage/Program
Auto Physical Damage
Boiler & Machinery
Crime/Fidelity
Liability
Property
Assessment
34,166.00
9,457.00
2,537.00
665, 738.00
208, 366.00
OF EDti,O4
ON
A
��c. 1490
3
Q
Packet Pg. 182
9.1.a
Questions?
OF EDMO�O
��c. 1890
r
�a
Q
c
c
Q
a_
U
4-
0
0
L
>
O
Q
Q
U
O
N
CO
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 183