2021-03-23 City Council - Full Agenda-28231.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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
MARCH 23, 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
PRESENTATION
1. Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month Proclamation (5 min)
JOINT MEETING
1. Annual Joint Meeting - South County Fire Board of Commissioners (45 min)
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
March 23, 2021
Page 1
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2021
2. Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.
3. Report on Bids and Award Construction Contract for the 2021 Overlay Program
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Amendments to New Tree Regulations (45 min)
10. NEW BUSINESS
1. Update on Trends and Data from Alliance for Housing Affordability (25 min)
11. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS
1. Outside Boards and Committees Reports (0 min)
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council Committee Minutes (0 min)
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
March 23, 2021
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month Proclamation
Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Since 1987, the month of March has been recognized as Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities
Awareness Month in the United States.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
The City of Edmonds wishes to recognize its community members with intellectual/developmental
disabilities for their strengths and contributions to our community.
Attachments:
IDD Awareness Month
Packet Pg. 3
O
Abr
lirarfamuft . ]an
City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor
Recognizing March as Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness Month
Whereas; in 1987, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed March "Developmental Disabilities
Awareness Month," and we continue to recognize the valuable contributions of our
community members with intellectual/developmental disabilities; and
Whereas; Edmonds, Washington recognizes people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities are defined by their own strengths and abilities, an inherent value, not
by their disability; and
Whereas; people with intellectual and developmental disabilities share with all the desire to
achieve personal success through education, meaningful work, and family and
community ties; and
Whereas; we recognize that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities with
appropriate resources and support can make decisions about their own lives and
must be heard on issues affecting their lives; and
Whereas; increased public awareness of people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities and their contributions promotes full participation in a vibrant
community; and
Whereas; the city wants to encourage businesses, individuals, and the community at large to
promote full inclusion for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in
work and recreation in our community;
Now Therefore, I, Mike Nelson, Mayor of the city of Edmonds, do hereby proclaim the month of
March as Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds Washington
and ask its residents to recognize and include in all activities our community members with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
N1 i k .. ' elson, Mayor I March 23, 2021
Packet Pg. 4
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Annual Joint Meeting - South County Fire Board of Commissioners
Staff Lead: Fire Services
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
In 2005, the Washington State Legislature adopted a bill (HB 1756) that requires substantially career fire
departments to maintain policy establishing the existence of the fire department, identifying the
services provided and the basic organizational structure of the fire department, and the service
delivery/response time objectives for the fire department for those emergency services. The part of that
law applicable to code cities is codified in RCW 35A.92.030.
On November 3, 2009, the City and Fire District entered into an initial agreement for fire and emergency
medical services. The agreement was later amended in 2012 to address a fire boat, and again in January
2015. The District and the City analyzed the performance of the agreement during the period of 2010 -
2016 (the "Introductory Period") and determined that it was in their mutual interests to revise and
update the Agreement. This agreement, known as the "Restated Agreement" was executed on January
26, 2017. Section 2.4 of the Restated Agreement speaks to the service delivery objectives referenced in
the paragraph above: "The parties acknowledge that the service delivery objectives adopted in 2006
("Response Objectives") have never been met in their entirety, even when the City had its own fire
department."
Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Restated Agreement outline the reporting and meeting requirements related
to the provision of fire and emergency medical services in the City of Edmonds. The District Fire Chief is
required to present an annual report covering the previous calendar year to the Edmonds City Council
prior to March 1. This report was provided on February 23, 2021. Within 30 days of the annual report,
the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District Commissioners are required to convene a joint
annual meeting to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Restated Agreement.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Tonight, the Commissioners of the South County Fire will join the City Council to discuss any items of
mutual interest related to the provision of fire and rescue services.
Attachments:
2017 Fire District 1 EMS -Fire Agrmt
2020 SCF Compliance Report
Packet Pg. 5
5.1.a
REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
THIS REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLGCAL AGREEMENT ("Restated ILA") by
and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington
municipal corporation (the "District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City")
is for the provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS).
WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through a
Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most elected
officials in Southwest Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the City and
the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and District and their
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City and District entered into an Interlocal
Agreement (the "Agreement") for the District to provide fire and emergency medical services to
the City beginning January 1, 2010;
WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a First Amendment dated April
17, 2012 to address a fire boat; and
WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a Second Amendment
approved on January 27, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of the Q
Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the District and .,
the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the public in the most E
a�
efficient manner possible; and Q
a�
WHEREAS, the parties have analyzed the performance of the Agreement during the
period of 2010 — 2016 (the "Introductory Period") and have determined that is in their mutual
interests and the interests of their respective stakeholders to revise and update the Agreement; w
and 5
WHEREAS, the District and City now wish to revise and restate the Agreement as
provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows:
0. DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Restated ILA.
Packet Pg. 6
5.1.a
Adjustment Year: The year in which a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is
effective between the District and the local chapter of the IAFF. When a new CBA has
retroactive effect, the Adjustment Year shall be the date to which the CBA is retroactively
applied. For example, if a CBA expires on December 31, 2014 and a new CBA is
executed on December 1, 2016 but made retroactive to January 1, 2015, the Adjustment
Year would be 2015.
b. Assigned: As used in the definitions of Unit Utilization Factor and Neighboring Unit
Utilization Factor, the term "Assigned" shall describe the period of time in seconds from
dispatch time to clear time, when the Unit becomes available to respond to another call.
c. City: City of Edmonds.
d. City Fire Stations: Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 20.
e. Commencement Date: January 1, 2010.
f. Contract Payment: The amount that the City shall pay to the District pursuant to this
Restated ILA.
g. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
Edmonds Unit: An Edmonds Unit is any Unit based at one of the City Fire Stations with
the exception of the Battalion Chief.
i. Effective Date: February 1, 2017.
Esperance: "Esperance" refers to the entirety of the contiguous unincorporated area g
that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds and commonly known as E
Esperance. a
k. Esperance Offset: The amount of tax revenue and fire benefit charges, if fire benefit
charges are imposed in the future, to be received by the District from Esperance for the v�
year in which the Contract Payment is calculated. The Esperance Offset shall not drop w
below $1,117,150 (the amount derived by multiplying the 2017 Esperance Assessed r
Value of $565,469,115 by the District's 2017 tax rate of $1.97561714741 divided by
w
1,000) even if the actual tax revenue received by the District drops below that amount as
a result of reductions in assessed valuation or tax rate. The Esperance Offset for any
given year shall not exceed $1,117,150, multiplied by the compounded percentage
increase in City Station Personnel Costs from 2017 to the year for which the Esperance
Offset is being calculated. For example, if City Station Personnel Cost increases 3%
from 2017 to 2018 and 4% from 2018 to 2019, the 2019 cap for the Esperance Offset
would be $1,197,516 and be calculated as follows:
Packet Pg. 7
5.1.a
$1,117,150 x 1.03 = $1,150,664 x 1.04 = $1,196,691
I. District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
m. Firefighters: Full-time, compensated employees, captains, firefighters, emergency
medical technicians, and/or paramedics.
n. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this Restated ILA means either valid
insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or carrier approved to
do business in the State of Washington by the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner or valid self-insurance through a self-insurance pooling organization
approved for operation in the State of Washington by the Washington State Risk
Manager or any combination of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if
both are approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington.
o. Law: The term "Jaw" refers to state and federal statutes and regulations. Unless
expressly identified herein, City ordinances, codes and resolutions shall not be
considered "law."
p. Material Breach: A Material Breach means the District's failure to provide minimum
staffing levels as described within this Restated ILA, the City's failure to timely pay the
Contract Payment as described within this Restated ILA, or the City's or District`s failure
to comply with other material terms of this Restated ILA.
q. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E.
r. Negotiation Threshold. A designated occurrence or condition that requires the parties
to renegotiate the Restated ILA. E
a�
Q
s. Non -Edmonds Unit: A Non -Edmonds Unit is any Unit stationed at any station other
ii
than the City Fire Stations. cis
w
t. Transport Balance Factor: See Exhibit E.
u. Unit: A Unit is a group of Firefighters that work together and are based at the same
station. Where a station is staffed by three firefighters at any one time, that station shall
be considered a Unit. Where a station is staffed by five or more firefighters at any one
time, without counting the Battalion Chief or Medical Services Officer, that station shall
be deemed to have two Units and the District shall clearly allocate the Firefighters at that
station in such a manner that the two Units at that station can be clearly distinguished for
the purposes of determining the Unit Utilization Factor for each Unit.
v. Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E.
Packet Pg. 8
5.1.a
w. Wind -Up Period: Except in the context of Material Breach as defined in Section 10.2,
the two years immediately following notice of termination under 11.2.
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Services Provided. The District shalt provide all services necessary for fire suppression,
emergency medical service, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and
disaster response (not including an Emergency Operations Center, which is provided by
the City at the time of this Restated ILA) to a service area covering the corporate limits of
the City of Edmonds. In addition, the District shall provide support services including, but
not limited to, fire marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public
information, and fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal
and risk management pertaining to the operations and delivery of the District's services.
1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District shall provide training and
education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in accordance with
State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District shall offer professional
development and educational and training opportunities for unrepresented and civilian
employees.
1.3 City Fire Chief, The District Fire Chief shall be designated as the City Fire Chief for
purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code.
1.4 District Fire Chief Designates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate an 3
individual to serve as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel to support
the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and partially funded Q
by the City (See Exhibit A), subject to the City's right to provide its own fire inspectors E
pursuant to Section 2.8.2, below. Q
a�
2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICESISTAFFING
U)
2.1 Battalion Chief. A Battalion Chief shall continue to be available for response within the w
City twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week as during the Introductory
Period. The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency
L
incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. n
2.2 Fire Station Staffing. The City Fire Stations shall each be staffed twenty-four (24) hours
per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2)
firefighters, at least one of whom shall be a firefighter/paramedic. Any increase in
staffing above this level shall not increase the Contract Payment unless the increase
occurs through an amendment of this Restated ILA.
2.2.1 The parties shall renegotiate this Restated ILA upon the occurrence of any of the
following Negotiation Thresholds:
4
Packet Pg. 9
5.1.a
a. When the Unit Utilization Factor ("UUF") at any one of the City Fire Stations
exceeds 0.250;
b. When the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor ("NUUF") is out of balance as
defined in this Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a
renegotiation any earlier than January 1, 2018..
c. When the Transport Balance Factor (TBF} is out of balance as defined in this
Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a renegotiation earlier
than January 1, 2018.
d. When the Esperance Offset drops by ten percent (10%) or more over any
consecutive three (3) year period.
2.2.2 The District shall provide written notice to the City ("Threshold Notice") whenever
any of the foregoing Negotiation Thresholds occurs. Within thirty (30) days of issuance
of a Threshold Notice, the parties shall meet to renegotiate this Restated ILA. Such
negotiations shall include, at least the following topics:
(i) Methodologies intended to reduce the UUF substantially below 0.250 or
to balance the NUUF or TBF, as applicable (collectively "Remedial
Measures"). Remedial Measures may include, but shall not be limited to,
changes to the staffing mix and/or levels, adding another Unit; changing
fire response plans in CAD, and/or implementing other service changes;
and
Adjusting the Contract Payment to account for the District's increasedCU
cost in employing the selected Remedial Measures. c
Where the Threshold Notice pertains to subsection 2.2.1(d), topics of Q
negotiation shall include increasing the amount of the Esperance Offset
andlor reducing staff and/or reducing overhead charges that are billed to
the City. Q
a�
2.2.3 The District shall identify various Remedial Measures that are likely to
expeditiously achieve the applicable goals in Section 2.2.2(i). The City may opt to w
identify and notify the District about alternative Remedial Measures. After consulting with
the District, the City shall select one or more of the Remedial Measures and shall
L
provide written notice of same within one hundred twenty (120) days following the n
issuance of the Threshold Notice (the "Negotiation Deadline"). The City's selection shall
be subject to mediation under paragraph 18.1 if the Di strict finds the City's selection to
be ineffective or inappropriate, but it shall not be subject to arbitration under paragraph
CD
18.2. Any disputes regarding the cost impacts of the City's selection shall be subject to N
the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the Contract c
Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive to the E
earlier of the Negotiation Deadline or the date that the Remedial Measures were initially
cu
employed. If the City fails to designate one or more Remedial Measures by the Q
Negotiation Deadline, such failure shall be deemed a Material Breach.
Packet Pg. 10
5.1.a
2.2.4 The parties shall endeavor to execute an amendment prior to the Negotiation
Deadline. If the parties cannot agree upon an amendment to this Restated ILA before
the Negotiation Deadline, either party may terminate the Restated ILA pursuant to 11.2,
PROVIDED THAT during the ensuing two-year Wind -Up Period, the District shall be
authorized to increase service levels at the City Fire Stations as it deems necessary, and
FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the marginal increase in the Contract Payment resulting
from any such ❑istrict-imposed service level increases during the Wind -Up Period shall
be shared equally by the parties during the Wind -Up Period.
2.3 Shift Arrangements. The City prefers that the following shift arrangements apply to
personnel assigned to stations within the City: no Firefighter shall start a 24-hour shift at
any of the City Fire Stations if that Firefighter has just completed a 48-hour shift at a City
Fire Station or any other fire station in the District without having taken a rest day
between shifts. The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to
Chapter 41.56 RCW, to negotiate successfully for those arrangements, to be
implemented.
2.4 Review of Service Delivery Objectives. The parties acknowledge that the service
3
delivery objectives adopted in 2006 ("Response Objectives") have never been met in
(nn
their entirety, even when the City had its own fire department. During the Introductory
Period, the parties contracted for a particular staffing level at the City Fire Stations. It has
r
been recommended that the parties move toward a performance -based contract where
the City pays for a particular level of service that is measured by service delivery
objectives (e.g. response time) instead of a particular number of positions. The parties
0
would like to continue to evaluate this recommendation, but acknowledge that it would
take significant additional work to implement such a change, not the least of which
includes adoption of achievable performance standards. The City and the District agree
Q
to work toward adoption of a revised set of service delivery objectives in the first quarter
of 2018.
L
a�
Q
2.4.1 Turnout Time. The District has adopted a standard of 2 minutes and 15 seconds
on 90% of all calls. Failure to meet this standard shall not be deemed a Material Breach.
v�
If this standard is not being met during calendar year 2017 for the City Fire Stations, the
District shall provide the City, no later than December 31, 2017, with a report containing
w
the following information: (i) a list of possible measures that could be implemented to
r
improve Turnout Time, (ii) the estimated cost of each measure (if reasonably available)
L
n
and (iii) estimates corcerning the amount that turnout time could be reduced with each
measure.
2.5 Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance with chapter
35.103 RCW. In addition to the regular quarterly report content and the content required
by law, the annual report shall contain the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor for each of
the following jurisdictions: Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The annual report shall
contain the total number of seconds that City Fire Stations responded to calls in
Woodway and the total number of automatic aid responses from Shoreline into
R
Packet Pg. 11
5.1.a
Edmonds. The annual report shall, to the extent practicable, also state the amount of
transport fees that the District sought to recover from incidents occurring within the City
and Esperance, respectively, and the amount of those fees that were actually recovered.
If the District has data that identifies the number of seconds during which two or more
Units were Assigned to different calls at the same time, it shall include that data in the
annual report.
2.5.1 Quarterly Reporting. In addition, the District shall provide a quarterly report to the
City Clerk, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. The quarterly report shall
contain the Unit Utilization Factor for each of the City Fire Stations, the Transport
Balance Factor, as well as the turnout time, travel time, and overall response time.
2.6 [section relocated for clarity]
2.7 Criteria -Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and District that
the dispatch of Units during emergencies is determined by criteria -based dispatch
protocols of the dispatch centers and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). Nothing herein
shall require the District to respond first within the City as opposed to other areas served
by the District. The City and District recognize that responses to emergencies shall be
determined by the District based upon dispatch protocols, the location of available Units
and the District's operational judgment, without regard to where the emergencies occur.
2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Restated ILA, service level changes
may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party. Additionally, either party
may desire to change the service level, including but not limited to, those services
identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2 Standards for Services/Staffing.
When a service level change is mandated by law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council
Q
as part of the City's chapter 35.103 RCW Response Objectives, or is mutually agreed to
�-
by the parties, the City and the District shall renegotiate the Contract Payment at the
E
request of either party. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within one hundred
a
twenty (120) days after the change is mandated or mutually agreed, the matter shall be
subject to the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the
Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive
to the date that the service level change was initially employed. Failure of either party to
w
T
participate in, or comply with, the Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or
Z
18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach.
2.8.1 The City acknowledges that the District may be required by law to notify and
bargain with the local chapter of the IAFF any level of service changes made pursuant to
this section 2.8.
2.8.2 The City reserves the right to remove the Fire inspector services from this
Restated ILA upon one year's written notice to the District, in which case the Contract
Payment shall be equitably reduced, PROVIDED THAT in no case shall such notice be
provided less than 90 days prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year, AND FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT the City shall consult with the District regarding the impacts of a
7
Packet Pg. 12
5.1.a
proposed removal of the Fire Inspector services at least 94 days in advance of the City
providing such notice, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT if the City exercises this
option, it shall provide fire inspection services using one or more inspectors with current
or previous firefighting experience.
2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should consistently deviate
from the City's Response Objectives, as they may be amended from time to time by the
City, the District Fire Chief and the City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer
to address the cause, potential remedies, and potential cost impacts.
3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS
3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of three existing City Fire
Stations and shall make them available for use by the District pursuant to the terms set
forth in Exhibit B. The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations are
ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire
stations. The parties also acknowledge that the internal configuration of the City's three
stations contributes to slower turnout times than could be achieved with new stations
built according to current standards. In light of the above, the parties contemplate that �°
the City may opt to replace the three current fire stations with two new fire stations for
use by the District during the term of this Restated ILA. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of the Restated ILA and Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B
shall control with respect to fire stations and fixtures contained therein, PROVIDED
THAT Exhibit B shall be amended in the event that the City moves to a two -station
o
service, and FURTHER PROVIDED THAT nothing in Exhibit B shall be construed to
prevent the City from moving to a two -station service; and FURTHER PROVIDED, that
the cost of providing turn key fire stations with equivalent technology to current fire
Q
stations shall be borne entirely by the City.,
E
L
3.1.1 In the event the City decides to replace or relocate any of the City Fire Stations,
a
the City shall provide notice to the District concerning the location, design and layout of
the new City Fire Stations, the time frame for completion, and any other information
N
reasonably requested by the District to plan for the transition. Not later than thirty (30)
g
days following such notice, the parties shall meet to discuss the impact of any such
w
T
changes on this Restated ILA and to negotiate an amendment to this Restated ILA to
address such impacts. The parties recognize that there may be initial cost impacts that
y
are not ongoing, and the parties agree to negotiate these as well. The parties shall
endeavor to execute an amendment no later than one hundred twenty (120) days
as
following such notice to address such initial cost impacts. If the parties cannot agree
r
upon an amendment to this Restated ILA within such time, either party may invoke the
CD
N
Dispute Resolution procedures.
P
Packet Pg. 13
5.1.a
3.2-3.3 [Completed. Deleted for clarityf
4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS
4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall pay the District a sum referred to as the
Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The annual total amount of the
Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract Payment
shall be paid in equal monthly installments by the 10" day of each month. Failure to pay
monthly installments in a timely manner shall be considered a Material Breach as
defined in the Definitions section of this Restated ILA.
4.1.1 If a service level change requiring an adjustment in the Contract Payment occurs
on a date other than January 1, the Contract Payment shall be adjusted on the effective
date of the service level change, and the monthly installment payments shall be adjusted
accordingly.
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. Each year, no later than September 1, the District shall
submit to the City an invoice for the ensuing year, including any revision to the Contract
Payment for the ensuing year.
4.2.1 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The cost of City Station
Personnel identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted annually pursuant to the negotiated
labor collective bargaining agreement between the District and the local chapter of the
IAFF ("CBA"}, provided that, notwithstanding the actual terms of the CBA, the City
Station Personnel cost in Exhibit C shall increase from one labor agreement to the next
no more than the greater of (i) the median increase in the total cost of compensation
(i.e., combined cost of wages and benefits) of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase
in the Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton
metropolitan area for the twelve (12) month period ending June 30, or (iii) the E
percentage increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase
"comparable fire agencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the Q
a�
Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the comparables
accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration proceeding.
w
4.2.1.1 The parties recognize that the cost of the District's community paramedic
program is currently covered by grants. At the time the grants expire, the City may opt to
continue the community paramedic program in which case Exhibit C shall be revised to
add an equitable share of the cost of such community paramedics, taking into account
the other jurisdictions that are served by the community paramedics. If the City opts not
to continue with the program, the community paramedic program will not be continued
within the City limits after the grant term ends.
1 The Parties acknowledge that a number of actions described in the Agreement have been completed.
For clarity and conciseness, those provisions are removed and replaced with the words "Completed.
Deleted for clarity."
Packet Pg. 14
5.1.a
4.2.2 Adjustment Date Not Met. If a new CBA between the District and IAFF Local
1828 has not been finalized by September 1 of the final year of the then -effective CBA,
the City Station Personnel costs and the Indirect Operating Costs for the ensuing year
shall be adjusted following execution of the new CBA and shall be retroactive to January
1 of the Adjustment Year. For example, as of the date of this Restated ILA, the last CBA
expired on December 31, 2014; thus, the Adjustment Year is 2015. In such instances,
the District shall send the City (directed to the City Clerk), no later than September 1 of
each year for which a CBA has not yet been executed for the ensuring year, a range
within which the Contract Payment for the ensuing year is likely to fall, which range shall
be informed by the current status of negotiations between the District and IAFF Local
1828. To enhance the District's ability to provide the City with a predictable range for the
Contract Payment, the District shall, to the extent practicable, commence negotiations
with IAFF Local 1828 no later than July 1a` of any year in which a CBA is expiring. If a
new CBA has not been executed by November 1s` of the year in which a CBA is expiring,
the District shall notify the City of the economic issues on which the parties have not
reached tentative agreement.
4.2.3 Documentation of Labor Costs. Upon executing a new CBA, the District shall
provide supporting documentation sufficient to allow the City to confirm that the labor
costs have not increased more than the limits set forth in Section 4.2.1, including
comparable agency compensation data used by the parties or the interest arbitrator to
establish new compensation levels.
4.3 -4.4 [sections relocated and renumbered for clarity]
4.5 1 ndirect 02erating Cost Portion of Contract Payment. The District shall determine the
Indirect Operating Cost portion of the Contract Payment according to the following:
• Overhead shall be ten percent (10%) of the cost of the City Station Personnel cost; E
L
• Equipment maintenance and operation, medications, and supplies shall be ten a
percent (10%) of the City Station Personnel cost;
• Fire Marshal allocation of fifty percent (50%) of wage and benefit cost of the position, N
and Fire Inspector at one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of wage and benefit w
cost of the position (See Exhibit A); and r
• Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement
Schedule --Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Operating Costs, plus any
additional amounts due to annexations as provided in Section 4.6, less the "Esperance
Offset', shall constitute the Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
4.5 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area contains property within the boundaries of
the ❑istrict. Should the City seek to annex portions of the District, the District will not
oppose the annexation. In the event the City annexes portions of the District other than
Esperance, the Contract Payment shall be increased by an amount calculated by
applying the then current District levy rate and emergency medical services levy rate to
Packet Pg. 15
5.1.a
the assessed value of the annexed area, plus revenue from a Fire Benefit Charge, if
imposed, that the District would have received from the annexed area in the year in
which the Contract Payment is calculated. The increase in the Contract Payment shall
occur on the first month on which the District is no longer entitled to collect non -
delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2).
4.6.1 Esperance Annexation. If the City annexes all of the area commonly referred to
as "Esperance", the District will support the annexation. Whenever any portion of
Esperance is annexed, the Esperance Offset attributable to the annexed area shall no
longer be used to reduce the calculation of the Contract Payment at such time as the
District is no longer entitled to collect non -delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area
pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2).
4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is a material
and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing services under this
Restated ILA because the District was required to comply with a legislative or regulatory
decision by an entity other than the City, then at the request of either party, the City and
District shall seek to renegotiate this Restated ILA and the Contract Payment to fully
compensate the District for actual costs incurred according to the methodology in Exhibit
C. An example of a significant increase in cost would be if the state required that fire
engines be staffed with four firefighters per engine instead of three. If the City and
District are unable to successfully renegotiate the Contract Payment in this context
through good faith negotiations, then the complete Dispute Resolution provision of this
Restated ILA shall apply. Failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the
Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material
Breach. Nothing herein prevents either party from terminating the Restated ILA
pursuant to Section 11.2, whether before or after exercise of the Dispute Resolution
Q
provisions of this Restated ILA.
E
4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District shall charge fees for the basic life support and
a
advanced life support transports that it performs. As the EMS service provider for the
City, the District shall receive and pursue collection of all Transport Fees in accordance
N
with District policy for transports that originate within the City limits. The District shall
w
remit the amount so received to the City, less an administration fee not to exceed the
r
actual cost of collection on a quarterly basis. The District shall be responsible for, and
.W
L
agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, reasonable documentation and/or
y
reports to the City.
�
4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates for
increased service or reporting by the District without fully compensating the District for
actual costs incurred.
5. CITY EMPLOYEES
5.1-5.8 [Completed. Deleted for clarity].
11
Packet Pg. 16
5.1.a
5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District harmless
from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel, which arise out of, or
relate to, the time prior to the Commencement Date, provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the Agreement or
the Restated ILA.
6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES)
6.1 — 6.5 [Completed. Deleted for clarity].
6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current information
regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule attached in Exhibit
D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase new rolling stock or
otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City.
6.7 Public Safety Boat. Title to the City Public Safety Boat known as Marine 16 (the
"Vessel") has been transferred to the District. The District's use of Marine 16 for training
and emergencies as a county -wide asset is described in the First Amendment to
InterlocaI Agreement for Use of Rescue and Fire Boat. Exhibit H to the Agreement is
hereby deleted.
6.7.1 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
6.7.2 The District assumes responsibility for maintenance and repairs to the Vessel.
However, upon the District's request, the City agrees to provide maintenance and repair
services for the Vessel in exchange for receipt from the District of the City's normal
hourly shop rates for labor,
6.7.3 The Apparatus Replacement Schedule (Exhibit D to the Agreement and the
w
Restated ILA) is amended to include the Outboard Motors of the Vessel for as long as E
the Vessel is in operation. The amended Apparatus Replacement Schedule is attached Q
hereto. The Contract Payment shall reflect the addition of the Outboard Motors to this
schedule.
v�
6.7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity] w
6.7.5 Use of the vessel by the City of Edmonds Police Department shall continue as
agreed to before this Restated ILA. The City is solely responsible for maintaining and
Certifying its operators.
6.7.5.1 The City's use of the Vessel is at the City's risk. The City acknowledges
that the District is making no representations or warranties concerning the Vessel.
Further, if the City uses the Vessel without a District operator, the City agrees to be
solely responsible for all damage or loss to the Vessel and its apparatus while the
Vessel is within the City's control and/or possession.
6.7.5.2 The City agrees to release the District from any claims associated with
any training provided to it. The City further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the
12
Packet Pg. 17
5.1.a
District harmless from any and all claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out
of the City's use and operation of the Vessel.
6.7.5.3 The City specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be
granted under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW as to
any claims by its employees arising from the use of the Vessel.
7. EQUIPMENT
7.1 — 7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
S. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their
designees, shall act as administrators of this Restated ILA for purposes of RCW
39.34.030. During the term of this Restated ILA, the District Fire Chief shall provide the
Mayor with quarterly written reports concerning the provision of services under this
Restated ILA. The format and topics of the reports shall be as set forth in Section 2.5.
The District Fire Chief shall present an annual report covering the previous calendar
year to the Edmonds City Council prior to March 1, and at such meeting the Chief shall
request, and the City Council shall schedule, the Joint Annual meeting provided for in
section 8.2.
8.1.1 The parties agree to meet on a quarterly basis to address the performance of the
Restated ILA. It is expected that these quarterly meetings will be attended by at least
one City Council member, the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Finance Director, the District
Fire Chief and at least one Commissioner from the District.
8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section 8.1 above, the
Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1 Commissioners shall have a joint
E
annual meeting after, but within 30 days, of the annual report at a properly noticed place
a
and time to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Restated ILA.
;v
i�
8.3 Representation on_Infergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the City on
N
intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of services under this
w
Restated ILA as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City reserves the right to
T
represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the City and the District are not
aligned or whenever any matter relates to the appropriation of or expenditure of City
N
o
funds beyond the terms of this Restated ILA.
9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS
9.1 BEM, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships with other
entities or agencies including the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) (or
successor), Snohomish County Communications Center (SNOCOM) (or successor), and
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) (or successor). The City
shall maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or agencies
13
Packet Pg. 18
5.1.a
and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its behalf. At the
discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on behalf of the City on
various committees, boards, and/or commissions as requested, as appropriate, and/or
as agreed to by mutual agreement of the parties. The parties shall meet to address any
changes to the foregoing entities that result in a change to the City's representation or
financial obligations.
9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The District shall assume any of the City's remaining
contractual responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid.
9.3 Full Informations as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to coordinate their
individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that the services under this
Restated ILA will be provided in an efficient and cost effective manner. The City and
District agree to keep each other fully informed and advised as to any changes in their
respective relationships with those entities or agencies, whether or not those changes
impact the City and/or the District obligations shall be provided to the other party in
writing in a timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed
changes in relationships or obligations.
10, TERM OF AGREEMENT
10.1 20-Year Agreement. The Effective Date of this Restated ILA shall be February 1, 2017.
The Commencement Date of the Agreement was January 1, 2010, This Restated ILA
shall continue in effect until December 31, 2030, unless terminated earlier as provided in
section 11. After December 31, 2030: this Restated ILA shall automatically renew under
the same terms and conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless
terminated as provided in section 11.
w
E
10.2 Material Breach and Wind -Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this Restated
Q
ILA, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree otherwise,
continue to perform their respective obligations under this Restated ILA for a minimum of
U_
twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the "Wind -Up Period") provided,
Ch
however; that the Wind -Up Period shall be (i) ninety (90) days if the Material Breach
w
involves the City's failure to make the Contract Payment or (ii) 180 days if the City fails
to timely select a Remedial Measure following the District's issuance of a Threshold
Notice; provided further, that during the Wind -Up Period, the City and District shall
o
coordinate their efforts to prepare far the transition to other methods of providing fire and
EMS service to the City. The City shall be responsible for all Contract Payment
U_
installments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind -Up Period.
o
11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS
11.1 (Completed. Deleted for clarity]
14
Packet Pg. 19
5.1.a
11.2 Termination — Notice. In addition to terminating this Restated ILA for a Material Breach,
either party may terminate this Restated ILA at any time by providing the other party with
two (2) years written notice of its intent to terminate.
11.3 Termination Costs. Except as otherwise provided herein, the costs associated with
terminating this Restated ILA shall be borne equally between the parties, or in the event
of a Material Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following
circumstances, the cost of termination shall be apportioned as provided below.
11.3.1 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event
that this Restated ILA is terminated due to a change in law or by mutual agreement,
each party shall bear its own costs associated with the termination.
11.3.2 Regional Fire Protection Service Authority. In the event that the District,
along with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire
Protection Service Authority Planning Committee ("RFA Planning Committee") as
provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and subject
to mutual approval of the District and other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City
an opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the
opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed as a
Material Breach on the part of the City. In the event that a Regional Fire Protection
Service Authority (RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and
emergency medical services is created, inclusive of District, the District's powers and
duties under this Restated ILA shall be assigned to the RFA as the District's successor -
in -interest as provided by RCW 52.26.100.
11.3.2.1 If the District forms a RFA with any other agency, the parties shall
confer to determine whether any efficiencies have resulted from the creation of the RFA
that could warrant reconfiguring the service provided to the City.
11.4 [reserved]
11.5 [reserved]
11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate their
respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to terminate this
Restated ILA and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs of termination.
11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City and
District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as part of the
Agreement shall be purchased by the City as described below. This provision shall not
apply to the formation of an RFA in which both the City and the District are participants.
11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock in use by the District at the City
Fire Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at a price that considers
the fair market value of the asset and any adjustments to fair market value that would be
15
Packet Pg. 20
5.1.a
fair and equitable, including, for example, City contributions to apparatus replacement,
costs incurred by the District for acquisition, maintenance, and repair, depreciation, etc.
11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment in use by the District at the City Fire
Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at fair market value.
11.7.3 tCompleted. Deleted for clarity]
11.7.4 District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold the City
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by District personnel, which
arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were employees of the District,
PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as
a result of the City's actions during the term of the Agreement or the Restated ILA.
12, DECLINE TO MERGE
12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement with any
other fire district or agency that is functionally equivalent to a merger, the City may opt to
terminate this Restated ILA without prejudice or penalty. To exercise this option the City
shall provide written notice to the District of its intent to end the Restated ILA. Such
notice shall be provided not more than ninety (90) days after receiving written notification
from the District in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 that the District
intends to merge with another entity.
12.11A Not a Material Breach. The City's decision to terminate under 12.1 does not
constitute a Material Breach of the Restated 1LA and none of the penalties associated
with a Material Breach shall apply to the City.
12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The City's notice shall provide an effective date of termination
w
which shall be no more than twelve (12) months after the City officially notifies the E
District of its termination, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, and the costs of Q
termination shall be split evenly between the parties.
ii
12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Restated ILA
because of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction, w
the City's exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7.
13. [deleted]
14. TOWN OF WOODWAY
14.1 Service to Woodway. The City may, in accordance with the terms herein, subcontract
with the Town of Woodway to have the District provide fire and emergency medical
services to the Town of Woodway. The City shall consult with the District in advance of
entering into any such subcontract, and the District shall have the opportunity for input
into any issues that may affect service and/or the cost of providing service. The City
shall provide advance written notice to the District of at least twelve (12) months prior to
any commencement of such service. The City's subcontracting of the District's service to
15
Packet Pg. 21
5.1.a
Woodway shall not be considered an unfunded mandate, and no change in the Contract
Payment shall result from such a subcontract, provided that the City is not requesting
additional staff to serve Woodway. Any and all payments from such a subcontract with
Woodway shall be paid to the City of Edmonds only. The District agrees not to compete
with the City of Edmonds in such negotiations_
14.1.1 If the City is requesting additional staff to serve Woodway, the parties shall
renegotiate the Contract Payment retroactive to the date that the District begins
providing the additional staff. If the parties have not executed an amendment prior to the
commencement of service to Woodway, either party may invoice the Dispute Resolution
procedures in Section 18.1 and 18.2; provided, however, that any adjustment to the
Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive
to the date that the District begins providing the additional staff to serve Woodway. In
this context, failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the Dispute
Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach.
14.1.2 The City of Edmonds right to subcontract with the Town of Woodway constitutes
the consideration for the City's agreement to incur the additional 9.13% in Exhibit C
initially attributable to Woodway under the Agreement.
14.1.3 At the City's request, the District agrees to work with Shoreline Fire Department
to adjust automatic aid responses into the Town of Woodway.
14.1.4 In the event that the Point Wells development is to become part of the service
area for the District, such event shall be deemed a "Negotiation Threshold", and the
negotiation provisions of 2.2.3 - 2.2.4 shall apply.
15. [Completed. Deleted for clarity] g
w
16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS E
a�
Q
16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the City and
District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing
herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing bodies of each party.
Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District shall have the sole discretion w
and the obligation to determine the exact method by which the services are provided
L
within the District and within the City unless otherwise stipulated within this Restated n
I LA. a
16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it without
regarding to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the operational
judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and obligations of Sections 2.4
through 2.8.
16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth herein
or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the other.
17
Packet Pg. 22
5.1.a
17. INSURANCE
17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Restated ILA, each Party shall
maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy
insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and equipment if
any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling arrangements or
compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). The City shall
maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for accidents occurring on City
owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand
dollars ($5,000.00). The District shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against
liability arising out of work or operations performed by the District under this Restated
ILA in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a
deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The phrases "work or
operations" and "maintenance and operations" shall include the services identified in
Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire Marshal and the District Fire
Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and any obligation covered by Exhibit 6,
Section 9.
17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it has
maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents and
occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment claims, labor grievances,
and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more
than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The City will hold harmless the District and its
insurance provider for any such claims lawsuits or accusations that occurred prior to the
Q
Commencement Date.
L
17.3 Claims of Former District Employees. The District represents and warrants that it has
Q
maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and occurrences
which may have occurred during the time period prior to the Commencement Date of the
y
Agreement, including but not limited to injuries, employment claims, labor grievances, w
and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less r
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more
than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided, each party
agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out of the negligent
and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers, officials, employees and
volunteers in connection with the performance of the Agreement or the Restated ILA.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the
Agreement and the Restated ILA.
18
Packet Pg. 23
5.1.a
17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Restated ILA, and except in
the event of breach of this Restated ILA, the District and the City do hereby forever
release each other from any claims, demands, damages or causes of action arising prior
to the Commencement Date and related to damage to equipment or property owned by
the City ar District or assumed under the Agreement or the Restated ILA. It is the intent
of the City and District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
It is the intent of the City and District to resolve ail disputes between them without
litigation. In the event that any dispute between the City and District cannot be resolved
by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then the dispute resolution
provision of this Restated ILA shall apply. Excluded from these dispute resolution
provisions are issues related to the legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to
make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, establish levels of
service or staffing under Section 2 of this Restated ILA and Chapter 35.103 RCW and
other policy matters that state law vests with the City Council. The above exclusions
from the dispute resolution process shall not abridge the right of the District to pursue an
increase in the Contract Payment as a result of any decision which, itself, is not subject
to the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Restated ILA. Nothing herein shall prevent
either party from providing notice of termination of the Restated ILA pursuant to Section
11,2 prior to completion of the dispute resolution processes described below; however,
such notice shall not affect any obligations to proceed with the Dispute Resolution
provisions.
18.1 Mediation. Upon a request by either party to mediate a dispute that is subject to the
Dispute Resolution provisions, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator. If the
Q
City and District cannot agree upon a mediator within ten (10) business days after such
,r
request, the City and District shall submit the matter to the Judicial Arbitration and
E
Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be appointed. This requirement
a�
Q
to mediate the dispute may only be waived by mutual written agreement before a party
may proceed to litigation as provided within this Restated ILA. Except for unusual
reasons beyond the reasonable control of either party, mediation shall be completed
w
within ninety (90) days after the mediator is selected. Any expenses incidental to
r
mediation, including the mediator's fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District.
L
18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in resolving any dispute
subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions through mediation, either party may
demand binding arbitration as provided herein, unless the nature of the dispute is not
subject to arbitration pursuant to other provisions of this Restated I LA.
18.2.1 The arbitration shall be conducted by JAMS in Seattle, Washington or other
mutually agreeable dispute resolution service. The dispute shall be governed by the
selected arbitration service's Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The parties
shall agree on a JAMS arbitrator with twenty (20) days from the date the matter is
submitted to JAMS. In the event that the parties fail to agree on a JAMS arbitrator within
19
Packet Pg. 24
5.1.a
such time, then JAMS shall be asked to submit the names of at least three arbitrators.
Each party shall have ten (10) days after receiving the list to strike one name from that
list. JAMS shall select the arbitrator from the names on the list that have not been struck
by either party. The parties may agree on another arbitrator in JAMS or another person
at any time. In the event that JAMS is unable or unwilling to provide an arbitrator and the
parties cannot otherwise agree, then either party may request the Snohomish County
Superior Court to designate an arbitrator.
18.2.2 At any arbitration involving the Contract Payment, the arbitrator shall, as nearly as
possible, apply the analysis used in this Restated ILA and supporting Exhibits to adjust
the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate from such analysis and use principles
of fairness and equity, but should do so sparingly.
18.2.3 Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any binding arbitration
session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any subsequent mediations or
arbitrations.
18.2.4 The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon both parties, subject
only to the right of appeal as provided in RCW 7.04; provided, however, that in arriving
at such decision, neither of the parties nor the arbitrator shall have the authority to alter
this Restated ILA in whole or in part.
18.2.5 The arbitrator cannot order either party to take action contrary to law.
18.2.6 The substantially prevailing party, if any, in any binding arbitration action shall be
entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
18.3 Litigation. For disputes that are not subject to binding arbitration, either party may file an Q
action in Superior Court. Jurisdiction and venue for such actions shall lie exclusively in
Superior Court for Snohomish County, Washington, Each party expressly waives the a�
right to a jury trial. The party substantially prevailing in any such action ❑r proceeding Q
shall be awarded its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. ;v
ii
v�
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS w
19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which
may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by
electronic mail (provided a read receipt is obtained by the sender), sent by nationally
recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail,
sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
District Secretary: City Clerk:
Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds
12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5t" Avenue North
Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020
K11
Packet Pg. 25
5.1.a
Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from time -to -time
designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete
upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile transmission of any signed
original document and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission shall be the
same as delivery of an original document.
19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in the Restated ILA shall preclude the City and
the District form entering into contracts for service in support of this Restated ILA.
19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Restated ILA shall not be construed to provide any benefits
to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Restated ILA
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine.
The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as
necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Restated ILA.
19.4 Entire Agreement. The entire agreement between the City and District hereto is
contained in this Restated ILA and exhibits thereto. This Restated ILA supersedes all of
their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with respect to this
transaction. This Restated ILA supersedes the Agreement except where provisions
have expressly been omitted for clarity and conciseness. Only those exhibits referenced
in this Restated ILA shall continue to be effective.
19.5. Amendment. This Restated ILA may be amended only by written instrument approved
by the governing bodies of the City and District subsequent to the date hereof.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the formulas for NUUF, UUF, and
TBF may be changed administratively by mutual agreement of the parties if executed by
the Mayor and Council President (for the City) and the District Fire Chief (for the District)
in the event that a significant change occurs which would affect such formulas (e.g. RFA
is formed, changes in dispatch technology); provided however, that any changes to the
formulas shall be consistent with the underlying intent.
Dated this jjday of IPR-
017
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE ECTION DISTRICT NO. 1
BY:
By:
21
By:
Packet Pg. 26
5.1.a
Approv j to form:
By:
_ (fiz?
❑isthc om
CITY DP EDMONDS
By: Attest:
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attomey
22
Packet Pg. 27
5.1.a
►ARMi
Approved as to farm:
By:
District Attorney
CITY O INION1
By: Attest: -
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
22
Packet Pg. 28
5.1.a
EXHIBIT A
1W:1 VITIl:T-"1:►1WAN 9]4Ia411►14;1=19311t97.7
1 In consultation with the City, the District Fire Chief shall designate an individual to serve as y
City Fire Marshal, and ensure the assignment of necessary personnel to support the needs E
and functions of the Fire Marshal as specified in the International Fire Code, City ordinances, E
and other fire service -related national, state, and local standards adopted and/or followed by L j
the City. o
2. As employees of the District, the City Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector shall perform all of
o
the customary roles and duties associated with their positions: fire prevention; fire
m
investigation; code development, application, interpretation, and enforcement; permit
;v
processes; plans review; records retention, response to public records requests and other
ii
r
legal summons; fire and life safety public education; and other duties as assigned in the City
and throughout the jurisdictional areas served by the District.
� j
3. The City agrees to pay fifty percent (50%) of the annual personnel cost (wages and benefits)
o
of {providing one (1) Fire Marshal, and one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the annual
U)
personnel cost (wages and benefits) of providing one (1) Fire Inspector.
r
4. The City Engine Company Inspection Program shall be maintained in its current form unless
modified by mutual agreement of the parties.
r
c
5. The City agrees to provide office space, office furnishings, computers, fax, copier,
printer, telephone landlines, and postal support for the use of the Fire Marshal and Fire
Inspector in Edmonds City Hall,
Q
6. All fees collected for Fire Permits/Special use, Fire Plan Checks, and Construction w,
Inspections shall be retained by the City. E
L
Q
L
C�
C
W
2"
Packet Pg. 29
5.1.a
I WA MIM:1
USE OF FIRE STATIONS
For as long as the Restated ILA remains in effect, the City hereby grants to the District exclusive
use and possession of premises for use as fire stations on the terms and conditions described
below.
Three Fire Stations. The City shall provide use of the three fire stations located at 8429 -
196'h Street Southwest, 275 - 6'h Avenue North, and 23009 - 881h Avenue West in the
City of Edmonds, Washington, PROVIDED THAT the City reserves the right to substitute
these stations with new stations as further described in the Restated ILA.
2. Compliance with Applicable Codes. The fire stations provided by the City shall be
compliant with all applicable codes, including without limitation, the applicable provisions
of the Edmonds City Code and applicable Washington State Standards and regulations
(currently WAC 296-305-06501 et seq.).
3. No Use Charge. No use charge shall be assessed to the District. The parties agree that
the rights and contractual obligations contained within the Restated ILA constitute
adequate consideration for District use and possession of the premises.
4. Utilities and Services. The City shall ensure the supply of all utilities necessary for the
use of the premises, to include: water, sewer, garbage, heating, air conditioning,
electrical power, telephone and information tech noIogylsystem data lines.
4.1
Cost for Utilities. The District shall be responsible for the cost of all utilities used
on the premises, except for those utilities supplied by the City. if a separate meter is
unavailable for any utility that the District is responsible to pay, then the cost shall be
equitably apportioned to the District in a manner agreeable to both parties.
5. Conditions and Repairs. The City agrees to keep the premises and the buildings in good
condition and repair as reasonably requested by the District for use as fire stations
during the term of this Restated ILA at its own expense. The City shall at all times keep
the buildings suitably equipped as fully functioning and operational fire stations.
6. Improvements, Upon District request, the City shall install such reasonable
improvements as are normal and customary in connection with District use of premises
set forth herein. The City shall pay for such improvements.
24
Packet Pg. 30
5.1.a
7. Removal of Personal Property Upon Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this
Restated ILA, the District shall remove all non -fixed equipment and personal property
placed upon the premises by the District during the period of this Restated ILA unless
those items are subject to repurchase by the City as provided in the Restated ILA. Any
personal property not removed from the fire stations within 60 days after termination of
this Restated ILA shall become the property of the City.
8. Maintenance of Premises.
8.1 Maintenance of the buildings, the premises and all improvements thereon is the
sole responsibility of the City. Such responsibility includes without limitation, repair of
walls, floors, ceiling, interior doors, interior and exterior windows and fixtures, sidewalks,
landscaping, driveways, parking areas, walkways, building exterior and signs.
8.2 City shall maintain in good condition the structural parts of the fire stations and
exterior buildings and structures which shall include emergency lighting, fences,
enclosures, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, foundations, bearing and exterior wails,
subflooring and roof, roof -mounted structures, unexposed electrical, plumbing and
sewerage systems, including those portions of the systems lying outside the premises,
exterior doors, apparatus bay doors, window frames, gutters, downspouts on the
building and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system servicing the premises.
8.3 All janitorial services for routine cleaning of the buildings shall be the
responsibility of the District.
8.4 All grounds maintenance of the premises, to include fencing, enclosures, gates, g
landscape, stairs, rails, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drains, and water retention structures E
shall be the responsibility of the City. Q
9. Insurance and Financial Security.
9.1 The parties agree that the City shall not be responsible to the District for any 2
property loss or damage done to the District's personal property occasioned by reason w
of any fire, storm or other casualty whatsoever beyond the control of the City. The :
District shall insure its personal property located on the premises. N
9.2 The District shall not be responsible to the City for any loss or damage to the
buildings or premises that is not caused by the sole negligence of the District. The City
shall insure the premises and buildings against such loss or damage. The District shall
repair any damage to the buildings caused by its sole negligence
9.3 In the event of a casualty loss that renders the premises reasonably unsuitable
for the use set forth herein, the City shall provide the District with another suitable
location(s) for the District until such time as the premises have been repaired. The cost
25
Packet Pg. 31
5.1.a
of repairs, and the costs of relocation between the premises and the substitute
locations), shall be borne by the City.
10. Indemnification for Environmental Claims: Each party shall indemnify and hold the other
party harmless from any and all claims, demands, judgments,
orders, or damages resulting from the release of hazardous substances on the premises
caused in whole or in part by the activity of the indemnifying party, its agents,
employees, licensees or invitees. The term "hazardous substances" shall mean any
substance heretofore of hereafter designated as hazardous under the Resource
Conservation and RecoveryAct, 42 U.S.C.Sec. 6901 et sea.; the Federal Water
Pollution Ccntroi Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 et seg.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
2001 et_ _ seg.; the Comprehensive Environmentai Response Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9501 et. Seq.; or the Hazardous Waste Cleanup -Model
Toxic Control Act, RCW 70.105D all as amended and subject to all regulations
promulgated thereunder.
11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Each party agrees to protect,
save, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party, its officers,
employees and agents from any and all demands, claims, judgments, or
liability for loss or damage arising as a result of accidents, injuries, or other
occurrences on the premises, occasioned by either the negligent or willful
conduct of the indemnifying party, regardless of who the injured party may be.
12. Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this Restated ILA or any extension
thereof, whether by expiration of the stated term or sooner termination thereon as
provided in the Restated ILA, the District shall surrender to City the premises peaceably
and quietly.
13, Default and Remedies.
w
E
13.1 Failure of the City to perform repairs or maintenance
to the buildings or premises as described in 8 above within a reasonable Q
period after notice by the District shall constitute a Material Breach under the terms of i
this Restated ILA. For purposes of this Restated ILA, a reasonable period shall be
construed to mean five (5) business days, for repairs and maintenance that could w
feasibly be performed in such time.
13.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the nature of the repair constitutes an
operational, safety, and/or security emergency which materially affects District use of the
premises or building for their intended purpose, the City shall perform the repair as soon
as possible regardless of the day or hour and no later than forty-eight (48) hours after
receiving notification from the District.
13.3 If the City fails to timely perform the repair or maintenance under the conditions
described above after notification, the District may have such repair or maintenance
performed at City expense. The cost of the repair or maintenance shall be forwarded to
the City, which shall pay the cost within thirty (30) days after notice. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary, the City shall not be in breach of any repair or maintenance
26
Packet Pg. 32
5.1.a
obligation herein if the repair cannot be completed within the time set forth herein so
long as the City is diligently pursuing completion of the repairs.
27
Packet Pg. 33
EXHIBIT C
CONTRACT PAYMENT
5.1.a
Station Costing Model
Station Personnel (FTEs)
FTE Battalion Chiefs
FTE Captains
FTE Firefighter/Paramedics
FTE Firefighters
Firefighter/Paramedics-12 Hour
Firefighters-12 Hour
2017
5ta 16, 17, 20 All Cross Staffed\ALS
Average Wage &
Benefits per
FTE Position
2.424 1 186,248
13.746
161,593
18.000
147,936
9,492
133,343
147,936
133,343
Total Positions 41.239
FTE Factor 4.582
Station Staffing 9,600
a
ADD: Administrative Overhead 10%
Maintenance & Operations 10%
Apparatus Replacement 2017
TOTAL SUPPRESSION/EMS CONTRACT COST
2017 Esperance AV 565,469,115 Esperance Est. Property Tax Revenue
ADD:
Additional Staff Paid Separately by the Contracting Agency
Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Deputy Chief
Department Manager
Executive Assistant
Manager
Professional/5pecialist
Admin Assistant
Technicians
Fire Marshal
Deputy Fire Marshal jinspector}
Count
254,227
213,009
199,030
-
-
-
-
-
0.500
203,408
1.2s0
i 169,958
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS
TOTAL FIRE/EMS SERVICES COST
Cost of living increases based on CPI-W, not Comps
Total Labor Costs
per Position
451,465
2,221,260
2,662,854
1,265,692
270
127
127
062
23
(1,11 ?,ISO)
7,114,436
..7
101,704
212,448
L4,152
r
Q
28
Packet Pg. 34
5.1.a
EXHIBIT D
APPARATUS REPLACEMENT
29
r
Q
Packet Pg. 35
5.1.a
EXHIBIT E
Definitions Subject to Administrative Amendments Pursuant to Article 19.5
1. NEIGHBORING UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor or NUUF
is the method used by the parties to determine how much time Units associated with one
jurisdiction are Assigned to calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service
across a number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because those various
jurisdictions make payments to the District for those services, Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor
is relevant even where a District Unit is dispatched to a call that is still within an area served by
the District but outside of the normal area served by that Unit.
NUUF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the
nearest thousandths:
l►Loll] M
total seconds that non -Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls in Edmonds over the
previous calendar year
total seconds that Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls outside of Edmonds over
the previous calendar year
Formula_ Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of seconds Q
that non -Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds (not including Esperance, unless
Esperance is annexed) over the previous calendar year. The denominator shall equal the total
a,
number of seconds that Edmonds Units are assigned to calls outside of Edmonds (Esperance
Q
shall be considered "outside of Edmonds" for the purpose of this calculation unless Esperance
a�
is annexed) over the previous calendar year.
v�
Calculation: Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated separately for the City of
w
Lynnwood (stations 14 and 15 combined) and any non. -Edmonds unit within the District, e.g.,
�
Station 19, for as long as Lynnwood and the District are not part of the same Regional Fire
L
n
Authority. a
fll
Determination of Whether NUUF is in Balance: Unlike the Unit Utilization Factor, the NUUF
need only be calculated on an annual basis after the completion of each calendar year. NUUF
shall be considered balanced if the NUUF falls somewhere between 0.900 and 1.1 00. For
example; if Lynnwood's Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds that total 1,000,000 seconds
during a calendar year, and Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total
1,095,000 seconds during a calendar year, the NUUF for that year would equal 0.913 and would
be considered in balance. If, on the other hand, the numerator were to remain the same; but the
30
Packet Pg. 36
5.1.a
Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total 880,000 seconds, the NUUF for that
year would equal 1.136 and would be considered out of balance.
Special Calculation for 201 T Since this Restated ILA takes effect after .January 1, 2017, the
2017 NUUF shall be calculated proportionally for that portion of 2017 following the Effective
Date.
2. TRANSPORT BALANCE FACTOR. Transport Balance Factor JBF) is the method used by
the parties to determine how frequently Units associated with one jurisdiction transport patients
resulting from calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service across a
number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because Edmonds is entitled to receive
transport fee revenue for all District transports resulting from calls in Edmonds regardless of
whether the transport is performed by an Edmonds Unit or a non -Edmonds Unit, Transport
Balance Factor is relevant to whether transport fees are being distributed in an equitable
manner. TBF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the
nearest thousandths -
TBF =
number of transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds
over 6 months
number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of Edmonds
over 6 months
E
L
Q
Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of
transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds (not including N
Esperance, unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period. When an w
Edmonds Unit and a non -Edmonds Unit both respond to a call in Edmonds and the non- r
Edmonds Unit transports the patient, that call may not be counted in the numerator, i
even if the Edmonds Unit responded with a non -transport vehicle. The denominator shall y
equal the total number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of
L
Edmonds (Esperance shall be considered "outside of Edmonds" for the purpose of this
calculation unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period. r
Determination of Whether TBF is in Balance: TBF shall be considered "balanced" if the
TBF falls somewhere between 0.900 and 1.100. While TBF is intended to be analyzed
by looking back over the previous six months, during 2017, a special quarterly TBF shall
be calculated that looks at TBF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method
accordingly. The quarterly analysis shall be performed beginning with the second quarter
31
Packet Pg. 37
5.1.a
of 2017. The quarterly TBF is intended to give the District the ability to analyze the effect
of minor dispatch adjustments before TBF could result in a Threshold Notice being
issued.
3. UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR
UUF =
Unit Utilization Factor or UUF is the method used by the parties to determine how busy a
particular Unit is. Unit Utilization Factor is determined by converting the following fraction
to a decimal rounded to the nearest thousandths:
number of seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month
period
31,536,000
Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of c
seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month period. The
denominator shall always be 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in a twelve-month
period). Because this contract initially contemplates exactly one Unit at each station, with
r
each station having multiple apparatus types, the total number of seconds a Unit is
Assigned to all calls shall be the total for all apparatus types used by that Unit. The
activity of the Battalion Chief and Medical Services Officer shall not be counted in the
Q
numerator for any unit. For example, if, over the previous twelve-month period, Engine
20 was Assigned to calls totaling 72,089 seconds, and Ladder 20 was Assigned to calls
E
totaling 229,320 seconds, and Medic 20 was Assigned to calls totaling 4,008,640
Q
seconds, then the calculation for UUF would be made as follows: B
v�
4,310,049 w
UUF = = 0.1366 (rounded to 0.137)
31,536,000 L
Frequency of Calculation: Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated as soon as possible
after the end of each quarter, looking back over the previous twelve-month period.
While UUF is intended to be analyzed by looking back over the previous twelve months,
during the each of the last three quarters of 2017, a special UUF shall be calculated that
looks at UUF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method accordingly. The
quarterly analysis during 2017 is intended to keep data from the service delivery model
prior to the Effective Date from contaminating the data applicable to the Restated ILA.
32
Packet Pg. 38
5.1.b
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
CITY OF EDMONDS
2020
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2006, the City of Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133,
adopting the performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in the Washington
State Legislature Substitute House Bill 1756, as the Edmonds Fire Department's emer-
gency resource deployment and response time objectives.
On November 2, 2009, the City of Edmonds City Council approved an Interlocal Agree-
ment with Snohomish County Fire District 1 (SCFD1) transferring Fire and Emergency
Medical Services responsibilities to SCFD 1. NOTE: As of October 1, 2017, Snohomish
Countv Fire District 1 became South Countv Fire (RFA) and is referred to as South
County Fire in this compliance report. Section 2.5 of the Interlocal Agreement requires
South County Fire to report to the City performance standards as identified in RCW
35.103. The following constitutes this reporting requirement:
2020 COMPLIANCE REPORT CONTENTS
As required by SHB 1756, the 2020 Compliance Report includes four Sections:
• Section 1: Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 Fire Department.
• Section 2: South County Fire Policy Statements.
• Section 3: Comparison of 2019 response times to each adopted response stand-
ard.
• Section 4: An explanation of why Council -adopted standards were not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet adopted standards, and
steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compli-
ance.
SECTION1.........................................................................................2
SECTION2.........................................................................................3
SECTION3.........................................................................................4
SECTION4.........................................................................................8
Packet Pg. 39
5.1.b
SECTION 1
EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.12
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Sections:
2.12.010 Fire service.
2.12.020 Pre-existing rights and obligations not impaired.
2.12.010 Fire Service.
Fire service is provided to residents of the City of Edmonds by and through a contract with South
County Fire. Whenever any reference is made in the provisions of the Edmonds City Code (ECC)
or Edmonds Community Development Code to "fire chief," "fire marshal," "fire department," or any
other reference to a firefighter or fire services, such term shall include, for the provision of admin-
istrative or other day-to-day fire services, to reference the fire chief, fire marshal and firefighting
services performed for the City by contract by South County Fire.
A. The officials of South County Fire, when performing services by contract to the citizens of
the City of Edmonds and to the city in its corporate capacity, shall exercise any and all
rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this code
to the same extent and in the same manner as if performed by an employee of the City.
B. Employees of South County Fire shall not be entitled to any wage or benefit provision of
this code, including but not limited to Chapters 2.06 and 2.35 ECC. The Edmonds civil ser-
vice system shall remain in effect, but no employee of South County Fire shall have re-
course to the Civil Service Commission following the termination date of fire department
employees by the City. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2.12.020 Pre -Existing Rights and Obligations Not Impaired.
The City Council's determination to contract or not contract for fire services with South County
Fire and the provisions of this chapter shall not impair any existing vested right or vested obliga-
tion created under the provisions of state law or under Chapter 2.50 ECC, Firemen's Relief and
Pension System, Chapter 2.60 ECC, Reserve Fire Fighters' Relief and Pensions Act, Chapter
2.70 ECC, Retirement System, and Chapter 10.30 ECC, Disability Board, as well as the City's
MEBT plan. The rights of any person under such system vested prior to the transfer of fire service
responsibility by contract shall remain in full force and effect and are not impaired by either such
or the adoption of this chapter. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2
Packet Pg. 40
5.1.b
SECTION 2
POLICY STATEMENTS
The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establish the
following:
1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Municipal Code 2.12.
X meets requirement does not meet
2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in the Inter -
local Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
X meets requirement does not meet
3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the SCF
Organizational Chart approved by the Fire Chief.
X meets requirement does not meet
4. The number of Fire Department employees on duty daily in 2019, at the Edmonds
stations, is 9 personnel as outlined in the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emer-
gency Services, and as adopted by South County Fire Board of Fire Commissioners
as part of the 2019 SCF Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in the
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services, and in the 2020
South County Fire Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
Packet Pg. 41
5.1.b
SECTION 3
STANDARDS of RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER)
To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events
of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish re-
sponse -time objectives and compare the actual department results on an annual basis
against the established objectives. The comparison began in 2007 with a comparison of
the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of
response. This year, actual 2020 response time data is compared against the originally
established, Council -adopted 2006 standard. The following section provides the compar-
ison:
Turnout time for all emergency incidents:
Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time
standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the turn out time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of the Fire
Department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:34 minutes/seconds.
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Inrident-
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire sup-
pression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of fire sup-
pression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:50
minutes/seconds of response time.
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 15 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 8:39
minutes/seconds of response time. There were 4 incidents in 2020 (5:00, 6:49,
7:25, and 8:39).
Packet Pg. 42
5.1.b
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 9:00 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 18 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 12:00
minutes/seconds of response time. There were 3 incidents in 2020 (8:07, 9:44,
and 12:00).
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical inci-
dent, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the first -arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the
scene within 6:31 minutes/seconds of response time.
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit
to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency
medical incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the Advanced Life Support (two Paramedics) unit
arrive at the scene within 6:13 minutes/seconds of response time.
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a
Packet Pg. 43
5.1.b
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time. 100 percent of haz-
ardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Op-
erations level personnel arrive at the scene within 11:01 minutes/seconds of
response time. There were 4 incidents in 2020 (2:47, 4:08, 6:20, and 11:01).
5A2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of hazard-
ous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Techni-
cian level personnel arrive at the scene within X:XX minutes/seconds of re-
sponse time. There were zero incidents in 2020.
5B1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a
technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the
time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 7:13 minutes/seconds of response
time.
5B2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately
trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to
I
Packet Pg. 44
5.1.b
a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 15:45 minutes/seconds of response
time. There were four incidents in 2020. (14:09, 14:54, 13:37, and 15:45)
6. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine inci-
dent:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine
incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of marine
incidents had trained and equipped firefighting personnel arrived at the scene
within 10:24 minutes/seconds of response time. There were four incidents in
2020. (00:40, 06:42, 05:07, and 10:24)
7
Packet Pg. 45
5.1.b
SECTION 4
COUNCIL -ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET
SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council -adopted standards are not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps nec-
essary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET
The Council -Adopted 2006 performance standards that were not met in 2020 are:
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 6:50
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident
Established: 7:45
Actual: 8:39
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Established: 9:00
Actual: 12:00
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Established: 5:15
Actual: 6:31
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 11:01
5131. Response time of the first-arrivina aDparatus with aDDroDriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 7:31
8
Packet Pg. 46
5.1.b
5B2. Response time of the first-arrivina aaoaratus with aoarooriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident
Established: 12:00
Actual: 15:45
a1
C
'rr
d
d
C
O
R
3
C
C
Q
L
O
Q
d
ci
C
2
Q
E
O
U
U-
U
O
N
CO
N
C
d
E
L
V
R
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 47
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 16, 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:
03-16-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 48
8.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
March 16, 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
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental 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 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas 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. PRESENTATION
1. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts relayed three hearing examiner decisions have been issued since the last
annual report to the City Council. The reduced activity may be attributable to the pandemic although
some other clients have kept him very busy. The most distinctive thing that happened last year was
hearings were conducted virtually due to COVID-19. When Governor Inslee first authorized meetings to
be conducted virtually, he placed strict limitations that only necessary business could be conducted out of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 49
a fear that the public may not be able to participate as effectively as they did with in -person hearings.
Over the past year, that has proven to be the opposite, virtual hearings have enhanced public participation.
He recalled the first hearing he held in 2020 was in February for Auburn regarding a plat and was
attended by 24 people. Following the hearing, the City of Auburn received several compliments about
how effectively questions were answered via the Zoom format.
In a presentation he made to approximately 200 planners last December regarding legal issues associated
with virtual hearings, 70% indicated they planned to continue virtual hearings when the pandemic is over.
He anticipated there would be a hybrid model, an in -person hearing that also allowed people to participate
virtually. He anticipated code enforcement hearings, where attendees are typically only the violator and
the City, could easily be held virtually. He reviewed the hearings held in 2020, commenting the virtual
hearing process worked well in Edmonds although there were only three hearings, all of them relatively
benign that did not draw a great deal of attention or controversy:
Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Conditional Use and Variance (2/10/20): Conditional use permit and two
variances approved for improvements to the Civic Center Playfield. The two variances were for the height
and setbacks of fencing for existing tennis courts. The conditional use permit was for the height of light
poles that will be replaced for the soccer field. Lighting will be reduced from eight 60-foot poles to six
60-foot poles and the new lights will have cut-off shields that will result in less light spillage on adjoining
properties. The fences were moved closer into the property than their existing location but still within the
20-foot setback which required a variance. One person inquired about light spillage onto their property
and staff stated fairly confidently that the light spillage would be less. He has done a lot of playfield light
cases for the Seattle School District and the City's lights are similar to those used by the school district.
Distinctive Dentistry Conditional Use Permit (10/22/20): Conditional use permit approved to relocate
dental practice to an existing building located at 22815 Edmonds Way. No exterior modifications were
proposed. The prior use was a naturopathic clinic. The proposal didn't attract any public comment.
Diamond Parking Conditional Use Permit (11/15/20): Approved conditional use permit to convert three
private parking lots at the Bank of America site in downtown Edmonds to commercial parking lots. The
proposal drew concern from some business owners and residents because it was perceived to reduce the
amount of parking available in downtown Edmonds. The lots are private and according to staff they were
created in the 50s and 60s and were not required to provide parking for any specific business. The
proposal did not involve any improvements to the parking lots.
The hearing on the application was re -opened twice to address potential irregularities in the mailed and
posted notice of the project. Ultimately, the City was found to have complied with mailed notice
requirements. However, in an abundance of caution, the City was found to have potentially violated
posting requirements at designated bulletin boards. Hearing notice was reposted to ensure compliance.
Staff had not initially posted notice at the bulletin boards because the buildings in which they were
located were largely inaccessible to the public due to the pandemic.
A citizen activist also raised an issue with mailed notice within 300' of development; the applicant used
assessor records to obtain a list of property within 300'. The list is usually based on the billing address for
the property owner which can differ from the physical location of the property. The activist objected to
this, stating it should have been physical location. The hearing was reopened to ask about the discrepancy
and staff explained in City projects, they use the GIS data to provide mailed notice and project applicants
obtain a list from the Assessor's Office. As a result, he ruled that either method was appropriate and staff
has decided they will always use GIS data for the physical location.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 50
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ADD THE YOUTH COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO SEND PRONOUN INFORMATION TO
CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO THE AGENDA AS UNFINISHED
BUSINESS AS ITEM 8.2. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON
ABSTAINING.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD ORDINANCE NO. 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO
PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS,
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AS UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 8.3.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the ordinance was done very quickly and the Council did not get
to go through all the aspects because the Council was also passing the tree code. There are issues in
Section 2 that she would like to get clarification on from the City Attorney because many citizens are
concerned that homeowners are being penalized more than a developer with regard to landmark trees.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the intent was a decision whether to extend the ordinance. Mr.
Taraday explained Councilmember Buckshnis was asking for the agenda to be amended so he can answer
questions publicly regarding the effect of Ordinance 4217. He did not understand her motion to be asking
for action on Ordinance 4217, only to publicly answer questions about the effect of the ordinance.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Distelhorst requested Item 7.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted on
separately.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, stated his comments would be regarding the hearing examiner's report,
recalling that he has talked to the Council in the past about public participation. He relayed there was no
such thing as a billing address at the Assessor's Office; there is a taxpayer address and an owner address.
The City of Edmonds' GIS links to those addresses in the Snohomish County Assessor's Office and can
see both addresses. The mailing address that the County uses is the taxpayer address. The Edmonds City
Code states notices are mailed to the owner's address which is not the mailing address that Snohomish
County uses. The issue with the Civic Center Playfield was notice was mailed to him but it was returned
to the City; the City had a copy of the envelope mailed to his street address. He has a vacant mailbox due
to his mail being continuously stolen which led to ID theft problems. He opened a post office where he
receives his water statement from the City every two months. He requested the City update the code to
state the taxpayer address is used to mail public notices. When notice was sent regarding the parking lot,
which although it may be private property, it was being leased to the City as a municipal parking lot that
provided 3-hour parking for people visiting downtown stores, restaurants, theater, etc. The Council has
contracting authority whether to discontinue public parking.
Tana Axtelle, Edmonds, a 29-year resident and alternate on the Citizens' Housing Commission,
explained after following the previous attempts at housing and growth planning in Edmonds and being
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 51
8.1.a
very disheartened by the loud and contentious rhetoric of some citizens, she decided she wanted to be part
of the solution so she applied for a position on the Housing Commission. She was impressed with the way
the Council chose commission members, ensuring all neighborhoods were represented. She was also
impressed with commission's transparency and the community outreach accomplished even during
COVID. She was proud of the proposals that the Housing Commission presented to Council and was
hopeful the Council would take their take time and due diligence when reviewing each proposals. Growth
is inevitable and being proactive and prepared is prudent. Edmonds should be a welcoming and inclusive
community, a City that provides diverse options for housing so those who want to live in this amazing
town might have the opportunity to do so.
Rick Nishino, Edmonds, an alternate on the Citizens' Housing Commission for Zone 6, said he was also
very impressed by how well the Housing Commission handled itself and he learned a lot. Many cities are
addressing the missing middle; all have their own concerns and are addressing them concurrently.
Edmonds' unique character and size are very important and it is important for the Council to consider all
the Housing Commission's recommendations and to fit them into Edmonds' character. He concurred with
Ms. Axtelle's comments.
AJ Johnson, Edmonds, said he was attending tonight's meeting due to a piece of literature left on his
doorstep. He never thought he would be a person engaging on housing issues in the community. A new
Edmonds resident who has worked and lived near Edmonds for seven years, he expressed support for the
polices recommended by the Citizens' Housing Commission. Edmonds has changed dramatically over the
last 40 years and needs diverse housing options that are not just along the Highway 99 corridor. The "dog
whistle" of don't turn Edmonds into Seattle or Lynnwood is a tired, old argument. This is an opportunity
to get this right; he urged the Council not to pass the buck like the generation before did with mass transit.
Now is the time to enact these policies to enhance the livability of the community and shape the future to
be better for generations to come.
Rifik [last name not provided], said they have lived in Edmonds approximately two years. A lot of
development has occurred in their neighborhood including impacts on the foliage and trees. After 4-5
months, the developments result in a nice layout of planning and housing in their neighborhood. A lot of
the development that has occurred near their property has been beneficial. They expressed concern with
the inability to contact the County Assessor's Office related to property taxes.
Donna Murphy, Edmonds, a 4-year resident of Edmonds, expressed support for the recommended
policies developed by the Citizens' Housing Commission. The commission was chosen by elected
officials so she trusted when officials elected to reflect the community's beliefs select people to sit on a
commission, the process is all encompassing and brings all points of view. She reminded that although
the pushback regarding the plan may be by the loudest, it does not reflect most views. If the City fails to
plan, it is a plan to fail. Planning provides opportunities and creates vibrancy in Edmonds and continuing
to have the bucolic, lovely town that remains a gem and has the same type of vibe. She referred to a piece
about suburbs in Edmonds, where someone said Edmonds is no longer Deadmonds and downtown has
become a great place to live. She would love to see her children raise their children here, seniors age in
place and teachers, coaches and others remain in the community. She reiterated her support for the
recommended policies of the Housing Commission and said she is grateful for the opportunity to live in
Edmonds.
Ashley West, Edmonds, expressed concern over the Citizens' Housing Commission's recommendations.
Living near Yost Park, she is concerned with potentially changing the housing code to allow additional
dwellings or sub -dwellings in her area or other similar areas as there was not enough infrastructure for
housing for additional families. She loves that she knows her neighbors and that her block and area get to
be a small community and get to know each other. She was concerned with potential exponential growth
that this particularly area in Edmonds cannot support.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 52
Salina Bolotin, Edmonds, a 30-year resident of Edmonds, expressed support for the Citizens' Housing
Commission recommendations. She supported the ability for teachers, firefighters, and young families to
live in and contribute to the richness of Edmonds. A truly healthy community is characterized by a mix of
ages, incomes, professions, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. The City Council should encourage and provide
housing codes to allow duplexes, cluster or cottage housing and detached ancillary units that would be
compatible with many neighborhoods. For example duplexes exist in many areas of Edmonds with no
adverse impacts. Cottage housing is also a great way to provide well designed, smaller homes with shared
green spaces and she has seen beautiful architectural designs for small cluster communities. She has
several friends who would like to build detached ancillary units for themselves while grown children and
their families live in the original house or have the ability to rent the axillary unit to supplement a fixed
retiree income. She acknowledged parking, size, location and true affordability would need to be
considered and guided by codes and structure. There is no need for scare rhetoric; there is time to let the
Council do their job to consider the advantages of more affordable housing while putting structure in
place to ensure compatibility with Edmonds' values and livability.
Theresa [and Randy] Hollis, Edmonds, 20 year residents of Edmonds, thanked the Council for the
articulate mission statement for the Citizens' Housing Commission which reflects wisdom and she
assumed the Council understood the difficult decisions ahead. She opined it was not the Council's job in
implementing the housing policies to make her a millionaire through homeownership. It was the
Council's job to continue to nurture a diverse, growing, healthy community. Their elder son, an aircraft
mechanic, bought his first home in Renton, a fixer -upper that he improved with a goal of selling and
buying a home in South Snohomish County, but has been priced out of the market. When they first
moved to their home on Madrona Lane, the neighbors included a baggage handler at an airline, an
insurance salesman, and a retired UW biologist. Their newest neighbor 18 months ago is a Microsoft
employee who drives a Tesla and computes an hour each way. The same thing is happening around the
region. If developers have incentives to build the missing middle or handsome duplexes like those around
her neighborhood in unincorporated Snohomish County, their son would be able to reach his goal and
purchase a home in the Edmonds area.
Joe Hollis said young people are increasingly unable to afford to purchase a house despite being
increasingly more educated than any preceding generation. Housing prices have outpaced wages for over
95% of the millennials and zoomers. Property taxes on houses in Edmonds will be in the ballpark of one-
fourth of their pretax income even if they inherit a house instead of buying it. That means one's house
cannot be used as a reliable inheritance package for their kids, because it will cost their children more
than they can sell it for because no one under 30 will be able to purchase it. As a disabled person, he
likely would be unable to afford the property tax on his parents' house when they die. At the current rate
of housing price increase in their neighborhood, no one will be able to afford to purchase it when he tries
to sell it. Changing the laws to permit more family dwellings per lot is both beneficial to the City and
others like himself, because unless changes are made, when the current residents die, the town will die
with them as the population will not be replaced.
Valerie Kendall, Edmonds, urged the Council to move the Citizens' Housing Commission's
recommendations forward for additional consideration. She grew up in Edmonds, graduating from
Woodway High School in 1973. At that time, Edmonds was an affordable, welcoming community with
naturally affordable housing. Taking measures now to enact policies that provide for a range of housing
options ensures that Edmonds will continue to attract diverse residents which contributes to the overall
healthy fabric of the community. Not taking action will have consequences.
Ed Augustavo, Edmonds, said prior to moving to Edmonds he lived in Seattle where backroom deals are
a way of live and that seems to be coming to Edmonds. He pointed out 80% of people surveyed do not
support the Housing Commission's recommendations, the wide open building ability. No one talks about
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 53
8.1.a
the tremendous tax break that developers get such 12 years without property taxes; the people who pick
up the slack from that are the taxpayers. He did not come to Edmonds to be part of this kind of setup, a
backroom thing. The love fest, that everyone loves the Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations,
is not true and the Council needs to talk to people who live here and not just stuff the ballot box with
those who love it. There are some good parts of the recommendations, but a lot of it is not good. He
encouraged citizens to read and understand the Housing Commission's recommendations, anticipating
Edmonds neighborhoods would become Lake City. Growing up in Seattle, he knew of good
neighborhoods that went bad. He disagreed the policies will result in affordable housing, anticipating
developers will purchase smaller houses, demo them and build 3-4 houses in their place.
Alessa Villa, Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds, raised her children here and hopes to retire in
Edmonds. The thriving middle class is a foundation of the economy. She read the Citizens' Housing
Commission's policy recommendations and believes they will strengthen the middle class and she
supports them.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said in the Housing Commission's recommendations, an important piece
has been glaringly omitted, the actual input from the community at numerous public outreach events the
CHC provided. Some of the final policy recommendations have been included despite strong public input
to the contrary. At a minimum, this should have been given its place in tonight's presentation, to honor
the critical promise made in the resolution, that from the outset this Council -led process would be
different from the previous failed administrative attempts. She questioned how the 15 policy proposals
could be evaluated without the community input. She urged the Council to ask the director for the input
from the input provided over 16 months beyond the small majority of 15 voting commission members
who recommended upzoning the entire city and eliminating single family neighborhoods. One of the
highest response from any survey was 78% of respondents asked not to change single family zoning.
Comments and outreach events told the same story. There was also no majority of public support for an
increase in local taxes and only 34% support an interlocal agreement with HASCO.
Ms. Dotsch explained feedback from the survey that resulted in the final policy proposals showed 59% of
respondents opposed the proposal to establish a new zoning type of single family housing that allows for
construction of zero lot line duplexes, triplexes and quadraplexes of 1-2 story height located in specific
areas of Edmonds. Only 35% supported extending the MFTE and 57% opposed increasing the number of
areas for using MFTE. Other policy proposal had great support; 59% of respondents supported the idea of
adopting language making parking solutions a goal in the transportation element. Other input collated
from hundreds of surveys and public comments provided since September 2019 are not included. Some
commissioners believed the citizens they asked to participate via surveys, open houses, etc. did not
deserve a voice as they had "privilege" or were "loud voices." She questioned how that was welcoming
input from citizens. She objected to cherry picking what they want to hear and fixing their own viewpoint,
whether a commissioner or a director. She was hopeful the Council would be more willing to hear from
citizens and not be afraid to listen and hear input the Council promised would be prioritized.
Michael McMurray, Edmonds, a member of the Housing Commission, said there were a lot of nice
people on the commission. He agreed it was not perfect and it was hard work. He pointed out the City's
townhouse policies are essentially carbon copy of Seattle's policies. The Housing Commission never got
to those policies and he encouraged the Council to consider them. He referred to nice townhomes on 212th
as an example where the layout is very condensed but there are no yards. He suggested there would be
less angst in the community if there was an Edmonds -kind of townhome policy that would ensure there
were only two townhomes on each lot. There are currently developments where three properties are
combined and ten McMansions constructed. Unless the policy is investigated further, if two townhomes
are allowed, a total of 20 could be constructed. He suggested a townhome policy that requires more open
space, commenting every development including commercial should have open space. Before looking at
the other policies, he recommended considering the townhouse policies because townhouses are the future
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 54
of development. In Edmonds, a townhouse sells for $600,000 to $700,000, an option and an opportunity
for younger families and those who cannot afford $1.5M houses. He was interested in ensuring
developers could not purchase three lots and construct more than three homes regardless of the type. In
Seattle, usually 6-8 homes are built on two lots via adjacent developments. He offered to serve on a
subcommittee to discuss making townhomes assimilate better into Edmonds.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, a resident of Edmonds since 2007, agreed with some of the previous comments
related to the Housing Commission and the concerns expressed by Mr. McMurray, Ms. Dotsch and Mr.
Augustavo. She thanked the City Council, the Tree Board and Kernen Lien for the extensive work they
did to adopt the beginnings of a Edmonds tree code which is important to the City's future environmental
health and beauty. It is important to take a balanced approach to large issues the City is trying to solve
including trees, environment and housing. Getting to the tree code took a fair amount of time considering
the UFMP was adopted in July 2019 and unexpected complexities arose due to the pandemic. While the
impact of development on the tree canopy is being addressed, there is a great deal of work to be done to
realize a comprehensive tree code that will deliver the outcomes we strive for. She expressed support for
prioritizing the work and for advancing a heritage tree program and offered her time to speed up the
timeline.
Ms. Fleming explained tonight the City Council will begin its work on the Housing Commission's
proposals; she feared the Council was stretching itself across two complex and important issues.. While
the Housing Commission did great work during a very difficult time, this is the most important and
crucial decision the Council and citizens have before them and it must be considered carefully and given
the time and research it deserves. She recommended the Council focus on completing a comprehensive
tree code before making any decisions on the housing issue. The City has already lost numerous trees
over the past few years through loopholes and inflexible codes and citizens are awaiting the new tree
canopy assessment. She was invested in the tree code due to her engagement in efforts to save a 100-year
old heritage tree approved for removal in a short plat development project in her neighborhood.
Kelsey Foster, Edmonds, a 48-year resident of Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds and was lucky to
be able to raise her two kids here. She referred to comments about keeping Edmonds the same, pointing
out when she was growing up, Edmonds was a place where teachers, grocery and deli clerks, restaurant
severs, mail carriers, and car mechanics lived just as commonly as attorneys, executives and real estate
developers. A family making $50,000 could comfortably raise their family in Edmonds. Now if someone
makes less than $100,000, they are risk of not being able to find housing that is considered affordable in
Edmonds. She urged the Council to strongly consider the Housing Commission's recommendations that
will allow for more affordable options and allow the Edmonds she remembered to continue to exist, a
place where people from all walks of life, jobs and incomes can afford to live and contribute to the
community. She hoped someday her children could afford to live and raise their families in Edmonds.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OT ITEM 7.4.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
3. GARDEN AND SUMMER MARKET EVENT CONTRACT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 55
8.1.a
5. JANUARY 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
MURRAYSMITH FOR THE PHASE 9 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE PH. 12 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
8. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PHASE 11 WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
9. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES POLICY AND BUDGET
AUTHORIZATION
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
8.
4. PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 GRANT ILA #2 -LEAP
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE TO APPROVE. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST
ABSTAINING.
1. AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained this item is a continuation of amendments to the
tree code that the Council did not finish last week. He displayed a list of amendments proposed by
Councilmembers via email and compiled by Council Assistant Maureen Judge. He highlighted
amendments approved at the March 12"' meeting and one amendment rejected at the March 2nd meeting.
At a previous meeting, Development Services Director Shane Hope presented the concept of stages of the
tree code update; the amendments in the table are identified as Stage 1 and Stage 2 amendments. Stage 1
tree code is focused on tree regulations related to development; Stage 2 will address tree removal outside
development on all property. He recommended tonight going through the Stage 1 amendments to the tree
ordinance that was passed on March 2nd; the Stage 2 tree code and amendments will be addressed
immediately following the completion of Stage 1.
Mr. Lien referenced an amendment that Councilmember Buckshnis had made a motion on but the Council
had not yet voted on: 23.10.080.E. Change opening sentence to "After providing clear documentation to
Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are
infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer may apply for a fee -in -lieu exemption to
the tree retention/replacement requirements. A tree replacement fee shall..."
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she also has a number of definitions to propose such as no net
loss, net ecological gain, landmark trees also known as heritage trees, wildlife corridors, land corridors
and water corridors, as well as to correct the hazard tree definition. She asked if the Council preferred to
approve them all at once or individually.
Mayor Nelson suggested one at a time. Council President Paine suggested taking them one at a time.
Councilmember Olson suggested if the Council heard all the definitions proposed by Councilmember
Buckshnis, the Council could make amendments if a Councilmember did not like one or more of the
definitions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 56
8.1.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was a given, for every item, Councilmembers can make
amendments if they choose. She agreed with voting on the definitions individually.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF HAZARD TREE TO READ,
23.10.020.G HAZARD TREE - A TREE THAT IS DEAD, DYING, DISEASED, DAMAGED,
STRUCTURALLY DEFECTIVE
AS
DETERMINED BY A QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONAL.
Council President Paine relayed her understanding that only one tree would be risk assessed as a hazard
rather than basing it on adjacent trees. Mr. Lien answered the hazard tree assessment is done on individual
trees; the line that is proposed to be deleted is one reason why a tree could become a hazard tree. For
example, if a tree was adjacent to other trees and those other trees were removed, it has a high probability
of failure. That could be documented when the hazard tree evaluation is done. He did not see any problem
with this change to the definition.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO ADD A DEFINITION: LANDMARK TREES — LANDMARK TREES ARE TREES THAT
HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS EXTRA SPECIAL TREE DUE TO THEIR SIZE
OR AGE AND IS DEFINED WITH A 24" DIAMETER. LANDMARK TREES CAN ALSO BE
KNOWN AS HERITAGE TREES.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Tree Board has used landmark rather than heritage; adding the last
sentence avoids confusion between a landmark and a heritage trees.
Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding the City would be looking into a heritage tree
program in the future. She was concerned that may be different than a program based on tree size, age and
a 24" diameter. She asked if that was the intent of a heritage tree program. Mr. Lien said one of the Stage
2 items was a heritage tree program. A heritage tree can be different than a landmark tree and may not be
24" in diameter. That program has not yet been developed, but he envisioned it something like the City's
historic register, trees that are recognized as special species, forms or shapes and are not necessarily
landmark trees. He summarized a landmark tree and a heritage tree are different things.
Councilmember Buckshnis accepted removal of the last sentence in the definition "landmark trees can
also be known as heritage trees" as a friendly amendment.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed a heritage tree program was listed as Stage 2 in Q3 and 4 2021 and the
term "landmark tree" is not regulated anywhere in the code. He prefer to wait to make the designations
until that work is done.
At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' request, Mayor Nelson reread the motion
TO ADD A DEFINITION, LANDMARK TREES ARE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED
BY THE CITY AS EXTRA SPECIAL TREE DUE TO THEIR SIZE OR AGE AND IS DEFINED
WITH A 24" DIAMETER
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Mr. Taraday had a long discussion about this; she used to be a
technical writer, is old school and believes definitions are very important. Even though the definition of
landmark tree is not in the code, it is in Ordinance 4217. It is important for citizens to be aware of
language the City Council uses and it does not cause any harm to include definitions commonly used in
discussion.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 57
Councilmember Olson agreed if the language was used in other ordinances, it may be of value to include
a definition.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how "extra special" would be defined, whether it was specifically age
or a minimum of 24" diameter.
Councilmember Olson suggested a friendly amendment, landmark trees are defined as trees with a
diameter of 24" or greater. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was open to the definition in Ordinance
4217, "a landmark tree shall be defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24 inches or
more."
Councilmember Olson suggested removing "shall be defined as" so the definition reads, "Landmark tree -
any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24" or more. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested "chest height" instead of "breast height." Mr. Lien answered
breast height was the industry standard of how trees are measured.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out the term "landmark tree" does not appear anywhere in the code.
The Council can feel free to disregard his philosophy on code writing, but he generally does not define
terms that are not used the in code because one would have occasion to look for the definition of
landmark tree because it is not used in the code. That phrase is included in the interim ordinance but that
is not the code and the interim ordinance is not a permanent regulation. It would not cause a lot of harm,
but in his opinion it clutters the code with unnecessary language.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Mr. Taraday have discussed this and they have to agree to
disagree.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE
QUESTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS
OPPOSED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND
L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. (Councilmember K. Johnson
was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY L. JOHNSON, TO ADD A
DEFINITION OF NO NET LOSS: "NO NET LOSS MEANS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
AGGREGATE TOTAL OF THE CITY'S SENSITIVE AREAS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES AS
ACHIEVED THROUGH A CASE -BY -CASE REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.
EACH PROJECT SHALL BE EVALUATED BASED ON ITS ABILITY TO MEET THE NO NET
LOSS GOAL."
Councilmember Buckshnis said some of the Stage 1 amendments attempt to address no net loss. It has not
yet been addressed and is likely to be part of Stage 2. She has written codes and regulations in the past
and believes definitions are very helpful for individuals reading the code. She commented these terms are
used freely throughout WRIA 8 grant presentations. This definition should be included now as those
issues will be addressed in Stage 2.
Councilmember L. Johnson said similar to Councilmember Buckshnis, she would like the City to move
toward a goal of no net loss. However, she agreed if that term was not used in the current code, it could be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 58
8.1.a
confusing to include it in the definitions as people may look for it in the code. She agreed with
incorporating it in the future, but saw value in limiting definitions to terms used in the code.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to 23.10.000.K Intent and Purpose, mitigate the environmental and
aesthetic consequences of tree removal and land development through on site and off site tree
replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the City of
Edmonds. The UFMP also includes no net loss. He did not see much difference between 23.10.000.K and
the definition and suggested the definition was unnecessary as it was already included in 23.10.000.K.
Mr. Lien answered the definition of no net loss proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis is not the same as
net loss of canopy coverage. The definition Councilmember Buckshnis proposed is more extensive, no net
loss of sensitive areas functions and values. The no net loss of canopy coverage in the UFMP is
referenced in 23.10.000.K. No net loss is also not addressed in the code and he concurred with Mr.
Taraday about not including definitions for terms not used in the code.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the tree code is related to development and subdivisions which is why she
wanted to include this definition. She agreed this was much more detailed and took into account wildlife,
water and land corridors which is why she supports including it.
Council President Paine commented the previous definition and this one are terrific definitions, but they
are Stage 2 definitions that can be related to information gathered from the canopy assessment. She
concluded the definitions were premature and needed to wait until Stage 2.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is very pertinent to land development and subdivisions
where the intent is to preserve undeveloped lots which have land, wildlife or water corridors. These lots
are probably the least likely to be developed, but as land becomes scarcer, it will be given a second
chance by developers. She concluded these definitions are important for the purpose of developing
undeveloped land in Edmonds.
Councilmember Olson suggested changing the format to "No net loss — the maintenance of..."
Councilmember Buckshnis accepted that as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Olson said she
embraced the concept, but until a term is applied in the code, she did not support including it in the
definition.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
ADD A DEFINITION: "NET ECOLOGICAL GAIN — A STANDARD FOR A DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, POLICY, PLAN OR ACTIVITY IN WHICH THE IMPACTS ON THE ECOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY CAUSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ARE OUTWEIGHED BY MEASURES
TAKEN CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW MITIGATION HIERARCHY TO AVOID AND
MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS, UNDERTAKE SITE RESTORATION, AND COMPENSATE FOR
ANY REMAINING IMPACTS IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT FOR THE GAIN TO EXCEED
THE LOSS."
Councilmember Buckshnis said it is important to be consistent with net ecological gain, a new thing that
is coming forth in environmental groups she participates in. She supports including the definition so that
citizens can understand the City will be looking toward net ecological gain as well as no net loss.
Council President Paine said this lengthy definition combines policy direction and definition. She
supports net ecological gain but including policy direction in the definition makes it muddy. She liked the
definition, but felt it was more appropriate in Stage 2.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 59
8.1.a
Councilmember L. Johnson said she supports this definition and goal. However, it appears to relate to
individual development, stating the gain from steps taken on individual development will outweigh the
loss but that would not be achieved with the way the code is currently written. She envisioned it could be
included in Stage 2.
Mr. Lien explained there is a bill in the legislature that deals with net ecological gain and includes a
definition. The policy of net ecological gain needs to be looked at more broadly than individual sites. He
read a portion of HB1117 that made it out of the House and is currently in the Senate, "the advancement
of ecological function and advancement of net ecological gain within each WRIA or independent natural
drainage that flows directly into marine waters will occur through the appropriate selection and
implementation of publicly funded projects, including voluntary grant programs, salmon recovery
projects, ecological improvements made through the municipal stormwater permit process, and
investments made as a result of the capital facilities element and transportation element of the
comprehensive plan." That definition is much broader and designates Fish & Wildlife to develop rules for
what net ecological gain means. It is a big term and a lot of work needs to be done to define what net
ecological gain is.
Council President Paine suggested this statement, with minor edits, would be better in the Intent and
Purpose section.
Development Services Director Shane Hope commented net ecological gain is a great concept that needs
to be considered. However, one of options is for Council to consider in Stage 2 how to apply it rather than
just adopting something now.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this is just a definition and there seems to be a difference of opinion; she
is an old school technical writer. She would accept moving the definition to Intent and Purpose as Item L.
It is a very important concept that is moving forward.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked for clarification regarding Stage 2, relaying her understanding that that
was related to private property and this ordinance deals with land development such as subdivisions, short
plats, etc. Ms. Hope answered tonight's amendments were related to the development related tree
regulations and then returning to the larger issues as part of Stage 2. Mr. Lien referred to the Upcoming
Tree Related Items & Timing, pointing out Stage 2 includes wildlife and habitat corridors and stormwater
and watershed analysis. A holistic look at the City's codes, development and plans will be required to
reach net ecological gain and it is not something that can be achieved with the tree code alone.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that there would be additional work done in Stage
2. She sees large tracts of land that will be impacted if a holistic view is not taken so it is not just one or
the other as there is an overlap of the two issues. For example, if there is a significant land area with
water, wildlife or tree canopy, doesn't the City want to have some mechanism to evaluate it or set the
policy to try to retain as much as possible? Ms. Hope answered the tree regulations related to
development try to get to that via intention, protection and planting requirements, etc. but provides
guidance/requirements in specific numerical form instead of a general policy statement. The concern is
including a general policy statement could be confusing with regard to how it applies on top of the
numerical standards in the code. It may be better addressed during Stage 2 which will include
consideration of a net ecological assessment. Otherwise it does not really do anything specific.
Councilmember K. Johnson said it did not need apply to all development, but suppose there was a
development with the SEPA checklist and the tree code, shouldn't some sort of assessment by a qualified
professional be required to inform about the existing habitat that could be lost in terms of animals or the
tree canopy? Ms. Hope said a professional assessment is required for certain things with most
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 60
8.1.a
development. Having something in a definition or intent statement does not trump what would be in the
plain language of the code. Mr. Lien said a habitat assessment might be required if there is a critical area
involved, but a 2-lot short plat with no critical area would not have a habitat assessment. The habitat
assessment and those requirements are tied to critical areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion with the agreement of the second:
MOVE "PROMOTE NET ECOLOGICAL GAIN, A STANDARD FOR A DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, POLICY, PLAN OR ACTIVITY IN WHICH THE IMPACTS ON THE ECOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY CAUSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ARE OUTWEIGHED BY MEASURES
TAKEN CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW MITIGATION HIERARCHY TO AVOID AND
MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS, UNDERTAKE SITE RESTORATION, AND COMPENSATE FOR
ANY REMAINING IMPACTS IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT FOR THE GAIN TO EXCEED
THE LOSS" TO ITEM L IN THE INTENT AND PURPOSE SECTION.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern that the definition seems to indicates net ecological gain is
attainable through development and she was not sure that was something that could be backed up. Given
where the City is with the code, she did not want to do a disservice the definition and what it should mean
to the environment by potentially misleading anyone to think it is attainable through development.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember L. Johnson; she has seen net ecology gain
occur in developments and she has seen policies related to it. She did not see this statement as giving
anyone false hope. The City can put good code in place and promotes net ecological gain.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien started at top of list of amendments, an amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
23.10.060 A.5 DELETE ANY TREE REMOVAL ON DEVELOPED SITES NOT EXEMPTED BY ECDC
23.10.040.
Mr. Lien explained this is identified as an exemption in the list of amendments, however, it is not an
exemption. It means if it one of the exemptions above does not apply, it is subject to the tree code. As
proposed the amendment would delete types of development that are subject to the tree code.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED, TO ADD
"DESCRIBE AND SHOW ON MAPS EXACTLY WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE
PLANTED INCLUDING LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE SITE AND
EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER APPROVAL FOR REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS ON THE
ALTERNATE SITE." AS 23.10.060.B.VIII.
Mr. Lien pointed out the site plan already requires the location of replacement trees. Councilmember
Buckshnis explained this will ensure the homeowner provides information regarding where the
replacement trees will be planted.
Councilmember Olson said this was a good addition so that the owner of the recipient land for the
replacement trees is on board, evidence that the City would want to have.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented it is already included in 23.10.060.b.vii.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 61
8.1.a
Council President Paine observed this is different than vii as it is related to the placement of trees on an
alternate site. Mr. Lien said ECDC 23.10.060.C.5 is related to the minimum number of trees required
when a site does not have any trees and ECDC 23.10.080 is the replacement requirements. The difference
is this amendment adds the description of alternate sites; the first half of vii and viii are similar but viii
adds language about alternate sites.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented tonight's Council meeting was advertised as presenting the
Housing Commission's recommendations, scheduled for 60 minutes. As it is now 9:00 p.m., she did not
envision the Council could complete the tree regulations tonight and still honor the promise to present the
Housing Commission's recommendations.
Mayor Nelson deferred to Council regarding how long they wanted to spend on this item; the Council has
now been discussing it for 55 minutes.
Council President Paine suggested finishing this amendment and then do the Youth Commission's
pronoun agenda item and then have the Housing Commission presentation and if there was time, come
back to the tree regulations.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked for clarification of the amendment, if it was asking the developer to
give evidence where trees will be planted on alternate sites.
Councilmember Olson suggested Councilmember Buckshnis and Mr. Lien discuss combining vii and viii
and bring it back next week. They are very similar, but one is related to replacement on the same property
and the other is about replacement trees elsewhere. It is worth including, but there may be a way to say it
more succinctly and with more clarify.
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to work with Mr. Lien on this for next week. She commented there
were at least 10-12 amendments other and she hoped the Council would complete those tonight. She was
happy to work with Mr. Lien on this amendment.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
2. USING PRONOUNS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Council President Paine recalled last week the Youth Commission presented tools and resources for using
pronouns with titles, emails and screen identifiers and requested the Council send it to boards and
commissions.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
TO ACCEPT THE YOUTH COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD THE
INFORMATION AND MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY USE PRONOUNS ON
THEIR SCREEN NAMES AND EMAILS AS VOLUNTEERS FOR CITY IF THEY ARE
INTERESTED IN DOING THAT.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this is a great idea, however, some people may be computer challenged or
may not want to make that change. She asked what would happen if not all board and commission
members made the change.
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out last week's agenda packet included a tutorial for changing your
name on Zoom and email signature on City accounts and those are available for distribution to boards and
commissions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 62
8.1.a
Councilmember Olson said she loves the idea of doing the education and outreach and making the tutorial
and package from the Youth Commission available to boards and commissions and sharing the value of
using pronouns. She did not think it was appropriate to proceed with the exact wording of the Youth
Commission's recommendation to request that they include pronouns in their email signature. She was
not comfortable with forcing conformity for a couple different reasons, one is that the vulnerable party
may not be ready to claim and disclose their preferred pronoun and may prefer no pronoun. She felt it was
better to share the information on how it could be done and not recommend it be used.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson as it matched some of the grumblings she
has heard and she feared it may make some volunteer board and commission members uncomfortable.
She agreed with Council and staff using personal pronouns.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if volunteers were uncomfortable, they could identify with whatever
they felt most comfortable with. She serves on a number of boards and commissions outside the City and
almost all use pronouns. If someone does not want to identify themselves, they can identify as close as
they are. The issue was simply how someone wanted to be addressed, whether it was he/him, she/her or
they/them. She did not envision someone would be prevented from serving on a board or commission if
they refused to include their preferred pronoun.
Councilmember Olson commented if Edmonds wants to be an inclusive city, that should also allow those
who do not want to claim or participate to do that as well.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND TO STATE "SHARE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VALUE AND THE
TUTORIAL ON THE HOW-TO FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO PROCEED."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the amendment because it does not take the issue into
hand and allows people an out. She did not have a problem with requesting board and commissioners
identify their pronoun but if they did not want to, they did not have to. She suggested the amendment was
washing down the request which was not what the Youth Commission wanted. She encouraged
Councilmembers to vote against the amendment.
Councilmember Distelhorst said the Youth Commission's recommendation was a request to commission
and board members, not a requirement and he was very comfortable having that request sent. If someone
preferred not to, they did not have to, but he wanted to honor and support the Youth Commission's work.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Council President Paine restated the motion:
THE YOUTH COMMISSION REQUESTS THE COUNCIL RECOMMEND THE USE OF
PRONOUNS.
Councilmember Distelhorst read the Youth Commission recommendation: The Youth Commission
recommendation to the City Council is to request that all commission and board members include their
pronouns in their email signature, Zoom titles as well as in their biography on any webpage belonging to
the City of Edmonds. He noted the Mayor has already agreed to make the same request of all City staff.
Councilmember Olson asked if there would be any consequence for staff or commissioners who do not
choose to comply with the request. Mayor Nelson advised this pertains City boards and commissions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 63
8.1.a
Council President Paine said she did not know who would do the enforcement and she would be troubled
if there was a consequence.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO.
3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 4217
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the ordinance regarding landmark trees relates to private property.
Section 2, Applicability and states, "The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040 shall have no
applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply..." She explained
subdivisions and short plats are exempt from the ordinance; in other words, homeowners are penalized
more than developers and developers can remove landmark trees as long as they comply with the new tree
code. Many citizens have expressed concern with penalizing private homeowners and allowing
developers to cut down landmark trees. She asked Mr. Taraday to clarify.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this was a Council initiated ordinance not a City Attorney initiated
ordinance. As an interim ordinance, it expressly recognizes that the City has not completed all the work it
might want to complete with regard to the tree code. One of the areas that is still under consideration,
especially after the adoption of Ordinance No. 4217, is what does the City want to do with landmark trees
on improved single family lots. There are a lot of options, one would be to go back to the way things were
before Ordinance 4217 where there was little that prevented them from being cut down.
He agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' assertion that at least for the next six months, there is a
discrepancy between how the owner of an improved single family lot is treated and how a developer
would be treated with respect to their ability to remove a landmark tree. Although there may be
significant cost, a developer could remove a landmark tree via the permit process, the tree replacement
process, etc. as set forth in the tree code. At least for the next six months, the owner of a single family lot
would not be able to remove a landmark tree. His understanding of the Council's intent in adopting
Ordinance 4217 was to say until the City determines what to do on single family lots, they want to keep
those trees standing for six months and have more time to deliberate about what to do with those trees and
come up with a permanent code.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented for anyone who followed the March 2nd meeting, she definitely
would not have supported this. She read from the ordinance, "this ordinance shall not apply to any tree
removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval.
She thanked Mr. Taraday for his explanation and hoped in the future the Council had more time to digest
the information, recalling the Council got the ordinance at 3:15 and that evening was very confusing to
many.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
9. NEW BUSINESS
1. INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW OF HOUSING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed that the Housing Commission's recommendation are
on the City's website and have been provided in numerous ways. Tonight will be an introductory
overview of the Housing Commission's recommendation, knowing the idea is to return with more details
on each of the recommendation in the future. Prior to tonight's meeting, a housing news memo was sent
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 64
8.1.a
to all email subscribers, a postcard was mailed to every household, and there were press releases and an
agenda memo prepared.
Ms. Hope reviewed:
• Background
o Council established Citizens' Housing Commission in 2019
o Housing Commission's Mission
■ "Develop for Council consideration diverse housing policy options designed to expand
the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds — irrespective of
age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation."
0 15 members and 8 alternates were appointed from a pool of 135 citywide applications
o Housing Commission recommendations originally planned to be provided by December 31,
2020
■ In November, Council approve a one month extension to January 31, 2021
o Commission's public meetings begin in September 2019
o Policy recommendations submitted January 29, 2021
Ms. Hope introduced retired Housing Commissioners Bob Throndsen and Karen Haase Herrick.
Mr. Throndsen thanked Mayors Earling and Nelson and Council liaisons Luke Distelhorst and Vivian
Olson. They also appreciated the help of Director Hope, her staff and the consultants. He honored the
memory of Commissioner John Reed who passed away a year ago from COVID; John devoted much of
his free time to the community and brought passion and wisdom to the commission and will be forever in
their hearts. Each commissioner came to the process as committed residents with diverse backgrounds
who cared deeply about Edmonds' past, present and future. They respected each other, had frank and
sometimes passionate debates, researched, compromised and brainstormed and built what the commission
felt were strong proposals. No community exists without change; Edmonds has changed radically even in
the last five years. The commission believes Edmonds can accommodate well -planned change, maintain
its unique character and environment, and offer affordable housing options.
Mr. Throndsen explained the proposals in the commission's final report are theirs alone, not staff s, the
consultant's, not the Council's and not the Mayor's. Commissioners voted on and passed proposals that
they believed fulfill the mission to develop diverse housing policy options. One of the key words in the
mission is diverse. The commission believes Edmonds must provide for the diverse needs of seniors,
veterans, those with disabilities, people who are part of the so-called missing middle and may not be able
to continue to afford to live in Edmonds. Edmonds must find diverse ways to create more affordable
housing for all residents in the future. Another key word is options; the commission developed options,
possibilities and proposals for more affordable housing which the Council will study in-depth in the
future. To achieve that, the Housing Commission sought public feedback including four open houses, the
last three unfortunately online only due to COVID. More than 2000 residents participated in the four
citywide surveys and open houses.
Mr. Throndsen explained the commission listened to and read the feedback and incorporated some of it
into the proposals. The commission's task was to balance public input with their research and the mission
the Council gave them. The commission hopes the Council will consider all the proposals and tailor them
to the City's future housing needs. It will require political and moral courage to keep Edmonds a vibrant
and diverse community.
Ms. Herrick described the process used to develop the policy ideas. Commissioners broke into working
committees formed at the February 2020 meeting where commissioners identified their top five policy
ideas via a sticky note exercise using a list developed during a brainstorming process at an earlier
meeting. Commissioners and alternates self-selected onto five committees and committee lead roles.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 65
8.1.a
Committee sizes varied from five to two people and met via Zoom as well as some walk -and -talks. The
committees used an iterative process to identify and refine potential ideas. City Staff served as ad hoc
consultants for clarity and resource sharing. Early in June it was discovered that several committees
overlapped on potential policy ideas, but due to varied approaches, the committees continued worked on
their individual policy ideas using their own framework approach and final decisions were made at the
January 28 h meeting.
Ms. Herrick explained in November and December commission members engaging in a deep dive for
round 1 and 2 policy ideas as well as individual policy ideas brought forward by individual
commissioners that did not fall into the committee topic structure and ended up being additions to the
final product. The committee's discussion was very robust and included a cross-check to look for major
holes in the policy ideas. Selection of the ideas in the final report occurred at the January 28t" meeting and
the final vote considered discussion from deep dives as well as input from the public from surveys and
webinars. Not all policy ideas received a unanimous vote for inclusion as a final policy recommendation;
however, many did. Anyone interested in knowing exact vote details can find those in the January 28th
meeting notes that are posted online.
Ms. Herrick identified key takeaways, first, commissioners generated the original topic areas from which
the committees were formed. Commissioners generated ideas within their committee work, but did
connect with City staff for information, clarification and resources. After each public input session,
whether the in -person session in February 2020 or the online surveys and webinars, commissioners
carefully considered the public's input and within their committee work, revised as warranted the policy
ideas based on that public input. She thanked the Council and Mayor for their time and looked forward to
watching the progress as the Council and the community mutually consider these proposals.
Ms. Hope explained 9 of the 15 policy recommendations relate to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning
regulations and 6 do not. She provided an overview of the nine policy recommendations related to the
Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations:
• Missing middle housing in single family neighborhoods
o Develop design requirements and zoning changes that allow for home -ownership of two
attached single family homes (duplex or two -unit townhouses) in single family residential
areas and are compatible with those neighborhoods
• Equity housing incentives
o Develop incentives that apply to "missing middle" housing types city-wide that allow home-
ownership for those at or below average median family income.
• Medium -density single family housing (sr -mod)
o Establish a new zoning type of single-family housing that allows for construction of zero -lot
line duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes of only 1- or 2-story height located in specified
areas of Edmonds that are:
■ Contiguous to or along high -volume transit routes, or
■ Sited next to Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning districts, or
■ Close to schools or medical complexes
• Neighborhood village subarea planning
o Develop subarea plans to rethink areas zoned "Business Neighborhood" such as 5 Corners,
Perrinville, etc. The subarea plans should create unique, thriving neighborhoods and social
gathering points with the surrounding properties to integrate community values including
missing middle housing, business opportunity and environmental stewardship in these areas.
Additional areas that could be intentionally rethought are Westgate area and Downtown
Business (BD) areas.
• Cluster/cottage housing
o Add Cluster/Cottage housing as an option within single-family or multi -family housing in
Edmonds.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 66
8.1.a
• Detached accessory dwelling units
o Allow either one attached or detached accessory unit on a property in the SFR area, with clear
and definitive development requirements such as size, ownership, and parking, under the
standard permitting process and not require a conditional use permit.
• Inclusionary zoning
o Require new developments (above a certain size) in Edmonds to provide a percentage of
affordable housing units or require in lieu of fees that will go towards funding affordable
housing elsewhere in the city.
• Multi -family design standards
o Enhance current design standards of new multi -family dwellings to maintain and enhance the
unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use
buildings, small multi -family buildings and larger multi -family buildings.
• Update Comprehensive Plan to include "parking solutions" as a goal in transportation element
section
o Adopt language that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation
Element under the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Hope provided on overview of the nine policies that are not specific to the Comprehensive Plan or
zoning regulations, less related to Planning Board review and more oriented to Council decision with
public input and other research as needed:
• Multi -family tax exemption (MFTE)
o Make significant changes to the MFTE as it currently exists to:
■ Create a third low income eligible category for tenants whose income is 60% of MFI or
less
■ Mandate that developers set aside 25% of all units in a project for MFTE (currently it is
20%)
■ Construction incentives for additional units/floors, if builders reserve 25% of units for
MFTE tenants
■ Require MFTE eligible projects to include some two -bedroom and larger units
■ Increase the number of `residential target/urban center areas' for MFTE developments
■ Create incentives for developers to renovate existing multi -family apartments to become
MFTE eligible
■ Ask the Legislature to extend the current MFTE limits beyond 12 years, to preserve
affordable housing
Use of existing sales tax revenue for affordable and supportive housing
o Per RCW 82.14.540, use the City of Edmonds' share of the existing state sales tax that is
reserved for affordable housing:
a. In the short term, to provide rental assistance to low-income households in Edmonds that
have been impacted by the coronavirus
b. In the longer term, to contribute to a regional organization, which could be the County,
the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), or a partnership of cities in southwest
Snohomish County with the goal of the revenue going toward affordable housing in the
sub -region
County implementation of sales and use tax for housing and related services
o Advocate for Snohomish County Council to adopt the optional 0.1% sales tax as allowed by
state law to provide affordable and supportive housing for low-income households.
Edmonds-HASCO interlocal agreement
o Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County
(HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries.
Develop community housing partners
o Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 67
8.1.a
■ Low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI.)
■ Special needs residents
■ Seniors
■ Veterans
o Construction and land costs make building low income housing economically challenging.
o This policy establishes community partnerships with for-profit/non-profits to build affordable
housing:
■ Public agencies
■ Neighboring communities
■ Housing/for-profit/non-profit groups
■ Community care providers (transitional housing for patients with `no safe place to go'
while recovering from hospitalization)
o Edmonds would establish regulations for these partnerships
o The city contract would contract with those partners to manage this housing
Eliminate discriminatory provisions in covenants and deeds
o Prior to the sale or transfer of any property in Edmonds, all discriminatory language in any
associated covenants and/or deeds must be legally removed from said documents.
Ms. Hope identified seven supplemental policy proposal that the Housing Commission found worthy of
the City Council's consideration but did not necessarily fit with in the commission's specific mission, as
identified in Resolution No. 1427:
• Improved tenant protections
• Childcare voucher program
• Renter's choice security deposit
• Low-income emergency repair program
• Property tax exemption for low-income households
• Simplify zoning code language
• Streamline permitting process
Ms. Hope expected that the commission's recommendation would be considered via a deliberate process.
None of the policies will be automatically implemented or approved. The recommended approach is for
the Council to review each policy recommendations in more detail in a process over the next year or more
and decide how to proceed. The policies may still need work, conditions, and qualifications because they
are not code, but rather general ideas to explore. The process could start with simple 1-2 items unrelated
to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning changes. She anticipated there would be more public input and
information would be sought on the individual policy recommendations and options as more research
either at the Council level or if the Council refers them to the Planning Board. Information about the
Housing Commission's work is available on the City's website via searching Housing Commission and/or
googling Edmonds Housing Commission.
Council President Paine commented this was a wonderful presentation and it was nice to know the
community will have additional time to review nine of the policies via the Planning Board as well as the
items that can come to Council and additional opportunity for public feedback. There have been concerns
expressed that there has not been enough public input regarding some of the recommendations. The
Housing Commission's mission was to develop ideas and they produced 15, some will have more traction
than others. She requested a broader background, commenting two Councilmembers attended Housing
Commission meetings as Council liaisons. She was interested in additional data including high level
regional focused.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Throndsen and Ms. Herrick for their reports, recognizing
they and the other commissioners spent a considerable amount of time working through the process. She
was interested in looking at these issues in the future and in having more public input. There have been a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 68
8.1.a
number of public open houses and other ways for people to provide input. She served on the previous
Housing Commission and recalled hearing the same concerns about public input. She understood that the
Housing Commission had done their due diligence in reaching out to the community, but sometimes
people miss the information the City provides. She looked forward to further discussion on the individual
ideas and additional public input.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the packet was very complete. She was also interested in data,
specifically the supplemental information as it was important for the Council to have data. She asked
whether the Council would determine priorities and identify items to send to the Planning Board. For
example, she is very interested in low impact development because it assists with the missing middle as
well as helps save trees. She asked about next steps. Ms. Hope answered staff would come back to
determine if the Council was interested in having the Planning Board add any of the policy ideas to their
work program during the next year. She suspected there may be one or two the Council was interested I
pursuing and there may be a bunch that need to wait. There are a lot of things going on such as the
Climate Action Plan, climate inequity assessment, heritage tree program, etc. so she did not envision all
the recommendations would go to the Planning Board. It is up to the Council to decide if there are 1-2
that they want the Planning Board to give some thought to.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received a barrage of emails with comments all over the board.
Citizens are interested in the raw data to support the policy recommendations and the supplemental
recommendation. Ms. Hope answered there are two kinds of raw data, the basic data for the surveys
which should be available on the website and some of the data staff will present as the Council considers
the issues. The Housing Commission worked in smaller committees much of the time and did not prepare
fancy reports and data documents. They did a lot of research, some of which was shared during public
meetings, and it was too voluminous to be included with the recommendations.
Councilmember Buckshnis said some of recommendations generate more questions. Ms. Hope said that's
exactly what was hoped; this is the start, identifying concepts, and then each will have more data, some
that the Housing Commission created and some from other sources for Council consideration along with
more public input. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hope, her department and the Housing
Commission members.
Councilmember Olson thanked the Housing Commission, recognizing the long hours they devoted to
give the Council a lot of possibilities to vet further. She also thanked the public, recognizing this was a
topic many were very interested in and she assured the Council will be engaging and working with the
public as these come to Council 1-2 at a time.
Councilmember L. Johnson said via the hard work and dedication of the members of the Citizens'
Housing Commission, the Council has been provided with a number of well researched and carefully
considered policy proposals. The Council has its work cut out for them, taking in the information, data
and emailed comments. She referred to a comment made earlier, fail to plan is a plan to fail. Right now
the Council has the opportunity to create a thoughtful plan that is Edmonds specific and she looked
forward to being part of that.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked former Commissioners Throndsen and Herrick for their
presentations. He echoed Councilmember Olson and Director Hope's comments, expressing his
appreciation for the time, energy and effort that commissioners and alternates put into this process. The
commission ended up doubling up meetings toward the end because of the amount of work they wanted
to do, not including all the subcommittees that Council liaisons did not partake in. He recognized a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 69
8.1.a
tremendous amount of volunteer time went into this work over 18 months. He appreciated all the
commission's efforts and research in bringing the policies forward to Council. He looked forward to
having the Council and other appropriate boards and /commissions starting work on these.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented she had the pleasure of meeting many commissioners during the
appointment process as well as the pleasure of appointing Karen Herrick and others. She thanked Mr.
Throndsen and Ms. Herrick for their presentations, finding the commission went through a good,
complete although rapid process, completing their work in slightly over a year. She commended everyone
who participated in this process.
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON TREE CODE
Comments included in agenda packet.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson announced his reappointment of Carrie Hulbert to position 9 on the Economic
Development Commission. He reported COVID cases in Snohomish County continue to drop, low
70s/100,000 although the decrease is beginning to slow. He urged residents to continue to watch
distances, wear masks and wash their hands. Approximately 22% of Washington state residents now have
gotten at least one shot, but only 12.8% have been fully vaccinated so the overwhelming majority have
not been vaccinated. There is a lot of excitement about the vaccine and the federal government is
promising to have more vaccines available to the county which allows advance planning. Until the
overwhelming majority of residents are vaccinated, people need to continue wearing masks, washing their
hands and watching their distance.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed concern about the record high flows in Perrinville Creek and water
over the roadway. Mayor Nelson has established a task force and she expressed interest in observing and
discussing those issues. She was particularly interested in obstructions of fish passages that occur at the
Talbot Road entrance. It is a very important issue and is related to tree code as it relates to infiltration and
drainage on site.
Councilmember Distelhorst was excited to report that this Thursday at 12:30 p.m. Washington Kids in
Transition will be honored with a resolution from the Washington Senate to mark the great work they
have done in Edmonds and the communities, especially during COVID-19 distributing CARES Funds for
Edmonds, securing an OSPI grant and supporting the Edmonds hub. Children and families in Edmonds
and in the Edmonds School District have been well served and have benefitted greatly from their
dedication and it is nice to see them receive that recognition. Sunday is the second film in the Diversity
Commission's film series at 4 p.m. on Zoom, "Teach Us All, Elevating Equity in Education for Every
Student. He encouraged residents to continue wearing masks and keeping their distance.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was also willing to help with regard to the Perrinville issue. There are
efforts to get legislative assistance as some of the culverts need to be replaced. She agreed everyone
should continue to wear masks. A lot of people have not yet been vaccinated and although many want to
return to meetings, it is necessary to wait a couple more months.
With the subject of housing and the tree code being front and center at the same time, Councilmember
Olson said it was worth mentioning the value of looking at both with a holistic approach. There is overlay
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 70
8.1.a
on many of the issues that citizens are concerned about and she hoped those could be moved toward the
back of the list, not because of their importance, but so that citizens have more opportunity to be engaged.
Councilmember Olson commented there is a place, a space and a home for everybody in Edmonds. She
hoped the Youth Commission's recommendation that shared the value of doing something and how to do
it was not off-putting to anyone. Everyone's individuality can and should be respected and she wanted to
see personal choice and respected upheld. She was concerned about pressure for conformity and what that
does to increasing division in the community instead of bringing residents together. Being the inclusive
community that Edmonds wants to be means the individual can do what they feel comfortable doing.
Council President Paine thanked the entire Housing Commission and the all the City's boards and
commissions, commenting Edmonds gets a lot done with work by volunteers. Volunteer boards and
commissions allow constructive discussions on many topics. Most Councilmembers started in a volunteer
capacity and value the relationships they have built. The Housing Commission did a lot of work for the
City; she is eager to look at their recommendations, some that will go through the Planning Board and
others to the City Council. She also thanked Councilmembers Olson and Distelhorst for their participation
on the Housing Commission as well as Director Hope.
Councilmember L. Johnson said a heartfelt thank you to the Citizens' Housing Commission for their
dedication of time; their commitment shows in the work they brought forward. She also thanked all the
citizens who spoke as well as those who have been emailing Councilmembers. She wished all a Happy St.
Patrick's Day.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Throndsen for bringing up her appointee to the Housing
Commission, John Reed, who brought a lot of good information to the Housing Commission. She thanked
Mayor Nelson for mentioning the COVID statistics. The state is moving into Phase 3 next week, but will
return to Phase 2 if hospitalizations, deaths or cases increase. She encouraged people to get vaccinated,
noting she has gotten one shot so far, and to wear masks and to maintain social distancing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas displayed St. Patrick's Day items she received on her doorstep to
celebrate St. Patrick's Day at the Edmonds School District Foundation breakfast tomorrow. She
encouraged the public to donate to the foundation which assists students in need.
Student Representative Roberts said a huge thank you to the entire Housing Commission for their hard
work, time and dedication in making these recommendations. He was excited to see the outcome of the
presentations, discussions and public input as someone who hopes to live in Edmonds throughout his life.
He thanked the Council and Mayor for their ongoing support on the pronouns request project by the
Youth Commission. He clarified the Youth Commission specified it as a request; the use of pronouns is
optional but the ultimate goal is to make Edmonds a more inclusive place for all and to allow people to
express how they want to be addressed. He is thrilled to be getting his second and final dose of the Pfizer
vaccine tomorrow. He remind that the vaccine is not a save -all solution; wearing masks, remaining
socially distanced from others and limiting contact with those outside one's household are still crucial and
are the only way we will get back to a normal life again. He wished all a Happy St. Patrick's Day.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 71
8.1.a
Public Comment for the 3/16/21 Council Meeting:
Submitted by Dawna Lahti, 3/16/21
To the City Council and the Mayor,
Say no to the changes which would phase out single-family dwellings in Edmonds; with current
city policies, they are already an endangered species.
Do not succumb to the charms of a policy that in the guise of some kind of equity actually
profits predatory realtors and loses us the charm and beauty of the greater Edmonds' lifestyle.
Thank you,
The Lahtis
From: Feras Rabi
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:30 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: More affordable housing!
To whom it may concern,
I strongly support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds. This would
be a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does NOT need more condos.
Thank you,
Feras Rabi
From: Luiza Tosi
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 9:12 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 72
8.1.a
From: otto goettel
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:54 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Transparency
I'm concerned about the lack of transparency with the housing commission, I have lived here in
Edmonds for the past 30 years same house, I have only received one notice this last one about
the potential change to the SFR code that in my view will turn Edmonds into a Ballard or even
now Shoreline, I didn't buy here because it was a cheap place to live, No our first house wasn't
in Edmonds, We were told to work harder if you want to live in a nicer location, and we did
work hard to get here, I'm in total disagreement with all there findings, and angry they posted
ads in the Everett Herald stateing the citenzens of Edmonds should support there efforts to
over build our city!!! It's a money grab period, anyone with half a brain knows how our city is
supported, yes yes by people with money! Not by low income housing, or putting sheds in your
backyard and renting for 150 dollars per square foot, that's doesn't work period, The council
needs to focus on Revitalizing Edmonds, using what we already have to raise money, figuring
away to drive visitors to downtown so they spend money and the City gets more tax dollars,
Also I'm not sure the majority of residence want any of the recommendations, If your going to
be honest with us , put everything on a ballot and allow the residents to vote, I'm also not so
sure the courts will allow the city that sold us one thing to change the rules just to fit their tax
needs. Sell the event center and build housing there, it already has cost us millions since
inception, bring in investors for the waterfront and develop that, or the old Safeway, also just
wondering when the multimodal or the path over or under the tracks will be done? Might we
get a Chief of Police someday soon? We the people will be heard one way or another. If any of
these commission folks were running for a council seat we sure would have gotten notices, and
notices, but not with this issue of changing the zone of neighborhoods we bought into years
ago for a reason. Hmmmmm.
Respectfully
Otto Goettel
From: Alexandra Clouse
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:11 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit lot subdivision: MORE AFFODABLE HOUSING
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 73
8.1.a
Hi! I'm here to say I support Buko and the unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds to bring
lower cost, high quality housing to the downtown area! Hoping the city council will consider the
unit lot subdivision amendment Buko is looking for!
Thank you,
Alexandra Clouse
From: lnda fenton
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:06 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; linda.r.fenton@comcast.net
Subject: Please listen tp the input and concerns of ACE
Dear Edmonds City Counsel Members and Mayor Nelson,
I am a long time resident of the downtown core and newly associated with the Alliance of
Citizens for Edmonds. I have little old house built in 1902. So small living is near and dear to
my heart.
I strongly encourage you to listen carefully to the input and concerns of ACE.
Please continue to promote preservation of the natural environment of the City of Edmonds —
its streams, trees, beaches, parks and open space.
Respectfully,
Linda Fenton
From: Briana Nasman
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:53 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds unit lot subdivision
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Affordable housing is extremely
needed and construction is so expensive.
Briana Nasman
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 74
8.1.a
From: Daenerys T
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:05 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please help to save this beautiful Heritage tree!
Hello City Council Members,
I reached out via email to members of the City Council yesterday about the Heritage tree
(Western Red Cedar) that is currently approved by the City Planning office for removal. The
Development reference # is PLN 20190051 @ 8717 24011 St SW. I take full accountability that I
became an advocate for this tree late in the game and did not take advantage of the
opportunity the city allows for public feedback when it was an option. However, I feel I must
persist in being the best advocate that I can be for this mighty and soulful tree because it
deserves it. And, because I told it that I would.
I have spoken to Kernen Lien and emailed with Jeanie McConnell in the City Planning offices to
get more information as to why this tree must be removed. I also spoke with the Civic Engineer
from RAM, who was contracted by Adamant Homes, the Developer. I spoke with Lorrie Quade
at Adamant as well.
I had the opportunity to speak with CM Luke Distelhorst and with CM Laura Johnson yesterday
regarding this tree, and I thank them for their time and concern.
Currently, this is what I know:
• The tree is over 100 years old, perhaps much more. It is close to 100 inches in diameter
at 5 feet from the ground and has beautiful and unique branch structure, it is about
53'tall and an integral part of the ecosystem. This tree is 1 of 10 trees approved to be to
be removed.
• The reason this tree is being removed is not fully confirmed — it is looking like it's
because of City codes that limit the height of new houses (I have learned this is primarily
in place for the Bowl purposes), and as such, are driving the need for the Developer to
grade the property lower to comply. Since there is grading happening, the tree, which
sits in the SE corner of the lot next to 240t" St SW, no where near the Easement or a
planned structure, has been approved by the City to be removed. The Civic Engineer for
Adamant Homes says he thinks removing the tree could be avoided based on his review
of the reports and his expertise.
• The Civil Review has not yet been approved yet, and I am waiting to hear back from
Jeanie McConnell in the Engineering Planning office — she said she would keep me
updated on the status of this tree's future.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 75
8.1.a
• The tree is not covered by the recent Tree Code updates as this permit was initiated in
late 2019.
It seems to be in the hands of the City Planners now. Will they decide that this tree should
be saved? If there is ANYTHING the Council can do to help save this Heritage tree, I implore
you to do so. I understand there are limitations, but if we can save this tree, and if it is still
in the ground, I feel that we must try!
Thank you for your time,
Beth Fleming
P.S: the pictures below and the one with the red arrow is the tree I am fighting for. I would like
to add that the tree to the left is a Heritage Douglas Fir being removed. Three of the trees to
it's left are also being removed. I am so grateful for the work the City Council has done to
implement a Tree Code that will help drive more innovative approaches to development
projects and protect our Heritage trees. Of the 10 trees in total are approved for removal from
this 1 acre of land 2 are Heritage trees. In addition, the lot adjacent to this one is also being
developed, sits right on the 104, and a significant # of those trees were recently removed. I
fear that this micro -ecosystem will be forever impacted and that the neighborhood will hear a
lot more of the whirring traffic speeding by as a result of the decisions made.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 76
8.1.a
From: Elena Suciu
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:00 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Vote No on Citizens' Housing Commission
Good evening,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 77
8.1.a
I am writing to formally request the Edmonds City Council to vote NO on the Edmond's
Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations. While I appreciate the desire to create an
affordable Edmonds, the plan to modify single family houses into allowing two housing
units will not serve that end. It is short sighted.
Ballard is a lovely place to live, though I've chosen to live in Edmonds (not Ballard) for its
character and charm. As Ballard increased its density, it did not become more affordable.
If the Council approves this plan, it will be impossible to go back to additional green space and
open yards. Conversely, the opportunity to increase density will always be present. Please vote
"no" and do not open the door to urban density at this time.
Sincerely,
Elena Suciu
From: Greg Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:57 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: The Citizens' Housing Commission's Policy Proposals
To the Edmonds Council,
I'm writing as a concerned citizen about upzoning Edmonds. I don't support radical changes to
the existing zoning and building codes. These measures would change the face of Edmonds
forever. I don't believe these changes would provide affordable housing. It's already been
proven in other communities that housing prices will rise. The open space that remains would
be developed and density would increase dramatically. Is that really what you want for this
quaint, charming town? It's a sell out to developers who would surely pounce on the
opportunity at the expense of our town and citizens. The pace at which our community would
change would be mind boggling. Build it in your mind. It isn't pretty! Do the right thing and
stop the up zone.
Greg Brewer
From: Tyler
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:37 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 78
8.1.a
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivision
To whom it may concern,
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. From what I have read, this will
make housing cheaper.
Thank you,
Tyler
From: william hetland
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Code amendment to allow unit lot subdivision
I fully support this update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. There is
no difference in what can be built. This just makes more sense because it makes costs cheaper
because it will allow homeowners to opt out of HOA dues- thus making cost of living more
affordable.
Thank you,
Will
From: michelle dotsch
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:06 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Your packet of ECHC process/presentation leaves out actual Community INPUT
To our Edmonds City Councilmembers:
In reviewing Agenda Item 9.1, the presentation for the Edmonds' Citizens' Housing Policy
Proposals, a very important piece has been glaringly omitted: the actual INPUT received from
the community from the numerous public outreach events the CHC provided.
Some of the final policy recommendations have been included despite strong public input to
the contrary. At a minimum, this should have been given its place in tonight's presentation, to
honor that critical promise made in the Resolution to your citizens. It said that from the outset,
this Council -led process would be different from the previous failed Administrative
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 79
8.1.a
attempts. How can you honestly evaluate these 15 policy proposals tonight without that
community input in front of you?
Please ask the Director, where is the input from the greater Edmonds' community, beyond the
small majority of 15 voting members of the commission, that requested the entire city be
upzoned and eliminate single-family neighborhoods? There is none. In fact, one of the highest
responses from any survey, was 78% of respondents asked to not change single-family zoning.
Comments and outreach events told the same story. Beyond that, there is also no majority of
public support for an increase in our local taxes and only 34% support an interlocal agreement
with HASCO. Feedback from the survey which put forward these final policy proposals to the
community, showed 59% of respondents opposed the proposal to establish a new zoning type
of single-family housing that allows for construction of zero -lot line duplexes, triplexes, and
quadruplexes of only 1- or 2-story height located in specified areas of Edmonds. Only 35%
supported extending the MFTE. 57% opposed increasing the number of areas for using the
MFTE. Other policy proposals had great support, 59% of respondents reported they support the
idea to adopt language making Parking Solutions a goal in the Transportation Element of the
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Other input collated from hundreds of survey comments and public comments given by the
community since September of 2019, are not included here either. Some Housing
Commissioners even believed the citizens that they ASKED to participate via surveys, open
houses, etc. did not deserve a voice as they had "privilege" or were "loud voices". So how is
that welcoming input from your citizens? You can't just cherry pick what you want to hear and
fits your own viewpoint, whether you are a commissioner or a Director. That is just not realistic.
All voices and input this process asked for and received, should not just now be ignored.
My hope is there is much more willingness to hear from your citizens and not be afraid to listen
and hear input you had promised would be prioritized. You asked for this process to be citizen -
driven, trying to reverse the previous Administration's inability to do so. Your fellow citizens
are speaking... please listen to them.
Michelle Dotsch
From: babatunde badru
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:06 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT FOR EDMONDS
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seems like
there are no difference in what can be built and it makes cost cheaper because I won't have to
pay condo fees.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 80
8.1.a
Thanks
Baba
From: Marc Erickson
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:00 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Allow Unit lot subdivisions and support common sense land use
Hello
I support the update for unit lot subdivision in the downtown business district. It seems like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes it cheaper because buyers won't have
to pay HOA dues.
Our entire region needs better land use rules and regulations, this is an easy and effective step
in the right direction
In appreciation
From: Augustus Bukowski
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:59 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Downtown Edmonds - Unit Lot Subdivion
Hi All,
I own a business that I am moving to downtown Edmonds, I am strongly in favor of unit lot
subdivision. If I were able to purchase a tow home that had commercial space on the bottom
floor and residential on the top floor, it would be great for me.
I am sure many residents would be excited for the same, and paying HOA dues associated with
another condominium would be prohibitive to ownership.
Thank You
From: bao.phung
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 81
8.1.a
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20214:58 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Request for Amendment to Downtown Edmonds
Hi,
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
This makes for more affordable housing.
Thanks,
Bao Phung
B5 Real Estate, LLC
From: Rosemary Bee Oudanonh-Phung
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20214:56 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Code amendment
Hello,
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
Regards,
Rosemary Oudanonh-Phung
From: Biciok Or
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20214:54 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Down town Edmonds Code Amendment
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
Thanks,
Biciok B. Or
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 82
8.1.a
From: Karl Krauskopf
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:32 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
Karl Krauskopf
Managing Partner, Summer Sault Properties
Real Estate Broker, Keller Williams North Seattle
From: Adrian Chu
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:17 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivisions in Downtown Edmonds
Hi Edmonds City Council -
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in Downtown Edmonds. Unit lot subdivisions
provide for more flexibility for buyers and sellers. The way the mortgage lending system works
right now, lenders charge higher rates/fees to buyers and homeowners of condos, but not for
unit lot subdivisions, which makes unit lot subdivision homes more desirable and retain value
better. Having a diversity in housing type classifications help make the city more vibrant.
Regards,
Adrian
From: martin dorr
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Code amendment downtown Redmond wa
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
-Martin Dorr
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 83
8.1.a
From: Jane
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Report
We are opposed to a number of the Citizens' Housing Commission's proposals —particularly the
proposal to change the zoning for single family dwellings.
Don and Jane Simpson
From: Jeanne Petty
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Recommendations
Hello,
I am writing to express my gratitude for the work done by the Citizens' Housing Commission
and my support for the recommendations they are making. I appreciate all of the opportunities
that were provided to learn about this work and the challenges Edmonds is facing. I attended
two events where I heard information presented regarding the demographics of our population
and the breakdown of our housing options and how they are out of step with one another.
think it's important that our city has housing options for everyone and that people who live and
work here now do not feel unable to pursue owning a home or continue to afford renting in
their own community. I also think it's important that Edmonds be accessible to new residents
of all income levels. Things have changed so much over the past decade and I know it would be
impossible for our family to afford our home at its current value. While I'm grateful that we
purchased our home when we did, I want others to have the same opportunity and for
Edmonds to grow as a diverse and welcoming community. The greater Seattle area is going to
continue to grow and change and the only thing we can avoid is planning for that growth. It's
going to happen whether we accept it and move with it or not, by putting off these changes,
we're only setting ourselves up for problems. The best way to preserve the positive aspects of
Edmonds we love is to continue to adjust and grow together.
Thank you,
Jeanne Petty
Edmonds Resident
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 36
Packet Pg. 84
8.1.a
From: Gary Kindness
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Report
As an Edmonds resident and homeowner for over 45 years, I was extremely surprised by the
policy recommendations contained in the Housing Commission Report. Many are clearly at
odds with my understanding of the results of the three surveys conducted by the
commission. It might be better to say that many of the policy recommendations are
diametrically opposed to the survey results, to the extent that I understand the results. Frankly,
I don't understand why there were 3 surveys. While I answered all three, the questions all
seemed to cover much of the same ground using slightly different wording. It appeared to
me that the first survey was drafted with an agenda in mind. When the results did not support
that agenda, a second survey was conducted, followed by a third, all at Edmonds taxpayers
expense. I was a bit surprised to see that the third survey did not ask those who answered if
they resided in or owned property in Edmonds, as the first two surveys did.
On the outside looking in so to speak, it appears to me from the surveys and the report, rather
than provide a report that reflects the input of the Edmonds community, the report reflects an
agenda that differs from the will of the Edmonds community as a whole. Regardless, I oppose
most if not all of the recommendations in the report. I don't believe the citizens of Edmonds
want duplexes in place of single family homes or other of the recommendations directed
toward increasing the density of Edmonds. Increasing density will lead to more traffic
congestion as well as other problems. I, like many others who live in Edmonds, live here
because we like the current Edmonds environment. We don't want it to change. Hence my
opposition to the policy recommendations in the report.
Because the report policy recommendations do not jibe with the survey results, it seems to me
that the Edmonds City Council should look into the development of the report, including why it
was necessary to conduct three surveys when one should have been sufficient. Who ordered
the surveys? Was it the Commission, or the Director of Edmonds Development Services, whom
I understand ran the Commission? Obtaining and reviewing all email and other correspondence
as well as notes of telephone conversations between the Commissioners and the Director, and
the company that conducted the surveys might be a good place to start. Just a suggestion.
Gary Kindness
From: Sue Hoekstra
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 37
Packet Pg. 85
8.1.a
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Clarification of commissioners support of Herald letter
To members of the Edmonds City Council:
It may help all citizens to have a clarification from the council tonight as to whether or not the
entire 21 members of the Housing Commission are in agreement with all the proposals. The
letter in today's Everett Herald, signed by only eight members, misleads the public into thinking
that all members are in agreement. I would like to know how the other 13 commissioners feel.
This is described further in my attached letter.
I will be at tonight's meeting. Thank you for your hard work.
Susan Hoekstra
From: Sue Hoekstra
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:27 PM
To: counciil@edmondswa.gov
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission letter to Everett Herald 3-16-2021
To the esteemed Edmonds City Council members:
Your work is indeed cut out for you these days. Could you please clarify at tonight's meeting
whether or not all 21 members and alternates of the Citizens' Housing Commission support all
15 proposals?
The Edmonds' Citizens' Housing Commission commentary letter to the Everett Herald implies
that all members are together in their support.
My attachment details my thoughts
I'll be at the meeting tonight. Thanks for all you do.
Susan Hoekstra
Letter:
To: Members of Edmonds City Council
CC: publiccomment@edmondswa.gov
Re: Citizens' Housing Commission final Policy Proposals
As a citizen of Edmonds I have read the above mentioned Citizen's Housing Commission final
Proposals. There were a total of 21 commissioners and alternate commissioners listed as being
on the commission.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 38
Packet Pg. 86
8.1.a
Today, March 16, 2021 a guest commentary titled "Citizen panel charts Edmonds' housing
future" was published in the Everett Herold promoting these policy proposals and was signed by
only eight of those commissioners and alternates, leading the public to believe that all of the
proposals are fully endorsed by all members of the commission.
I want to hear the opinions of the other 13 members of the commission on each of the 15
proposals and have it clarified at tonight's meeting that the commentary does or does not
represent the entirety of the commission.
This is just another misleading example of misrepresentation which is being presented to the
citizens of Edmonds as we and the council try to navigate this and other complex issues being
thrust at us.
I am asking the city council to please clarify just what is the point of view of the commissioners
Are they collective, or individual?
Thank you so much,
Susan Hoekstra
From: Nisma Gabobe
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Recommendations Comment Letter
Good Afternoon,
My name is Nisma Gabobe and I'm a Senior Research Associate at Sightline Institute, a regional
policy think tank. I'm submitting the attached public comment on the Edmonds Citizens'
Housing Commission's recommendations on expanding middle housing options in Edmonds.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Nisma Gabobe
Letter:
March 16, 2021
RE: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Recommendations
Dear City Councilmembers:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 39
Packet Pg. 87
8.1.a
We are writing to strongly urge you to explore the proposals recommended by the Edmonds
Citizens' Housing Commission to expand "missing" middle housing options in more
neighborhoods.
Over the past few years Sightline has conducted extensive research on missing middle housing.
Missing middle homes can offer more affordable home choices in more neighborhoods, help
multigenerational families to live together, reduce sprawl, and provide workforce housing near
jobs, schools, transit, and parks.
A survey of Edmonds' housing stock demonstrates that missing middle homes are in fact largely
missing, even though they are home types that would meet the needs of many residents.
Census data from the 2019 ACS 5-Year estimates show that only two percent of homes in
Edmonds are duplexes while 60 percent are single -detached houses ---typically the most
expensive type of housing units. Only seven percent of Edmonds' housing stock is made up of
single -attached units, triplexes, and fourplexes. Furthermore, nearly 70 percent of households
in Edmonds include only one to two people, but studios, one bedroom, and two bedroom
homes only make up 42 percent of the housing stock.
Meanwhile home prices have skyrocketed in the past decade, making homeownership
increasingly unattainable in Edmonds. According to Zillow home sale data for January 2021, the
typical home in Edmonds sells for $714,000 and home sale prices have more than doubled from
$331,000 in early 2011. The lack of small-scale multifamily homes excludes middle and low
income earners from neighborhoods of opportunity and maintains economic and racial
segregation.
Sightline strongly supports the following proposed code changes to remove barriers to missing
middle housing in Edmonds:
Allow duplexes in single-family neighborhoods
Establish a new medium density zone that allows duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes
near transit, business districts, schools, and hospitals
• Allow detached ADUs as a permitted use in single-family zones, rather than as a
conditional use
Develop subarea plans to allow middle housing in "business neighborhood" zones
• Allow cluster and cottage housing in single-family and multifamily neighborhoods
In conclusion, we strongly support the Commission's recommendations for legalizing missing
middle housing types in Edmonds and encourage the City Council to pursue these changes this
year.
Thank you for your consideration.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 40
Packet Pg. 88
8.1.a
Nisma Gabobe
Senior Research Associate
Sightline Institute
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:18 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Agenda item 9. 1. Introductory Overview of Housing Commission's Recommendations
Council,
Please don't buy the fantasy Director Shane Hope is selling that upzoning all single family zones
will result in "affordable housing" for all. Nine of the fifteen policy recommendations require
major changes in our code. With the exception of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, these
changes will NOT result in lower cost housing. And the DADU code must be modeled after the
current ECDC 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units, in order to maintain the single family ownership
criteria as outlined in this link:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O21.html#20.21
It's ironic that up -zoning is being touted as a way to provide housing for the "missing middle."
The majority of seniors who own property want to continue to live on their property, not
"downsize" to a smaller, newer, more expensive townhouse or condo. These are the same
seniors who could be displaced by increased property taxes that significantly cut into their fixed
incomes and make it less affordable to live in their modest, older Edmonds home.
It may be tempting to join a minority of CHC Commissioners who label SEPA guidelines as
"weaponized" and "nimby bullshit," and who reject 26 homeowners' objection to up -zoning
their single family neighborhood because of their "sense of privilege." It may also be fun to
mobilize your moral outrage and view your constituents as elitists who object to up -zoning their
neighborhoods to keep out those less elite than they. However, the truth is that the real elitists
are the developers, real estate agents, architectural firms, and engineering firms that will be
the beneficiaries of the profits made from up -zoning our town.
And, EXPAND the Multi Family Tax Exemption? Council should REPEAL the MFTE. The only
possible reason that the CHC voted unanimously in support of the MFTE is that they didn't
receive accurate information about the fact that the 19 units provided by Henbart at Westgate,
in exchange for 12 years tax free on ALL residential, are NOT "affordable" according to the RCW
definitions of affordable housing. More on that another time.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 41
Packet Pg. 89
8.1.a
Joan Bloom
From: Shirley
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:03 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission
City Council and Mayor Nelson:
I wish to ask for complete restraint in expanding the range of housing in Edmonds except for
the two mile Hwy 99 corridor. Multiplexes belong only along that corridor and not in single-
family zoned areas where no zoning changes are needed!
For the citizens of Edmonds to have restored faith in our governance, you need to "get this
right".
Sincerely,
Shirley Oczkewicz
From: Bill Phipps
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:46 PM
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public
Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Fw: Tree Code amendments
To any one really paying attention to my diatribe..
I think I mixed up my TC draft changes concerning who pays for the developers' replacement
trees.
Under "Tree Fund" , "Funding Purposes" Section 3.95.040.B. : It should read, "Monies from
the tree fund must NOT be used to purchase trees required for replacement.... NOR used to
purchase trees ... for a replacement of a violation... and NOT be used to profit the grantee.
Kernen, can you verify that reading? Thank you.
Sorry for that mix up ... there might be others!
Bill
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 42
Packet Pg. 90
8.1.a
From: Robin Blahous
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:18 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission decision
Good evening,
I apologize for the late response to the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission proposal being
voted upon tomorrow, March 16th. Although I have followed this issue carefully, I have not
previously expressed my opinion and am unable to vote because I am a resident of Woodway.
I do, however, consider myself a life-long resident of Edmonds. My parents bought a house on
10th Avenue in September 1962, and I was born several months later in December. My dad still
owns that house, where one of my brothers now resides. My husband and I moved our family
back to Edmonds in 2002 to be close to my parents. My three siblings moved back to Edmonds
when our mother battled cancer. Our kids attended Sherwood Elementary, College Place
Middle School and Edmonds-Woodway High School. Our middle and youngest sons currently
attend the University of Washington, and our eldest son, also a UW grad, is living with us in
hopes of saving enough money to purchase a house in Edmonds.
My concern with commission's proposal is that it does not appear to meet the goal of ensuring
housing for middle income individuals or families. Changing the zoning so single-family homes
can be replaced by more expensive multiplexes does not provide more affordable housing, but
it would achieve the goal of increasing the tax base for the City of Edmonds.
I am concerned about the transparency of the commission's objectives, as well as the timing of
this vote. The future of Edmonds is dependent upon careful planning and support and choosing
to make this decision during an unprecedented pandemic seems rushed and irresponsible. If
the council considers the demographics of those they represent, they would understand there
are many who would like to voice their opinion but either do not or cannot do so though
internet zoom -type forums. These concerned residents have been following pandemic protocol,
so it seems honoring their commitment to safety by delaying the vote until they are able to
attend meetings in person would be responsible and respectful.
I hope you will consider postponing this decision until everyone can be equally represented
once it is safe to do so. The future of Edmonds depends on this.
Thank you,
Robin Brock Blahous
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 43
Packet Pg. 91
8.1.a
From: Eileen Niven
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:10 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: zoning policies
Please delay your process and do not make any final decisions behind closed doors before
listening to public comments on the 15 zoning policies.
Sincerely,
Eileen Niven
From: Anne -Marie LaPorte
Sent: Monday, March 15, 20218:59 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Vote NO on Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations
Good evening,
I am writing to formally request the Edmonds City Council to vote NO on the Edmond's
Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations. While I appreciate the desire to create an
affordable Edmonds, the plan to modify single family houses into allowing two housing units
will not serve that end. It is short sighted.
Ballard is a lovely place to live, though I've chosen to live in Edmonds (not Ballard) for its
character and charm. As Ballard increased its density, it did not become more affordable.
If the Council approves this plan, it will be impossible to go back to additional green space and
open yards. Conversely, the opportunity to increase density will always be present. Please vote
"no" and do not open the door to urban density at this time.
Sincerely,
Anne -Marie La Porte
From: L. La Porte
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:44 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 44
Packet Pg. 92
8.1.a
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please oppose changes to zoning
Hello,
I am an Edmonds resident, writing to express my opposition to the Edmond's Citizens' Housing
Commission proposed policies, which would result in a change in the zoning of Edmonds. I
plead with you to hear the many voices of your residents who are asking you to vote
"no." Unquestionably, Edmonds is unique. It is a desirable place for visitors and residents of all
ages, because of its beautiful gardens, green spaces, waterfront access, and calmness.
If Edmonds were to be rezoned, this would change. High-priced condos and apartments
benefit developers and landlords over residents. We have seen this with Bellevue, Ballard, the
Central District, and Kirkland where poor and senior residents were driven out of their
homes. Please let us not repeat this cycle. There is not another Edmonds.
Sincerely,
L. La Porte
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:33 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: The Citizens' Housing Commission's Proposals
Please Vote NO to upzoning, rezoning, and over -developing Edmonds! Don't turn Edmonds into
Ballard, Kirkland and the like. Leave Edmonds alone! Don't give it away to the developers and
exploit it for property taxes. Keep Edmonds beautiful, quaint, affordable and desirable. Do not
destroy it with complexes and multiple homes in single family zones. These policies will not
make Edmonds more affordable. It will make it less so when all the small starter homes are
torn down and the land gets developed into expensive apartment or condominium complexes
and townhouses or subdivided into multiple lots for large homes packed next to each
other. Most people can't afford these homes much less a working class individual, couple or
family that these policy proposals are supposedly designed to help. People that work
in Edmonds won't be able to own a home in Edmonds. It will be a town of apartment rentals,
condo rentals and back yard cottage rentals and large houses right next to each other that only
the well to do can afford. All the modest homes throughout Edmonds is what
makes Edmonds possible for many. That's how my husband and I were able to move
to Edmonds twenty-five years ago with a small 850 square foot fixer upper and good size
yard. With lots of hard work, we turned it into a lovely place to live and a place to be proud to
own. Do the right thing for Edmonds and for us, the citizens who live here and love it for what
it is -- a wonderful, special place!
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 45
Packet Pg. 93
8.1.a
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: Kim Bayer
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:59 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: CHC Policies being presented at 3/16 Council Meeting
Dear Edmonds City Council Members,
On behalf of the many Edmonds residents I've been in contact with these past two months,
please slow down any decision -making on the CHC policies being presented to you and take the
time to actually reach out for true citizen input. The 15 citizens on the housing commission do
not represent the majority of citizen input on these proposed policies. In fact, in regards to
single family residences, 78% of citizens surveyed (including myself) multiple times stated they
did not approve of this policy change yet the plan that is bring presented by Shane Hope and
others, reflect otherwise. Please keep in mind, only 8 citizens on the CHC voted to approve the
policies to move forward with 7 voting NO. Ask yourself, why did this pass by only 1
vote? Were these "citizens" coerced and influenced with omission of facts? We believe they
were.
I just reviewed the "fairness doctrine" guidelines in conducting government business, and in
researching how the CHC policy outcomes and decisions were made, the process would not
pass those legal requirements. This was not a fair process and it DOES NOT represent the
citizens of Edmonds point of view on managing growth. We all moved to Edmonds to get away
from Seattle and other areas of the Puget sound that are overgrown with high density and all
the issues that follow. Edmonds is unique and needs to be preserved. Growth is inevitable;
however, it needs to be managed strategically, not by taking a cookie cutter approach from the
state that will change our city forever. These policy changes are the biggest issue facing
Edmonds today. Majority of Edmonds residents are not happy about this process, about the
outcome of the process and they are not happy with our current city leadership.
The four of you who continue to vote in a block are now being watched and scrutinized, along
with the mayor for making decisions that were not in the best interest of the citizens you
serve. Please begin to build the trust and transparency back by holding town halls (not online
surveys) to find solutions that will not change the overall landscape, look and feel of this
precious community we call home. I look forward to joining your city council meeting
tomorrow.
All the Best,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 46
Packet Pg. 94
8.1.a
Kim
Kim Bayer-Augustavo
From: Sharon Shebly
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:51 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Zoning decision
Please delay any final decisions on zoning changes and not make any final decisions behind
closed doors. As elected officials you must listen to public engagement ideas Before pushing
through new regulations.
Mark and Sharon Shebly
From: Bill Phipps
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:51 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code amendments
Greetings;
Thank you Mayor Nelson and City Council for authorizing the funds for aerial imaging of our
forest canopy. It will be valuable information going forward.
Here are a few comments on the tree code, so far.
Under "Definitions", 23.10.020; What did you land on the "Nuisance Tree" definition? It seems
like such a subjective term that could be manipulated. Any tree could be considered a nuisance
We have a big Cedar next to our driveway that is buckling the driveway. We would never think
of cutting down that healthy tree. But the next owner moving in could call that a nuisance
tree. And have it removed. Without it being accounted for under any tree code regulation.
A quick search shows the complicated and tricky legal definitions of what is a "nuisance" tree.
You need to tighten up that definition or get rid of it altogether.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 47
Packet Pg. 95
8.1.a
A "Hazard Tree" is a more objective definition. A hazard tree would include trees that buckle
the pavement, for example, because that would be a "hazard".
All trees that are lost in Edmonds should be accounted for and replaced, no matter why they
were cut down. A public "tree notification" system.
Under "Exemptions", 23.10.040.A; we are going to have to rely on the Citys' good faith that
they will soon begin the Tree Code section for : Removal of trees on "improved single-family
lots."
Under "Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity", 23.10.060.B: There was a good
suggestion to include a Tree Replacement Plan as well as a Tree Retention Plan ...where exactly
is the applicant going to plant their replacement trees and does the new owner acknowledge
and/or support such tree placements ?!
Especially since those trees will now be considered" Protected Trees" !
This issue is addressed in : 060.B.2.b.vii : "Proposed locations of any required replacement trees
as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080. (Tree Replacement section.)
But, the point is, let's be sure that the developer and the new owner are in acknowledgement
and agreement as to where those new replacement trees are going to be placed.
Under Tree Retention ... Arborist Report; 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv. That sentence makes me nervous.
That sentence can be broken down to, "For trees not viable for retention, a description of the
reasons for removal... must be given."
Seems like a developer could get out of the 30% retention requirement.
Is that what we want?
And how does that sentence jibe with the new amendment of " minimum tree canopy
requirements" . Namely, the minimum 3 trees per 8000 sq ft.?!
That sentence needs less loopholes or get rid of it altogether.
Under "Tree Replacement," 23.10.080.A : the question was four replacement trees, or a tree
appraisal, for the really big trees, over 24 inches DBH. This requires more information before a
decision can be made. Such as, what is the value of a healthy doug fir that has a 30 inch
diameter? Do we have examples of what a tree appraisal of such tree would be?
We need to consider the amount and cost of staff, or hired arborist, to appraise trees?
Might be easier to just ask for 4 replacement trees for the big ones?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 48
Packet Pg. 96
8.1.a
Under "Conservation Designs", 20.75.XXX; The Low Impact Development section; Are the
proposed setback changes significant in scope? Will they have any impact and will they be
used?
There were changes made in this section between the first Tree Code draft (10/08/20) and the
current one. Were those changes significant? Has anyone checked on this ?
How will this "clustering" of homes in subdivisions be implemented and enforced? Will
homeowners want their homes clustered in order to save groves?
i encourage this LID idea and have seen it used elsewhere with nice results.
Under the "Tree Fund", 3.95.040, Funding Purposes , there is a question.
Who pays for the replacement trees that developers are going to plant on the new developed
lots?
I think it's the tree fund? Right?
Shouldn't it be added under 3.95.040.A ?
Also I would add : Paying for latest technology tree canopy analysis once every 5 years.
This 5 year aerial analysis requirement should be written into the code.
And: paying for a partnership with a local Tree Bank/carbon offsets/conservation group.
Edmonds may find that we will have to plant replacement trees outside of the city boundaries,
but still do it in our name!
And last, but not least : Under" Tree Replacement", 23.10.080.D Replacement
Specifications: The Bowl Exemption H The City may want to put off the idea of "Districting" to
Phase Two, but there may be a situation where it comes up under the proposed Development
Section.
What if a lot is re -developed (a tear down) in the bowl and it has significant conifers on it . And
the trees get cut down for the big new house. Are you going to require "alike" replacements
trees then and there?!
No. Out of respect for your upland neighbors you are going to re -plant smaller scale trees.
But ! I do feel the developer should pay an additional 1000 dollars for each significant conifer
that is cut down that is not replaced with "alike" conifer(s).
Thus, a win -win Bowl Exemption , under the tree replacement section.
Jeez Louise! That's a lot! I think there is more work to be done on this Development Tree Code
Let's take the time and get it right!
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 49
Packet Pg. 97
8.1.a
Thanks for your service, on behalf of the trees!
Bill Phipps
From: Janet Henry
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:43 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission Proposals
I object to the proposals and don't feel they reflect the wishes of the majority of Edmonds'
citizens. This matter is an enormous one that has not received the, "Publicity" needed to reach
all citizens and will change their quality of life. We can already see what happens when
developers decimate the land in our neighborhoods. They are now chopping down a 70 ft tall,
100 yr-old specimen oak tree that is home to Bald Eagles and destroying the nests in this tree
as well. I invited one council member to come to my dead-end street and personally observe
this tree but instead was told to take a picture and send to her. Another council member who
did personally view it told me, "This tree should not have been planted there in the first place."
Please consider this an invitation to view it for yourselves at the end of 900 block Cedar St.
And, please don't vote on this matter or any others, unless or until you have a well informed
understanding of them. We need whatever time it takes to contemplate the severity of these
actions and have a serious exchange of ideas on why or why not it should be allowed to move
forward. It cannot be undone.
Sincerely,
Janet Henry
From: Carol Hardan
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:31 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizens' Housing Comments
To City Council,
I strongly disagree with all of the proposed changes to Edmonds zoning for
significant additional housing, there already has been an excess of that.
It would completely destroy the port town charm that has been
the unique quality of life and success of this community.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 50
Packet Pg. 98
8.1.a
Heaven forbid we emulate Seattle.
Please slow down and think long term.
Carol Hardan
(88 year resident of Edmonds WA.)
From: Anne & Rich Klein
Sent: Monday, March 15, 20214:17 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: zoning comments
Mayor Nelson and City Council,
We understand the city is moving forward with a new policy related to housing availability and
are hoping the final decision will make sure that the "sense of community' that has made
Edmonds so special will remain. This means neighborhoods with similar housing & yards,
ample parking per household, green spaces, etc. Please do not allow this city to become like so
many others in our region - looking like a "hodgepodge" of high density structures mixed in
with neighborhood homes... cars packed along streets due to a lack of parking. We would not
want one of those structures next to us or across the street from our home. We drove through
a part of Shoreline today where higher density building was taking place along side of individual
homes. Tight buildings, looking out of place, no yards, no additional parking except on the
streets. Very sad. At some point the growth within the city might need to stop. The land,
infrastructure, police, fire, schools, etc. can't handle any more.
There is no need to reply to this note. We will join the March 16th meeting to hear what the
commission, mayor, and council has to say.
Thank you
Richard & Anne Klein
From: David Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 15, 20214:11 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Proposal
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 51
Packet Pg. 99
8.1.a
These policy proposals have not been designed with our Edmonds community in mind.
Please let's not make Edmonds like Seattle.
David and Marlene Johnson
From: terry.peterson
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:05 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for 3/16/2021 Meeting
I'm unable to attend the 3/16/2021 Edmonds City Council meeting and would appreciate my
comments being part of the record.
I have watched and participated in the Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) process including
filling out the surveys. I believe it is time to make Edmonds more affordable and open to
people at all income levels. I stand behind many of the policy recommendations developed and
voted on by the CHC. Part of what makes Edmonds beautiful, are the residents who keep up
their homes and gardens. I do worry about zero lot line policies that essentially eliminate the
"green space" that each home has. Allowing these types of policies only near mass
transportation corridors and shopping centers makes sense and is an appropriate balance
between keeping the area beautiful and keeping affordable access to the local amenities.
I don't agree however, with the policy recommendation titled "COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION OF
SALES AND USE TAX FOR HOUSING AND RELATED SERVICES". First off, I don't think it is
appropriate for the housing commission to make any statements, for or against, any sort of
sales tax proposal. Second, sales tax is regressive in nature and would only increase costs for
lower income populations that many of these policies are aimed to assist. If we are going to
assist low income households and need to raise taxes to do so, then find an alternate taxation
strategy that is not regressive in nature.
With this one exception, I support the work of the Citizens' Housing Commission and ask the
Council to do the same.
Respectfully Submitted,
Terry Peterson
From: ann eno
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 52
Packet Pg. 100
8.1.a
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM
Subject: Citizens' Housing @Recommendations
To: <council@edmondswa.gov
It is my understanding that there will be a vote on March 16, 2021 on recommendations
proposed by the Citizens' Housing Commission that will have a significant impact on zoning
regulations in the city of Edmond.s. As a concerned citizen I am requesting that NO DECISION
ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS be made without open discussion by residents and
homeowners of Edmonds.
I have been a property owner in Edmonds for many years, since 1974 in the Lake Ballinger area
and currently in North Edmonds since 1996. 1 have read the recommended policies and have
concerns about many items being proposed.
No one was available to take my call at the City Council phone number today and I have not
received a call back. I would like to share my concerns. I left my number.
Thank you for your response.
Ann Eno
From: Kristie Simard
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:35 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: A vote against the Citizens' Housing Commission's proposals on Urban Density
Please accept and acknowledge this email as a vote in opposition to the final housing proposal
by the Citizens' Housing Commision.. Edmonds is unique, beautiful, charming, desirable and
has been my home since 1978. It has all of those attributes because it has not succumbed to
high density/urban density proposals such as those to be presented at tomorrow night's council
meeting. The proposals do not reflect the character of our town, nor do they reflect the wishes
of the majority of its citizens. Growth is inevitable but it needs to properly managed. There are
multiple infrastructure and environmental issues associated with development that are not
addressed in these proposals to say nothing of the detriment they would bring to peaceful
neighborhoods and the reduction in property values.
Please do not vote or make any decisions on these proposals until open town hall/council
meetings can be safely held. All citizens of Edmonds need to have an opportunity to express
their opinions and give their input into this process. I have read many letters and comments on
this issue in My Edmonds News. Please do not ignore concerned citizens.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 53
Packet Pg. 101
8.1.a
Thank you,
Kristie Simard
Edmonds 98026
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:33 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil
<Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>;
sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>;
Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Comments for the March 16, 2021 Council Meeting. Resending with Dave
Gebert email attached.
The Hearing Examiner Annual Report is scheduled for Tuesday night, March 16, 2021.
Please ask ALL the following questions during this Presentation:
1. What should a former Hearing Examiner do if the City of Edmonds contacts a former
Hearing Examiner months after the Hearing Examiner contract has expired and asks the former
Hearing Examiner to conduct a Hearing? The City of Edmonds has done this in the past, even
when the City had a new Hearing Examiner under contract. On June 6, 2007, City employee
Diane Cunningham contacted and informed former Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell that the
City Attorney would like him to conduct a Hearing.
2. Does the City Attorney have the authority to determine who will conduct a Hearing, the
current Hearing Examiner under contract or a former Hearing Examiner?
3. What should happen if City Staff ACT in front of a Hearing Examiner decision? Please see the
attached Dave Gebert email dated June 8, 2007 (two days after Diane Cunningham's June 6,
2007 email to Ron McConnell) which proves City Staff acted in front of a Hearing Examiner
decision that would not be decided upon until June 11, 2007.
4. Can a Hearing Examiner violate a Court Order by accepting a Court required letter from
somebody other than the party specifically identified in the Court Order?
5. What should happen if City Staff violate a Hearing Examiner's Order, such as 2006 Hearing
Examiner Ron McConnell's clear decision that "Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not
approved."?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 54
Packet Pg. 102
8.1.a
6. Can the City and its Insurance Pool (WCIA) could go "well beyond" a Hearing Examiner's
Order?
7. What should happen if City Staff and City Attorney knowingly choose to not provide a
Hearing Examiner all relevant code sections in front of a Hearing?
8. What should happen if a City Attorney represents to the Hearing Examiner that a code
section does not apply when City Staff knew that the specific code section did apply and had
discussed applying it in the attached notes. City Staff and City Attorney knew that Setbacks will
be grandfathered but that was not shared with the Hearing Examiner. They also did not
provide the Hearing Examiner with the attached notes.
9. Can a Hearing Examiner speculate about what would have happened had a citizen applied
for a permit in a Hearing Examiner decision?
Thank you for asking ALL the above questions during the Hearing Examiner Annual Report
presentation scheduled for Tuesday night, March 16, 2021.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 55
Packet Pg. 103
8.1.a
Attachment:
Passey, Scott
From: Gebert, David </O=CITY OF EDMONDS/OU=EDMONDS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN-CEBERT>
Sent; Friday, June 08, 2007 853 AM
To: McConnell, Jeanie
Cc. Bowman, Duane; Fiene, Don; Chrisman, Lyle; Miller, Noel
Subject: FW: Thuesen Civils
Jeanie,
Per Duane's e-mail below, please complete review of Thueson's civils by next Friday, June 15. So, that means move it to
the top of the list. Before you review, please talk to Duane about the impact of the judges decisions and settlement,
since that may effect our review comments and result if different comments than Lyle's previous comments.
If Don or Blaine or Public Works need to review, please let them know right away.
Thanks,
Dave
-----Original Message -----
From: Bowman, Duane
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:48 AM
To: Gebert, David
Subject:Thuesen Civils
Dave,
We would need to complete our review by next Friday.
Duane
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 56
Packet Pg. 104
8.1.a
From: B Day
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:18 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Slow down the zoning process in Edmonds
Slow down the process of zoning changes in Edmonds! Yes, review the Edmonds Citizens'
Housing Commission's proposals and post them for all to see. Set up time lines for citizen input
and review before voting to accept their recommendations.
Yes Edmonds needs to up -date zoning laws, but a sweeping removal of single family housing
zoning is too broad and too final. There are lots of options that need to be reviewed. What
about approving Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny flats) with no size restrictions, for all single
family homes instead? What about taking lots of over 10,000 sq feet and making them duplex
lots, with restrictions to make them look like single family homes from the street? What about
some tax or other perks for developers to take existing under -developed multi -zoned
properties and develop them to their fullest? That's just three ideas from two people - how
many more ideas can the community generate?
There are too many options to consider and so a vote to remove all single-family zoning laws
must be delayed so the process can be more transparent, with more citizen feedback.
Sincerely,
Barbara Day and Del Cross (homeowners)
Edmonds 98020
From: Mona Carter
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:53 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Recommedstions
City Council Members,
I would like to go on record with my comments regarding the Housing Commission's
recommendation to modify building codes for the city of Edmonds.
I believe most of Edmonds is built out. Trying to squeeze new housing into existing single family
zones will create more density and traffic in these areas throughout the city. As a result this
would change the ambiance and charm of our town.
I do not support allowing multi -unit housing in single family zones. I do not support allowing
cluster/cottage housing in single family zones and lastly, I do not support allowing detached
dwelling units in single family zones.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 57
Packet Pg. 105
8.1.a
Mona Carter
From: ROBERTA LINDER
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 10:36 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Final Policy Recommendations
I am writing this email to voice my emphatic disagreement with the Final Policy
Recommendations from the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission in regards to MEDIUM -
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING (SR -MD) policy as outlined in the Commission's 2/1/2021
report.
As a long-time resident of the Edmonds Bowl area, I believe the zoning change to allow for
zero -lot -line construction of duplexes, triplexes and even quadruplexes will destroy the
neighborhood character that has defined Edmonds and specifically "The Bowl" area for
generations. I don't believe we can solve the affordable housing issues by allowing the
development of more housing on such small lots. The effect of more housing will indeed crash
the value of existing homeowners' homes and will make Edmonds a collection of ugly two-story
vertical structures with no green space or ambiance to the core area of Edmonds. I believe the
only benefit of this rezoning structure is to add more wealth to developers.
Furthermore, I am not sure if the Edmonds core area can sustain more buildings from an
environmental perspective. There are water and drainage issues that have been perplexing City
of Edmonds engineers for years. Adding more housing and paving our land will only exacerbate
the environmental concerns.
I have read that the Commission's report mentioned that 82% of survey respondents said they
did not want to see any zoning changes to single-family zones. Yet the Commission ignored the
voice of the residents and taxpayers of Edmonds. As in the past, issues that have opposed the
voice of the people ultimately fail. I would recommend that the Edmonds Council listen early on
to the voice of the Edmonds Residents and remove any changes to the single-family zone as
recommended in the 2/1/2021 report.
Respectfully,
Robert Linder
Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 58
Packet Pg. 106
8.1.a
From: Maurine Jeude
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:29 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) proposed policies
Mayor and Council,
I fully concur with the Letter to the Editor written by Kim Bayer-Augustavo and Ed Agustavo,
published on March 9th in My Edmonds News and included below.
Lest you forget, you were voted in to REPRESENT your constituents, not pursue your own
agendas. When 78% of those constituents do not want any changes to single-family zoning, it is
your duty to abide by their wishes whether you agree with them or not.
This mayor and council's knee-jerk reactions to the craziness in the world has overstepped its
representative bounds numerous times already. We have a right to preserve what we have
worked so hard to earn, retain and sustain. As the Augustavos noted, "This proposed policy
change will not resolve the issue of affordability, and will actually create more costly housing.
Additionally, by removing the protection for single family housing, it will open the door for
more policy changes in the name of "affordability," and "missing middle" housing that will
further erode our Edmonds community."
Please show some integrity, do your duty and represent your constituents. Solutions exist, but
not at the expense of single-family neighborhoods and the community we all have built and
want to retain. Listen, do the work, represent and be transparent about it.
Sincerely,
Maurine Jeude
Charles Castellow
Letter to the Editor:
Citizens of Edmonds, this letter asks you to speak up against the Edmond's Citizens' Housing
Commission (CHC) proposed policies: citizenshousingcommission.org/final-policy-
recommendations that will be presented to the mayor and city council on March 16. Their
proposal states it is based on citizen input; however, the feedback from the housing
commission survey showed strong opposition to many of their policy changes i.e., 78% of
residents surveyed were against any changes to single family zoning.
We know growth is inevitable. It is how you strategically manage growth that matters, to
protect the beauty and charm of Edmonds. Do you want single family parcels to vanish and be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 59
Packet Pg. 107
8.1.a
taken over by multiplexes? The commission wants these new multi -family zoning codes to be
the same throughout all of Edmonds, not by district or neighborhoods.
The commission states we are lacking "middle housing" but their re -zoning efforts would
actually decrease middle housing single family residences. With very few empty parcels left,
developers would be required to purchase single-family one house parcels. They would
demolish less expensive houses and replace them with more expensive housing units that will
increase density in every neighborhood. Developers will look to buy smaller and less expensive
houses to redevelop into multi -unit housing which will actually create less affordable homes.
How? They are not required to price their units or smaller homes at an "affordable price." This
is already happening where smaller, less expensive homes on a single parcel are being
purchased and the developer builds 4 townhomes and prices them each at a higher price than
what they paid for the single house.
The result of this policy change will be increased traffic, increased sales tax making Edmonds
the highest in the state, more vehicles parked on the streets, more noise, more pollution, less
trees, open spaces and vegetation, more storm water issues, and a city that will resemble
Seattle, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. It will promote increased density and the
elimination of single-family neighborhoods in Edmonds in the name of "affordable" or "missing
middle" housing. This proposed policy change will not resolve the issue of affordability, and will
actually create more costly housing. Additionally, by removing the protection for single family
housing, it will open the door for more policy changes in the name of "affordability," and
"missing middle" housing that will further erode our Edmonds community.
On behalf of the many residents who are against many of these zoning policies, we urge you to
please speak up with emails, calls or letters to the City Council and Mayor
Nelson: council@edmondswa.gov AND includepubliccomment@edmondswa.gov on same
email before the March 16th Edmonds City Council meeting. Ask them to slow down this
process, be more transparent and seek true citizen feedback through online town halls before
making any decisions on the most important issue facing Edmonds today.
Kim Bayer-Augustavo
Ed Augustavo
Edmonds
From: John Zipper
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:08 PM
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 60
Packet Pg. 108
8.1.a
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Support for some Housing Commission Recommendations
Greetings,
I have been an Edmonds resident since 1987. 1 presently live redacted (off Maplewood Drive)
and I own a home I am renovating at redacted (Interurban Trail).
I support three of the housing commission recommendations, and believe they should be
implemented city-wide. The three that I support are:
Change zoning in single family zones to allow "Missing Middle Housing (duplexes)";
• Change zoning in single family zones for "Cluster/Cottage Housing";
• Allow "Detached Accessory Dwelling Units" in single family zones.
Dispersal of small infill development throughout town (with all other zoning rules intact such as
setbacks, height, lot coverage) will allow for smaller rental units to be built slowly, lot by lot, as
the market allows. I believe that dispersed growth is preferable to allowing the Highway 99
corridor, 212t", Edmonds Way to become more congested. There are a few issues that I would
like the Council to consider at the hearing. These are:
1. The "easy way" to increase affordable housing is to encourage multi -unit apartments on
major arterials. I urge the Council to reject this approach. By overbuilding along arterials, our
City will inevitably become less user friendly from a walking, biking and traffic standpoint.
(Think Ballard).
2. By dispersing growth throughout the City via the three favored options above, we will end up
with (a) smaller scale development, built gradually on a lot by lot basis; (b) dispersal of traffic
impacts, stress on our drainage infrastructure, etc., and (c) equity: the lower property value
neighborhoods closer to HWY 99 will not be forced to absorb all the growth. Personally, I would
like the opportunity to build a DADU in my side yard. I expect some of my neighbors will too.
3. There is a strong NIMBY faction in the City, who intend for "affordable housing" to be kept
out of the bowl and/or "fobbed off" on the HWY 99 corridor where they will not have to see it
or drive past it. There are good reasons to oppose these NIMBY attitudes, equity being only one
good reason. The HWY 99 corridor should be allowed to improve via market rate development,
and should not be the "dumping ground" for Edmonds affordable housing.
Thank you,
John Zipper
From: phmalat@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 1:09 PM
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 61
Packet Pg. 109
8.1.a
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission Proposals
I strongly oppose any changes to single family zoning regulations that would increase
population density in Edmonds residential neighborhoods. When I moved to Edmonds 31 years
ago I knowingly paid a premium to purchase my home in an area zoned for single family
residences. I will be outraged if the City Council and Mayor collaborate with the greedy, corrupt
real estate developers to degrade our community. Say NO to the Housing Commission
proposals!
Sincerely yours,
Paul Malatesta
915 Sea Vista Place
From: shawn.springer@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: 'sonja.springer'
Subject: We support the Housing Commission recommendations
Dear Council,
I read about the new recommendations being put forth to rezone areas in Edmonds to allow for
more affordable housing. As a long time Edmonds resident and home owner, I support the
goals of the commission to allow modern, higher density affordable housing to be created in
Edmonds. There always seems to be a "Not in my neighborhood" attitude amongst a vocal
minority of our residents regarding any new development, but I believe we need to provide
more housing options, especially for our lower income residents.
I provide very affordable rental housing in Edmonds and would like to expand that and offer
more affordable housing in Edmonds.
I would be willing to provide more information or testify, if that is needed to support the new
proposals.
Thank you,
Shawn Springer
Edmonds, WA
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 62
Packet Pg. 110
8.1.a
From: Bob Adelman
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:35 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Comment Re: Citizens' Housing Commission Final Policy Recommendations
Greetings!
As a long time Edmonds resident, I'd like to comment on the Citizens' Housing Commission
Final Policy Recommendations.
Researching the history leading up to the Final Policy, I could see that the city government and
city council have an agenda which is contrary to the wishes of the populace.
The 2015/17 Comprehensive Plan advocates "Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing" (p90)
without any stated justification for this strategy and no cited community or homeowner input.
Its "Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable
housing and meeting diverse housing needs." (p96)
Subsequently the city council resolved (1427): "WHEREAS, the Council has heard numerous
comments and concerns from our constituents that the process for establishing policies around
an expanded range of housing options should be revised to include greater public input and
balanced representation."
After the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission was chosen an online survey was done
(2/2019). In response to the survey statement (Q13): "It is important to me that single family
neighborhoods remain zoned as single family." 82% of 684 homeowners agreed (61% strongly).
Yet the Final Policy Recommendations from the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission include
three policy proposals that will allow multiple family dwellings on single lots in single family
zones:
Change zoning in single family zones to allow "Missing Middle Housing (duplexes)";Change
zoning in single family zones for "Cluster/Cottage Housing"; Allow "Detached Accessory
Dwelling Units" in single family zones.
Please pay attention to the wishes of the property owners in Edmonds and remove these 3
policies from your Final Policy Recommendations!
Robert Adelman
Edmonds, WA
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 63
Packet Pg. 111
8.1.a
From: Jenifer Schauwecker
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizens' Housing Commissions's Policy Proposal
I do NOT support the 15 policy proposals. These proposed policies will destroy the quality of
our Edmonds communities. You're enacting a "tree policy" to retain the "canopy' that will be
destroyed to build multi -family housing. Seems pretty counterproductive. I live in the Seaview
area where developers have purchased large lots, received approval to remove ALL the trees
and have built 3 or 4 homes single family residences. More people, more kids in each
classroom, increased traffic on our already crowded streets. Cost of housing will NOT go down
with multi -family units.
Seattle is dying......... don't let Edmonds become like ugly Seattle and North Seattle.
Edmonds First and America First.
Jenifer Schauwecker
.......Keep Edmonds a great place to live.
From: Jonathan Milkey
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:41 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Jonathan Milkey
Subject: Against Proposed CHC Housing Policies to Upzone Edmonds
Good morning,
I sent the information below to our housing commission reps after the 1/7 Webinar and just
wanted to make sure you also had a copy. Thanks!
I've reviewed the online information, have taken the surveys and listened in on the webinar last
night so I hope I am at least minimally informed and in a position to provide useful
information. I am going to minimize the phrase "as you know" since you have much more
experience than I but I do not want to offend by not stating it as often as required below...
I am in the construction industry and am very closely witnessing single family homes being
purchased, demolished and being replaced with as many units as are permitted by code. As
you know, a very simple equation - more units, more profit. So, I reviewed the proposals after
the webinar (playing devil's advocate), with the goal of maximizing my profit (max units/min
space). Many of the proposals increase housing density with limited incentives for providing
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 64
Packet Pg. 112
8.1.a
affordable housing for the developer. As a result, it appears the proposals are focused on
increasing housing density while having minimal impact on affordable housing. This sounds like
a lose -lose unless the goal is to increase housing density (and associated negative impacts) and
maximize developer profits.
I was reviewing the Edmonds zoning map and have to ask if the City of Edmonds has completely
run out of real estate to increase housing density in areas that are appropriately zoned?
A Detached Dwelling Unit is another opportunity to maximize profit. I suspect ADU's for the
most part are used for friends/family as intended due to proximity. A DDU is just another way
to max profit with minimal/limited impact on the owner since it is now not attached. A DDU is
simply a rental home which again, increases housing density. I do not anticipate that Edmonds
has the staff to enforce any DDU occupancy requirements.
I am not sure who on the Commission is a military veteran. I retired a few years ago and
volunteered for the Commission but was not selected. I worked with military housing while
active duty. Local housing analysis is conducted in an attempt to identify the Basic Allowance
for Housing (BAH) based on the results of the analysis (how much housing $ soldiers and sailors
receive). The study takes into account all areas within a certain radius of the base. As you
would suspect, the BAH rates increase if you are married and as you become more senior. Yes,
our Junior personnel often commuted a long way and often needed a few promotions to reside
in some of the more costly neighborhoods of the Puget Sound Area. Highly recommend you
obtain a copy of the most recent study. Regret that there are some areas in the PugetSound
where I or my fellow service members cannot afford to live.
Parking was mentioned last night but a Commissioner stated that parking was an issue no
longer being considered. Increasing housing density in SFH areas without parking will
immediately impact the neighborhoods. We are working on apartments in the UW area with
no parking requirements and 1st floor retail - cars are parked everywhere and it really degrades
the character of a neighborhood. These apartments are also on transit routes, in walkable
neighborhoods, and accessible to grocery stores. If not, the parking situation would be
exponentially worse.
I've heard mention that Edmonds is growing on its own without intervention and also that
Edmonds is not "required" to intervene to increase growth. I have not personally validated
this. I do believe that growth must be responsibly managed - see Ballard as an example of what
I would view as possible mismanagement. New houses are being built in the bowl and at what I
assume maximum density - between 7th and 8th and Spruce is an example.
Renter's Choice Security Deposit: Please do NOT pursue installment payment security deposits
or reduced security deposits. There are so many good landlords who provide a service to the
community by providing housing. Exposing landlords to more RISK, especially now when
landlords are possibly paying rental costs out of their own pocket, is not in partnership.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 65
Packet Pg. 113
8.1.a
Streamline permitting process: As you know, one of the purposes of a Conditional Use Permit is
to ensure consistent and compatible uses with the zone. Streamlining this process could result
in a number of impacts to the neighborhoods. The CUP process was created for a very valid
reason.
Childcare Voucher: This appears to be an additional tax that has nothing to do with housing... I
am a big advocate for opportunity but this may not be the correct forum to address a much
bigger issue...
Thank you for listening and hope I provided at least a bit of useful information.
Jon Milkey
From: Manager
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:30 AM
To: council@emondswa.gov
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission proposals
Thanks for your work for Edmonds and its citizens. But I'm alarmed at the Housing
Commission's proposed policy shifts, especially as it affects single-family zoning. This would
likely of the most pleasant, inviting aspects of Edmonds far a large majority of its citizens ... all
on behalf of a questionable pursuit of diversity at every level and in every neighborhood. Let us
create and keep the niceties of our neighborhoods without forcing changes that will erode
them!
From: R. London
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:19 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Proposals -- NO!
Dear Council:
I am a 30 year + resident and homeowner in Edmonds. I moved here -- and remain here -- for
the unique small-town charm and feel -- particularly of the downtown core.
I have reviewed the Citizen's Housing Commission's policy proposals and am extremely
disappointed and concerned about many of them which I believe will destroy the unique
ambience of Edmonds. I am strongly opposed to anything that 1) creates more density, 2)
creates a more crowded appearance of neighborhoods and 3) eases the current zoning
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 66
Packet Pg. 114
8.1.a
restrictions -- particularly anything regarding height restrictions -- and especially in downtown
Edmonds.
To those ends -- I am specifically opposed to zoning for more duplexes, triplexes etc. -- and zero
offset lots.
Please don't open the door to let Edmonds take on the look of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace
or Kirkland.
I don't know how the "Citizens" Housing Commission was chosen, but I find it hard to believe
that these recommendations reflect the wishes of most Edmonds citizens.
I implore you to reject any recommendation that will alter the appearance of Edmonds. It's
great the way it is. I would like to see it preserved just as it is -- and not ...... improved" -- which
to me is just double -speak for -- "diminished" in service of special interests and developers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert London
From: Edmonds Librarian
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:06 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Recommendations
Dear Council and Mayor,
The CHC recommended actions are NOT in the interests of Edmonds residents. It will not make
housing more affordable.
For those who already own a home might be happy about the increased value of the home due
to regulatory interference. But their children, my children, would likely not be able to afford a
single family home. Multi units for all the Grandkids. On every corner! No thanks.
Slow down. This CHC isn't what is best for Edmonds.
Richard B
From: DAVID GROUT
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 20217:04 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re -Zoning
Don't do it.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 67
Packet Pg. 115
8.1.a
From: C Stay
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:50 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) proposed policies
I am opposed to the proposed changes to Edmonds single family zoning. I ask you to slow down
this process, be more transparent and seek true citizen feedback through online town halls
before making any decisions.
Chris Stay
Edmonds resident
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 16, 2021
Page 68
Packet Pg. 116
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #246563 through #246644 dated March 18, 2021 for $236,185.06 (re -issued
check #246644 $1,735.20).
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64634 through #64637 and #64644 for $590,531.15,
benefit checks #64638 through #64643 and wire payments of $594,211.72 for the pay period March 1,
2021 through March 15, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks, wire payments and payroll checks.
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 03-18-21
FrequentlyUsedProjN umbers 03-18-21
payroll summary 03-15-21
payroll summary 03-15-21 a
payroll benefits 03-15-21
Packet Pg. 117
8.2.a
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
0
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
vi
U
t
Amoun
0
246563
3/18/2021 073417 3M COMPANY
9410541620
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ GREEN FILM
>,
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ GREEN FILM
Q.
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
285.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
R
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
29.6z
Total:
314.6'
246564
3/18/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
INV-2-9085
INV-2-9085 - EDMONDS PD - MARTI
a
EXTERNAL CARRIER
aD
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
L
200.0( '3
2 NAME TAPES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
vi
16.0( �
NAME TAPE VELCRO
m
t
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( U
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( u
ID PANEL VELCRO
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( 0
RADIO CASE
>
0
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
35.2E a
TOURNIQUET POUCH
°-
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
36.0( "
CUFF CASE
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
34.0( 00
BATON CASE
M
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
25.0( N
BATON CASE - INVENTORY
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
25.0( 2
10.1 % Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
40.5<
INV-2-9086
INV-2-9086 - EDMONDS PD - HWAN
E
BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
880.0(
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 118
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 2
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
ui
Y
V
Amoun t
246564 3/18/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC (Continued)
c
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
80.0( ">%
TRAUMA PLATE
fd
Q.
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
20.0( '0
EXTERNAL CARRIER
R
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
200.0( r
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( E
VELCRO FOR PANEL
a
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( L
2 NAME TAPES
3
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0( vi
2 VELCRO FOR NAME TAPES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( t
10.1 % Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
123.81' •E
INV-2-9087
INV-2-9087 - EDMONDS PD - R.T SN
BALLISTIC VEST
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
880.0( -ii
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
0
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
80.0( a
TRAUMA PLATE
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
20.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
98.9E 00
INV-2-9088
INV-2-9088 - EDMONDS PD - SPEEF
A
BLAUER FLEECE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
119.9� E
BLAUER TACSHELL JACKET
R
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
244.9�
2 NAME TAPES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0( E
2 SGT CHEVRON PATCHES
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
5.9E
WATER PROOF SEAM SEAL PATCH
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 119
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
246564 3/18/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC (Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Total ;
246565 3/18/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 43123 PUBLIC WORKS - PEST CONTROL
PUBLIC WORKS - PEST CONTROL
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total
246566 3/18/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 2010551 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - INT;
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - INT;
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total
246567 3/18/2021 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000028533
246568 3/18/2021 001528 AM TEST INC
0000028611
120387
120388
TRAFFIC - PED BUTTON -
TRAFFIC - PED BUTTON-
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
TRAFFIC - PED BUTTONS FOR STC
TRAFFIC - PED BUTTONS FOR STC
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Total
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002112-2116
SAMPLES 21-A002112-2116
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002508-250�
SAMPLES 21-A002508-2509
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
8.2.a
Page: 3
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 120
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 4
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246568
3/18/2021 001528 AM TEST INC
(Continued)
c
120389
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002398-240',
;,
SAMPLES 21-A002398-2402
fd
a
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
355.0( '0
120390
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002229-223(
R
SAMPLES 21-A002229-2230
N
r
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
80.0( 4)
Total:
870.0( E
�a
246569
3/18/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
65600000105
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE
a
m
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE
3
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
U
6.1 - m
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE
U
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1 - E
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE
fd
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
U
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATS
o
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
�a
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC LOBBY MATE
c
a
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0£ Q
10.4% Sales Tax
--
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1; N
10.4% Sales Tax
00
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z M
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z E
10.4% Sales Tax
R
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
c
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6' +°
65600000117
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 121
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 5
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246569 3/18/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
c
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
�%
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� Q.
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
c
0.91 M
10.4% Sales Tax
r
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
c
1.9E
FLEET DIVISION MATS
E
E
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19m a
656000001843
WWTP:2/24/21 UNIFORMSJOWEL
L
Mats/Towels
3
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
51.4E vi
Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each =
Y
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
1.4' t
10.4% Sales Tax
U
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
5.3E •�
10.4% Sales Tax
U
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.1E p
656000004913
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
Ta
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE:
c
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6' a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
Q
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
CN
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1' 00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
A
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1' N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0E 12
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z U
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 122
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 6
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246569 3/18/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
c
10.4% Sales Tax
;,
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z Q.
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
c
0.6- R
10.4% Sales Tax
r
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
c
0.6z m
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1' Q
656000004932
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
m
FLEET DIVISION MATS
3
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1( vi
10.4% Sales Tax
U
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9 1 t
10.4% Sales Tax
U
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9� •�
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
U
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� p
656000005981
WWTP:3/3/21 UNIFORMSJOWELS
Ta
Mats/Towels
0
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
51.4E
Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each =
°'
Q
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
1.4' v
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
5.3. 00
10.4% Sales Tax
A
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.1E N
656000005992
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
E
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
R
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0 � E
656000009679
WWTP:3/10/21 UNIFORMSJOWEL
t
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
51.4E Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 123
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 7
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246569
3/18/2021
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
c
Uniforms: 3 Overalls ($0.17 each =
;,
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.5' c.
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
c
5.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
r
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
c
0.0E
656000009684
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
a
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
61.4< L
10.4% Sales Tax
3
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.4( vi
Total:
408.2E
m
246570
3/18/2021
071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
0305797-IN
WWTP: 3/2/21 DIESEL FUEL
U
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
E
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
1,996.1( 2
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
c
207.6' 1i
0306687-IN
WWTP: 3H21 DIESEL FUEL
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
c
a
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
4,069.3' Q
10.4% Sales Tax
--
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
423.2, N
Total:
6,696.2E 00
T-
246571
3/18/2021
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
70732
ROUGH BOX - O'DRISCOLL
o
ROUGH BOX - O'DRISCOLL
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
852.0(
70746
ROUGH BOX - WAMBOLT
ROUGH BOX - WAMBOLT
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
627.0( d
Total:
1,479.0( t
v
246572
3/18/2021
078313 BAILEY, SHIRLEY
2005718.009
REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION
�a
REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION:
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 124
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
246572
3/18/2021
078313 BAILEY, SHIRLEY
(Continued)
001.000.239.200
2005719.009
REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION
REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
246573
3/18/2021
069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
0013524
WWTP: 1/22-2/19/21 SERVICES
1/22-2/19/21 SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Tota I :
246574
3/18/2021
028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC
778688
UNIT 284 - PARTS
UNIT 284 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.1 % Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
778740
UNIT 284 - PARTS
UNIT 284 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.1 % Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
779383
UNIT 93 - PARTS/ VALVE
UNIT 93 - PARTS/ VALVE
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.1 % Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
246575 3/18/2021 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
622233
246576 3/18/2021 076930 BLACKFIN TECHNOLOGIES NW INC 210301
Total :
EOJA. PLANS AND SPECS REPROC
EOJA. PLANS AND SPECS REPROC
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
Total
WATER/ SEWER - REBUILT LIST FC
WATER/ SEWER - REBUILT LIST FC
8.2.a
Page: 8
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 125
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 9
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
246576
3/18/2021
076930 BLACKFIN TECHNOLOGIES NW INC
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
1,500.0(
WATER/ SEWER - REBUILT LIST FC
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
1,500.0(
Total:
3,000.0(
246577
3/18/2021
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
1235242
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 780.70 GF
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 780.70 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,015.2E
Total :
1,015.2E
246578
3/18/2021
073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
20713
EODS. SERVICES THRU 2/27/21
EODS. SERVICES THRU 2/27/21
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
24,414.1 E
Total :
24,414.1;
246579
3/18/2021
076543 BOB'S HEATING
BLD2021-0313
DEV SVCS- PERMIT FEE REFUND
BLD2021-0313 Plumbing Permit refui
001.000.257.620
64.0(
Tota I :
64.0(
246580
3/18/2021
076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC
5745728
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
279.3�
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
28.2,
Total:
307.61
246581
3/18/2021
018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY
94946961
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
437.3-
10.4% Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
45.5'
Tota I :
482.8,
246582
3/18/2021
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
26378181
ENG COPIER. 03/2021
ENG COPIER. 03/2021
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 126
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246582 3/18/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
246583
246584
246585
3/18/2021 076220 CARRICO, MINH
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
26378182
OTF CARRICO
3/18/2021 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 486063
3/18/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 4738291
4750458
4759245
8.2.a
Page: 10
N
Y
V
PO # Description/Account Amoun t
0
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
253.4E ">%
10.4% Sales Tax
Q.
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
26.3E
DEV SVCS COPIER MONTHLY CON
Dev Svcs .Copier (SN 3AP01472)-
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
217.4,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
22.6, a
Total:
519.9( a)
L_
OTF CARRICO CONTRACT FOR AR
3
OTF CARRICO CONTRACT FOR AR
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
U
500.0( m
Total:
500.0( u
E
SEWER - PARTIAL TEARDOWN TO
ca
SEWER - PARTIAL TEARDOWN TO
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
3,600.0( c
Freight
>
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
79.3E o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
382.6E Q
Total :
N
4,062.0(00
HP SMART ARRAY STORAGE CONI
T--
HP Smart Array P4081-A SR Gen 10
A
0
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
1,049.7z
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
109.1; 5
HPE 3 YR EXTENDED SERVICE AG
};
HPE 3 yr Extended service agreemer
Q
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
1,521.0( E
10.4% Sales Tax
U
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
158.1 £
HP 96W SMART STORAGE BATTER
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 127
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 11
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246585 3/18/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC (Continued)
c
HP 96W Smart Storage Battery CablE
;,
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
204.4( c.
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
c
21.2E
6010759
HP 96W SMART STORAGE BATTER
N
r
HP 96W Smart Storage Battery CablE
0)
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
-204.4( E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
-21.2E L
6065193
HP SMART ARRAY STORAGE CONI
3
HP Smart Array P4081-A SR Gen 10
vi
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
-575.9 1
10.4% Sales Tax
t
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
-59.9( U
8580680
HP PROBOOK SB450 G7 LAPTOPS
E
HP ProBook SB450 G7 15.6" 8GB 25
a
U
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
4,947.3( p
10.4% Sales Tax
'ii
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
514.5, c
8580798
HP PROBOOK SB450 G7 LAPTOP
a
HP ProBook SB450 G7 15.6" 8GB 25
°-
Q
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
824.5E "
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
85.7E 00
8633281
HP 3 YR MAINTENACE AGREEMEN
M
HP 3 yr Maintenance agreement for E
N
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
66.8( E
10.4% Sales Tax
2
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
6.9E U
8649547
HP 3 YR MAINTENACE AGREEMEN
HP 3 yr Maintenance agreement for E
aD
E
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
1,007.7E U
10.4% Sales Tax
+°
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
104.8- Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 128
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 12
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246585
3/18/2021
069813 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
(Continued)
Total :
U
9,760.6E c
246586
3/18/2021
069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
EOFB.PLN2021-0010
EOFB.PLN2021-0010.SEPA REVIEW
L
M
EOFB.PLN2021-0010.SEPA REVIEW
a
'0
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
740.0( R
Total :
740.0( u)
c
246587
3/18/2021
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
17060
EOAB. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 11/2(
E
EOAB. SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 11/2(
�a
125.000.68.542.64.48.00
568.7,
17111
WWTP: 1/2021 M/O+SEWER
L
1/2021 M/O & SEWER
3
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
42,307.0( Y
Total:
42,875.7:
t
246588
3/18/2021
035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
9056920000
WWTP:1/12-3/15/21 FLOWMETER I
1/12-3/15/21 FLOW METER #87902
M
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
24.8( Z
Total:
24.8( o
246589
3/18/2021
076914 CM DESIGN GROUP LLC
21007
E21CA.SERVICES THRU 2/28/21
'ii
>
0
E21CA.SERVICES THRU 2/28/21
a
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
2,465.4� Q
E21CA.SERVICES THRU 2/28/21
125.000.68.542.30.41.00
8,803.5� N
E21CA.SERVICES THRU 2/28/21
00
126.000.68.542.30.41.00
6,570.9, A
Total:
17,840.0( N
E
246590
3/18/2021
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
8498310301175191
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
_M
001.000.64.571.29.42.00
140.2 1 c
Total:
140.2,
t
246591
3/18/2021
065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
FEB 2021
FEB 2021 DRY CLEANING - EDMON
U
�a
FEB 2021 DRY CLEANING CHARGE
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
305.7£
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 129
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
246591 3/18/2021 065683 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING (Continued)
246592 3/18/2021 067794 DALCOINC 25757
246593
246594
246595
246596
3/18/2021 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
3/18/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
3/18/2021 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC
LN-000000880
21-4071
21-4074
22572 PUBLIC WORKS
3/18/2021 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 21-3084.1
21-3086.1
8.2.a
Page: 13
N
Y
V
Description/Account Amoun t
U
Total:
305.7E c
WWTP: PO 519 LABOR & PARTS
L
M
a
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
200.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
r
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
20.9(
Total:
221.8E E
WWTP: L1400002-14 LOAN PAYMEf
�a
Principal:
L
423.000.76.591.39.78.10
15,046.8, 3
Interest: 001-727-1-1400002N-0409-0
423.000.76.592.39.83.10
2,985.7E y
Admin/Debt Service Charge:
423.000.76.592.35.89.00
2,252.4( E
Total:
20,284.91,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
o
city council meeting minutes 2/23
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
493.2( o
CITY COUNICL, PPW, FINANCE ME
city council, ppw and finance meeting
a
Q
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
579.6(
Total :
1,072.8(
00
-
PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND IN
M
PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND IN
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
12,046.7, E
10.4% Sales Tax
R
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
U
1,252.8E };
Total:
13,299.6(
E
E21 FB.T021-01.SERVICES THRU 3)
E21 FB.T021-01.SERVICES THRU 3)
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
2,601.0E Q
E21JB.TO21-02.SERVICES THRU 3/
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 130
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246596 3/18/2021 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC (Continued)
246597 3/18/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER
246598 3/18/2021 063490 DUTTON ELECTRIC CO INC
246599 3/18/2021 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
PO # Description/Account
E21JB.TO21-02.SERVICES THRU 3/
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
Total
7830597
FAC MAINT - SUPPLUES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLUES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
20CV-01
WWTP: REPLACE SENSOR
REPLACE SENSOR
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
00010113743
WWTP: P 521 ULTRA BLUE RTV
PO 521 Ultra Blue RTV.
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
00010113753
PM SUPPLIES: 6PC 12" DR SAEME-
PM SUPPLIES: 6PC 12" DR SAEME-
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
00010113876
PM SUPPLIES: DETERGENT
PM SUPPLIES: DETERGENT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.2.a
Page: 14
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
0
L
3,413.3E 0.
6,014.4E 0
R
N
r
C
m
171.9, E
�a
a
17.7- m
189.6f 3
vi
Y
U
m
1,198.5( U
E
124.6z 2
1,323.1 ,-
0
�a
0
L
273.0( a
Q
8.5(
N
00
29.2f
M
0
24.9E
R
U
2.6(
d
E
t
6.9E um
0.7' Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 131
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246599 3/18/2021 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
246600 3/18/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 15
vi
Y
V
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun t
(Continued)
0
113807
F.A.C. BOILER SUPPLIES/ PARTS
;,
F.A.C. BOILER SUPPLIES/ PARTS
fd
Q.
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
R
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.2E r
Total:
359.4( aa)
E
2152
PM SUPPLIES: DRILL BIT
sa
PM SUPPLIES: DRILL BIT
a
m
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.9� 3
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
vi
0.51
2159
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
m
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
22.5E E
10.4% Sales Tax
fd
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
U
2.3E c
2161
PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE MIX
PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE MIX
>
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.9E a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q-
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.7;
2163
PM SUPPLIES: PRIMER, ROLLERS
N
PM SUPPLIES: PRIMER, ROLLERS
00
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
39.9, c
10.4% Sales Tax
c
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.1 E E
2166
PM SUPPLIES: PEAT MOSS
M
PM SUPPLIES: PEAT MOSS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
71.9E c
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.4E t
2169
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
U
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.9E
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 132
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246600 3/18/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued)
246601 3/18/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
246602 3/18/2021 068803 EJ USA INC
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2170 F.A.C. SUPPLIES
F.A.C. SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
5-00080 IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE
IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL
INTERURBAN TRAIL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Total
110210012287
246603 3/18/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR186559
AR186735
STORM - SUPPLIES
STORM - SUPPLIES
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Freight
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Total ;
INV AR186559 - ACCT MK5031 - EDI
2/21 BW CHARGE - A12434 &A1243
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
2/21 CLR CHARGE -Al 2434 &A1243!
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
ENG COPIER. THRU 3/3/21
ENG COPIER. THRU 3/3/21
8.2.a
Page: 16
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
0
L
3.5< c.
c
R
16.1E r
c
m
1.6E E
217.0 , a
m
L
3
vi
53.9z
m
t
U
53.9z E
107.8F
4-
0
Ta
3,835.6E Lo-
om
0_
50.0( Q
404.1-
00
4,28917
M
O
E
37.4E U
133.8E (D
E
t
17.8, um
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 133
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246603 3/18/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
246604
:T:Ti1i
246606
AR187790
3/18/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH920261
EDH920389
EDH920775
EDH921288
3/18/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 162414
3/18/2021 078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC 210310-003C
8.2.a
Page: 17
N
Y
V
PO # Description/Account Amoun t
0
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
103.7: ">%
10.4% Sales Tax
Q.
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
10.7�
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
R
Maintenance 03/21/21 - 04/20/21 Car
r
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
307.2(
10.4% Sales Tax
E
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
31.9E a
Total:
642.8( a)
L_
INV EDH920261 - ACCT 14126500 -
3
UNCLAIMED PROPERTYAD
001.000.41.521.10.41.40
U
16.8( m
P&R: CONCESSION IN PARKS ADS
U
P&R: CONCESSION IN PARKS ADS:
E
001.000.64.571.22.41.40
50.4( f°
ORDIANCE 4215
4-
ordinance 4215
0
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
23.8( >
ORDINANCES 4216-4218
ordinances 4216-4218
a
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
42.0( Q
Total :
N
133.0(00
MAR-2021 SUPPORT SERVICES
Mar-2021 Support Services
c
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
425.0( E
E
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
44.2( U
Total:
469.2(
d
WWTP: TBERNSTEIN CLASSES 10
E
CLASSES 10-HR GEN INDUSTRY+1
U
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
M
215.9( =
El
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 134
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
246606 3/18/2021 078226 078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC (Continued)
246607 3/18/2021 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 162665
246608 3/18/2021 071898 HALTER, LISA
246609 3/18/2021 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
246610 3/18/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
246611 3/18/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
162727
2005720.009
48376
2019-246
300-10083854
Description/Account
UNIT 49 - TIRES
UNIT 49 - TIRES
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
WA STATE TIRE TAX
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
UNIT 5 - TIRES
UNIT 5 - TIRES
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
WA STATE TIRE FEE
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
Total
Total ;
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
E7MA.SERVICES THRU2/26/21
E7MA.SERVICES THRU2/26/21
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
E7MA.SERVICES THRU2/26/21
126.000.64.594.76.41.00
Total
REIMBURSEMENT FOR FAMILY DN
Family Day Coffee - $40.18-
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
FLEET - PARTS/ WIPER BLADES &
8.2.a
Page: 18
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
U
215.9E c
L
M
0.
446.1 E
N
r
4.0(
E
46.8E sa
a
aD
L
463.9, 3
Y
U
4.0( t
U
48.7- E
1,0116'
4-
0
�a
80.0( o
80.0( a
Q
N
359.5( °r°
A
0
389.4E
748.9E .
R
U
c
aD
89.8f E
89.8E U
�a
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 135
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 19
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
246611
3/18/2021
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
(Continued)
FLEET - PARTS/ WIPER BLADES &
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
179.8'
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
18.7(
Total:
198.5:
246612
3/18/2021
017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
INV 02192021-01
INV 02192021-01 - EDMONDS PD
FEB 2021 CAR WASH CHARGES
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
76.0E
Total :
76.0E
246613
3/18/2021
019582 MANOR HARDWARE
110877-00
PUBLIC WORKS - WHITE CAULKINi
PUBLIC WORKS - WHITE CAULKINi
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
20.2E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.1
Total :
22.3F
246614
3/18/2021
078311 MCLAUGHLIN, JENNIFER
03102021
FACILITATION OF 3/3/21 DIVERSITN
FACILITATION OF 3/3/21 DIVERSITN
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
300.0(
Total :
300.0(
246615
3/18/2021
068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC
0254522
E182PO - PARTS
E182PO - PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
436.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
45.4-
Tota l :
482.0E
246616
3/18/2021
078259 MILLER, STEVEN
1469288
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ELECTRICI
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ELECTRICI
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
72.7(
Tota I :
72.7(
246617
3/18/2021
018950 NAPAAUTO PARTS
3276-899888
UNIT 54 - PARTS/ BRAKE PADS
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 136
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 20
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
246617
3/18/2021
018950 NAPAAUTO PARTS
(Continued)
UNIT 54 - PARTS/ BRAKE PADS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
102.3(
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.7z
Total:
113.0z
246618
3/18/2021
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0755633-IN
FLEET - POWERTRAN FLUID
FLEET- POWERTRAN FLUID
511.000.77.548.68.34.21
287.E 1
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.21
29.9"
0756338-IN
FLEET - FILTERS
FLEET - FILTERS
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
50.1-
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
5.2-
Total :
372.9(
246619
3/18/2021
078308 NGUYEN, THUY
604720725
NYUGEN, THUY BUSINESS LICENS
BL refund to Thuy Nguyen
001.000.257.620
100.0(
Tota I :
100.0(
246620
3/18/2021
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 789
PLANNING - PROF SVCS
ADB Minutes (meeting date: 3/3/21)
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
380.0(
Tota I :
380.0(
246621
3/18/2021
072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS
3685-120077
UNIT 62 - PARTS/ VAC TUBING
UNIT 62 - PARTS/ VAC TUBING
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
19.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.9£
3685-121126
UNIT 121 PARTS/ CAPSULE
UNIT 121 PARTS/ CAPSULE
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 137
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246621 3/18/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
246622 3/18/2021 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
246623 3/18/2021 064167 POLLARD WATER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
001000972 UNIT 66 - PARTS
UNIT 66 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
W PO15051
246624 3/18/2021 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL SV 1251
1291
246625 3/18/2021 075591 RACO MFG & ENGINEERING 103731
Total :
Total :
WATER - SUPPLIES/ FIRE HOSE AS
WATER - SUPPLIES/ FIRE HOSE AS
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Total
INV 1251 - EDMONDS PD - PRE-EM
2 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENTS 1/12
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 1/19/21
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
INVOICE 1291 EDMONDS PD - PRE
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 2/11/21
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
SEWER - ALARM AGENT CBA 1 YE)
SEWER - ALARM AGENT CBA 1 YE)
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Total
8.2.a
Page: 21
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
0
51.5E ">%
M
Q.
5.4 c
77.9° R
N
r
C
m
E
614.4E sa
a
m
63.9( 3
678.3E
Y
V
m
t
U
329.9E E
34.3' ,"
364.2E G
�a
0
L
Q
a
250.0( Q
125.0( N
00
M
0
125.0(
500.0( .
R
U
c
aD
360.0( E
U
15.0(
375.0( Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 138
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
246626
3/18/2021
070868 RC ZEIGLER COMPANY INC
CITY HALL
CITY HALL ELEVATOR - CHANGE O
CITY HALL ELEVATOR - CHANGE O
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total:
246627
3/18/2021
066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA
23471
CITY HALL - SMART STRIKE PACK
CITY HALL - SMART STRIKE PACK
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total:
246628
3/18/2021
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-030791
UNIT 31 - BATTERY
UNIT 31 - BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
TARIFF
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total:
246629
3/18/2021
069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
01804-592412
UNIT 526 - MOBILE WINDSHIELD R
UNIT 526 - MOBILE WINDSHIELD R
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
Total:
246630
3/18/2021
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200326460
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200663953
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
8.2.a
Page: 22
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
0
L
13,946.0( Q.
13,946.0(
R
N
r
C
m
832.3, E
�a
a
10.0( m
L
3
87.6" vi
929.9f
m
t
U
E
146.4E 2
U
24.9( o
�a
17.8,
189.2( a
El
N
00
29.9E
M
0
3.1- N
33.0E •�
c
aD
16.0' E
t
U
�a
138.4' Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 139
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 23
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246630 3/18/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
c
201054327
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 501
�%
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 I
M
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
140.3E
201103561
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
M
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
N
r
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
34.7, 0)
201501277
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F
E
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
22.0' m
201557303
CEMETERY BUILDING
L
3
CEMETERY BUILDING
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
vi
173.3<
202139655
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
m
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
t
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
30.1 E .
202161535
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
c
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
91.5E 1i
202250635
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
c
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.0< Q
202356739
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
N
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
28.0E 00
205307580
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
c
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
184.7, E
221593742
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
_M
z
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
88.4'
222398059
SIGNAL CABINET 22730 HIGHWAY'
d
22730 Highway 99, Signal Cabinet -
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
90.9- 2
222704272 WWTP:2/10-3/10/21 FLOWMETER Q
2/10-3/10/21 FLOW METER 2400 H
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 140
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 24
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
ui
Y
V
Amoun t
246630
3/18/2021
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
c
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
16.6( ">%
222818874
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND A)
fd
Q.
Decorative Lighting 115 2nd Ave S /
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
16.6( R
Total:
1,087.95 n
m
246631
3/18/2021
037521 SNO CO TREASURER
00479000100302
2021 SURFACE WATER TAX
E
2021 Surface Water Charges - 23009
a
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
409.2� m
27043200300100
PARCEL 27043200300100 LAKE BAI
Parcel 27043200300100 Lake Manag
3
001.000.39.576.90.41.50
13.7E
27043200300200
PARCEL 27043200300200 LAKE BAI
(D
Parcel 27043200300200 Lake Manag
U
001.000.39.576.90.41.50
13.7E E
Total:
436.81 �a
U
246632
3/18/2021
075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Select Homes
SHORT PLAT: SELECT HOMES FOF
short plat: select homes for planning
_o
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
192.0( o
Total:
192.0( a
Q
246633
3/18/2021
006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
78744
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
v
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
664.0( °r°
ILLEGAL DUMP FEES
c
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
5.0(
Total:
669.0( .
246634
3/18/2021
065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
26023
SEWER - LIFT STATION #7 FIELD S
U
SEWER - LIFT STATION #7 FIELD S
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
741.2.E E
Total:
741.2° U
�a
246635
3/18/2021
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
94041
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
Q
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 141
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 25
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
ui
Y
V
Amoun t
246635
3/18/2021
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
(Continued)
c
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
790.0( ">%
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
fd
Q.
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
790.0( '0
10.4% Sales Tax
R
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
82.1( r
10.4% Sales Tax
0)
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
82.1( E
Total:
1,744.3: a
m
246636
3/18/2021
078300 TERRY BALL POLYGRAPH LLC
2021-131
INV 2021-131 EDMONDS PD - 2 PRE
3
PRE -EMPLOY EXAM 3/10/21
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
vi
250.0(
PRE -EMPLOY EXAM 3/13/21
m
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
t
250.0( u
Total:
500.0( E
ii
246637
3/18/2021
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV65221
CITY PARK BUILDING - PARTS
,U
CITY PARK BUILDING - PARTS
G
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
748.4- >
Freight
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12.2( a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
79.1(
Total:
839.7100
T_
246638
3/18/2021
075587 THE UPS STORE #6392
0028
WWTP: 2/16 & 2/26/21 SHIP CHGS
c
2/16 & 2/26/21 SHIP CHGS
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
27.4< .E
Total:
27.4: U
246639
3/18/2021
041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
60464
PM: YOST PARK FENCE INSTALLAT
d
PM: YOST PARK FENCE INSTALLAT
E
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
694.0( U
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
72.1 £ Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 142
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher
246639
246640
246641
246642
246643
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Date Vendor Invoice
3/18/2021 041960 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC (Continued)
3/18/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 48979509
3/18/2021 075155 WALKER MACY LLC
3/18/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
3/18/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
01;'1�s -1111
P3282.04-34
PO # Description/Account
Total ;
WWTP: 2/25/21 CAUSTIC SODA
2/25/21 CAUSTIC SODA
423.000.76.535.80.31.52
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.52
WWTP: 2/25/21 SOD. BISULFITE
2/25 /21 SOD. BISULFITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
Total
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
126.000.64.594.76.41.00
Total
12161488 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
8.2.a
Page: 26
N
Y
V
Amoun t
766.11 c
L
M
a
5,270.6(
N
r
548.1 ,
E
�a
1,885.4� m
L
196.0� 3
7,900.3,
(D
t
U
E
25,287.3( �a
25,287.X
0
M
0
L
1,258.1 f a
Q
130.8E
1,389.0:
00
O
U)
6.4< E
2
U
24.4(
c
Q
24.4' E
t
U
24.4(
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 143
vchlist
03/18/2021 7:47:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 27
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
vi
Y
V
Amoun t
246643
3/18/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
(Continued)
c
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
24.4< ">%
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
M
a
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
24.4<
425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
M
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION
N
r
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
141.1
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
E
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
a
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
75.9£ L
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
3
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
vi
72.9-
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI
m
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIALACC
t
U
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.4, .9
Total:
445.0: u
246644
3/18/2021 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN
15
REIMBURSEMENT
G
REIMBURSEMENT
>
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
1,735.2( a
Total:
1,735.2(
Q
82
Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
237,920.2E
N
82
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
237,920.2E °r°
M
O
N
E
2
V
C
d
E
t
V
f0
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 144
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
N
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
t
v
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
—
0
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
CL
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9C6
c
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
Q'
L
STIR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
3
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
Y
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
v
a�
t
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
v
E
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
v
4-
G
STIR2021
Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
M
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
G
L
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21 CC
Q-
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD
Q
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21 AA
j
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21 CB
°r°
STIR220th
Adaptive
i028
EBAB
o
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
N
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
E
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
Z
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
0
d
STIR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
m
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
j
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
3
a
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
u_
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
c
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
v
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
Q
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STIR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
Revised 3/17/2021
Packet Pg. 145
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
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
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
STR
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
STR
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
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
SWR
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
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
STR
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
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 146
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect Title
STIR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
STIR
EOCC
i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
STIR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
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
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
STIR
E1 CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STIR
E21 AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STIR
E21 AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
WTR
E21 CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21 CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
STM
E21 FB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
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
STM
E41FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 147
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect Title
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM
E71FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STIR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
STIR
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STIR
E8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
STIR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STM
E81FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
UTILITIES
E8JB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STM
E91FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 148
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1 CA
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
E41FE
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
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. & 71st 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
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
STM
E21 FB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 149
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect 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
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
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)
STIR
E21 AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STIR
E21 AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
WTR
E21 CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21 CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STM
E71FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
sol 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
STM
E91FA
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
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 150
8.2.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
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
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
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STIR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STIR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STIR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 151
8.2.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
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
iO4O
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
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
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
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21 CC
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
SWR
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21 CB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
Revised 3/17/2021 Packet Pg. 152
8.2.c
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,002 (03/01/2021 to 03/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
84.00
0.00
112
ABSENT
NO PAY NON HIRED
80.00
0.00
119
SICK
Donated Sick Leave -used
88.00
4,089.50
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
602.75
22,805.08
122
VACATION
VACATION
532.50
21,531.58
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
60.50
2,704.98
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
16.00
518.36
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
170.75
6,602.21
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
12.00
608.25
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
34.00
1,514.54
135
SICK
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEY
14.75
332.91
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kellv Dav Used
264.00
12,814.49
151
COMP HOURS
HOLIDAY COMP BUY BACK
9.00
336.99
152
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME BUY BACK
5.16
193.21
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
63.89
3,087.55
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
10.89
407.76
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
163.72
6,288.57
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
6.00
475.92
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
17,689.95
733,752.65
194
SICK
Emerciencv Sick Leave
158.00
6,626.81
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
114.50
6,477.86
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
29.00
584.34
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
8.00
265.02
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
60.00
3,363.21
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,552.90
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
182.00
11,750.52
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
3.00
262.69
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
243.30
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
349.01
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
847.31
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
1,223.64
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
35.75
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
81.75
0.00
03/18/2021
Packet Pg. 153
8.2.c
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,002 (03/01/2021 to 03/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
900
VACATION
ACCRUED VACATION
-11.56
0.00
901
SICK
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE
42.21
0.00
902
MISCELLANEOUS
BOOT ALLOWANCE
0.00
187.50
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
89.56
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
1,028.08
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
692.13
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
552.86
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
5,971.62
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
481.56
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
599.74
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,013.57
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
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
365.21
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,250.19
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
366.12
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
277.76
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
193.99
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
122.69
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
507.30
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
101.78
03/18/2021
Packet Pg. 154
8.2.c
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,002 (03/01/2021 to 03/15/2021)
Hour Type
Hour Class
Description
Hours
Amount
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,370.15
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ;
0.00
194.64
pto
MISCELLANEOUS
Traininq Officer
0.00
163.58
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
0.00
301.49
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
194.64
St
REGULAR HOURS
Serqeant Pav
0.00
145.98
str
MISCELLANEOUS
STREET CRIMES
0.00
521.80
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAFFIC
0.00
122.69
20,625.51 $878,149.15
Total Net Pay: $590,375.74
vi
Y
V
a�
0
a
c
N
r
c
E
�a
a
a�
�3
vi
a�
E
O
0
O
L
Q
Q
Q
r
N
Ln
A
O
M
E
E
7
N
O
L
Q
E
:.i
Q
03/18/2021
Packet Pg. 155
8.2.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,036 (03/15/2021 to 03/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
154 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK 4.50 168.50
4.50 $168.50
Total Net Pay: $155.41
�a
T
N
LO
T-
A
O
R
E
E
7
N
O
i
R
Q
C
O
E
t
v
R
Q
03/18/2021
Packet Pg. 156
8.2.e
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,002 - 03/01/2021 to 03/15/2021
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit
64638
03/19/2021
bpas
BPAS
4,587.04
0.00
64639
03/19/2021
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
6,027.00
0.00
64640
03/19/2021
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
631.76
0.00
64641
03/19/2021
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,413.72
0.00
64642
03/19/2021
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
5,031.00
0.00
64643
03/19/2021
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
4,074.39
0.00
23,764.91
0.00
Bank: wire -
US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
3176
03/19/2021
awc
AW C
321,727.84
0.00
3179
03/19/2021
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
28,531.61
0.00
3180
03/19/2021
us
US BANK
108,386.62
0.00
3181
03/19/2021
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
105,550.05
0.00
3183
03/19/2021
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,486.19
0.00
3185
03/19/2021
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
764.50
0.00
570,446.81
0.00
Grand Totals:
594,211.72
0.00
El
3/18/2021
Packet Pg. 157
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Report on Bids and Award Construction Contract for the 2021 Overlay Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On March 9, 2021, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to a future consent agenda for City Council approval.
Staff Recommendation
Award the 2021 Overlay Program Construction Contract to Central Paving, LLC in the amount of
$760,596.00 and authorize a construction management reserve of $76,000.
Narrative
This project is a continuation of the City's annual program to rehabilitate and preserve its street
network. The project will use REET and 112 funds to pave streets in poor condition that have a
low pavement condition index rating. The project will also use utility funding (Water,
Stormwater and Sewer) to pave streets where recent utility improvements have been
completed. This year's program will pave approximately 3.9 lane -miles of City streets. Refer to
attached project map (Exhibit 3).
Seven construction bids were received on March 4, 2021 and the bid results for the base bid
ranged from a low of $760,596 to a high of $979,541. Refer to Exhibit 1. The engineer's
estimate was $966,157. Central Paving submitted the low responsive bid of $760,596. A review
of Central Paving's bid document was completed and it was positive.
The proposed construction budget and funding sources are shown in Exhibit 2. A first quarter
budget amendment will be required to increase the stormwater ($18,300) and sewer ($33,300)
utility contributions to the project.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Bid Summary
Exhibit 2 - project budget
Exhibit 3 - 2021 Overlay Project Map
Packet Pg. 158
8.3.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROJECT NAME: 2021 Pavement Preservation Program PROJECT No.: E21CA/i051
Bid Date: 3/4/2021 Bid Time: 2:00pm Engineer's Estimate: $966,157
CONTRACTOR
BID TOTAL
1
Central Paving, LLC
$ 760,596.00
2
Lakeside Industries
$ 797,057.00
3
Cadman Materials
$ 834,284.00
4
Northshore Paving
$ 871,359.00
5
JB Asphalt
$ 872,824.18
6
Granite Construction
$ 941,232.00
7
Lakeridge Paving
$ 979,541.00
E
0
L
a
L
O
N
0
N
0
r
0
4-
U)
m
c
0
U
0
L
0
Li
L
0
Q
N�
Lf�
E
E
U)
m
Q
Packet Pg. 159
8.3.b
2021 Pavement Preservation Program
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
BUDGET
STREET
WATER
SEWER
STORM
TOTAL
Contract Award
$
517,092
$
138,226
$
38,641
$
66,638
$
760,596
Construction Management, Inspection & Testing (15%)
$
77,564
$
20,734
$
5,796
$
9,996
$
114,090
Management Reserve (10%)
$
51,709
$
13,823
$
3,864
$
6,664
$
76,059
TOTALS
$
646,365
1 $
172,783
1 $
48,3011
$
83,297
1 $
950,745
CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
FUNDING
STREET
WATER
SEWER
STORM
TOTAL
Fund 112 - Street
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
Fund 125 - REET 1
$ 400,000
$ 400,000
Fund 126 - REET 2
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
Fund 421 - WATER
$ 172,783
$ 172,783
Fund 422 - SEWER
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
Fund 422 - SEWER PENDING BUDGET AMENDMENT
$ 18,301
$ 18,301
Fund 423 - STORM
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
Fund 423 - STORM PENDING BUDGET AMENDMENT
$ 33,297
$ 33,297
TOTALS
$ 800,000
1 $ 172,783
1 $ 48,301
1 $ 83,297
1 $ 1,104,381
L
0
L
L
d
0
N
O
N
a�
t
L
0
m
c
0
r
0
U
c
0
r-
0
a
m
m
a�
r
aD
0
a
.r
a
Packet Pg. 160
City of Edmonds
Mapbook
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Amendments to New Tree Regulations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Stage 1 of updating the City's tree regulations has primarily focused on protecting trees on sites where
development is happening, along with related issues, such as a Tree Fund. On March 2, the City Council
made significant progress by adopting anew ordinance (see Attachment 1 "Tree -Related Regulations")
to put this into action.
At the March 2 meeting, the City Council also reviewed a table of Stage 2 tree -related activities, which
would be slated next. (SeeAttachment2 for "Tree Work Upcoming".) Stage 2 includes developing tree
regulations that apply to private properties not covered by regulations for development.
During the last few months while the new tree -related regulations were being prepared, the Council
adopted two interim ordinances (No. 4200 and No. 4201) strictly limiting options for tree removal on
potential development sites. These interim ordinances would have expired March 10 but, at the
Council's March 2 meeting, they were extended until March 24, while the City Council continued to
consider amendments to the new tree regulations.
Council began making amendments to the tree regulations adopted by the ordinance in Attachment 1 at
the March 9th and March 16th Council meetings.
Staff Recommendation
Decide on amendment proposals to be included in an ordinance that would amend the new tree
regulations.
Narrative
At the City Council's March 2 meeting, the Council adopted new tree regulations that primarily focused
on protecting/retaining trees during development. The new regulations contained several changes from
the prior version. (Note: The new tree regulations focus on development sites but tree regulations for
other properties will be considered later as part of Stage 2 amendments.) Because the available time
that evening did not allow all Council members to have amendment proposals considered, the Council
concurred on revisiting the new tree regulations ordinance (Attachment 1) at the March 9 meeting and
considering amendments. The Council began the amendment process at the March 9 meeting and
continued making amendments at the March 16 meeting. The regulations provided in Attachment 4
reflect the changes approved by the City council at the March 9 and March 16 meetings in a
redline/strikeout format. The amendment highlighted in yellow at ECDC 23.10.080.E was under
Packet Pg. 162
9.1
discussion when the March 9th meeting ended due to lateness of hour and was not voted on.
The Council's Executive Assistant consolidated potential amendments that may be considered by the
Council into an Excel spreadsheet. Administration staff identified which of the proposed amendments
were either addressed at the March 2nd Council meeting or were Stage 1 or Stage proposals. This
spreadsheet of potential amendments is provided in Attachment 3. In order to facilitate the
amendment process, staff recommends considering the Stage 1 amendments one at a time working
from the top to the bottom during the Council meeting.
Any amendments supported by the Council majority will be included in an ordinance that comes back to
the City Council for a final decision approval. Such ordinance could be adopted as part of the Consent
Agenda or by separate action.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Tree Related Regulations 3.4.21
Attachment 2: Tree Work Upcoming
Attachment 3: Council Tree Code Changes by Stage.03.09.21
Attachment 4: Draft Edmonds Tree Related Regulations with Council Amendments
Packet Pg. 163
9.1.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING PRIOR TREE CLEARING
REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED
REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW
TREE FUND
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been reviewing draft tree regulations since
September 2020, specifically at the September 9, October 14, October 28, November 12, and
November 18 Planning Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4200 (a moratorium on certain
subdivision applications) and Ordinance 4201 (interim regulations to accompany the
moratorium) on November 10, 2020 to preserve existing trees while the Planning Board
completed its work; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree regulations on
December 9, 2020 and completed its review on January 13, 2021 with a recommendation to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received an introduction to the draft tree regulations at the
January 26, 2021 Council meeting and held a public hearing on February 2, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the regulations adopted by this ordinance represent the city's initial stages
of implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan that the City Council adopted in 2019;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code) of the Edmonds
Community Development Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced by a new Chapter 23.10
added to Title 23 (Natural Resources) of the Edmonds Community Development Code . The
new chapter 23.10 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Tree Related
Packet Pg. 164
9.1.a
Regulations," is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 2. A new Section 20.75.048 of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
entitled "Conservation Subdivision Design," is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment
B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 3. A new chapter 3.95 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Tree Fund," is
hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment C hereto, which is incorporated herein by
this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 4. The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 shall be extended to March 24
2021.
Section 5. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency
exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage, and that the same
is not subject to a referendum. Ordinances 4200 and 4201 were adopted on November 10, 2020,
were only intended to remain in effect for four months, and need to be repealed by ordinance.
Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, Ordinances 4200 and 4201
would either last longer than intended or would expire before this ordinance could take effect. In
the latter scenario, any delay in the effective date of this ordinance could allow developers to
vest applications under the preexisting set of tree regulations. Therefore, this ordinance should be
imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring
that all future development be governed by the new code.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 5, as long as it is approved by a majority plus
one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted
Packet Pg. 165
9.1.a
by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then Section 5 shall be
disregarded, in which case, 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.
Section 7. 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.
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. 166
9.1.a
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, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED
REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION
SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND
ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2021.
4840-7251-8158,v. 1
M
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 167
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
23.10.020
Definitions
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
23.10.090
Bonding
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.110
Liability
20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation,
protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees.
This includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan;
D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the
residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and
aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of
trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 1 of 15
Packet Pg. 168
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of
development.
J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic
and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease,
danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and
K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
23.10.010 Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.020 Definitions
A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Canopy — The leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top.
C. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH.
D. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
E. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
F. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
G. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by
recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
H. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
I. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
J. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
K. Native Tree — Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being
well -suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains
a partial list of species that are considered native trees.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 2 of 15
Packet Pg. 169
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
L. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
M. Protected Tree — A tree 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.
N. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
O. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
P. Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
Q. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional..
R. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries
S. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
U. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 3 of 15
Packet Pg. 170
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
V. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.
23.10.030 Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. 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. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for:
That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:
Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
for these trees alone provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public
safety or tree health.
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 4 of 15
Packet Pg. 171
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8
23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC
23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except
as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree
replacement may be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following
applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-
family house, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before
removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish
tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate
preservation of viable trees.
B. Tree Retention Plan
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 5 of 15
Packet Pg. 172
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that
complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain
components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense.
Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following
information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
corresponding tags on trees);
Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter;
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed
improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is
required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties
where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the
subject property (surveyed locations may be required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an `X' or by ghosting out;
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080
and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 6 of 15
Packet Pg. 173
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
those in a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current
phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as
more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to
all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
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
2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area
hazard tree.
3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
4. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
5. For developing properties identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A that have fewer than three significant
trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three
trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 7 of 15
Packet Pg. 174
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
a. Specimen trees;
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space,
wetlands or creek buffers.
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to
utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may
be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting
the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity.
23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following
standards:
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
B. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 8 of 15
Packet Pg. 175
9.1.a
ATTACHMENT A
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the
applicant shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum
"Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for
code enforcement to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the director authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 9 of 15
Packet Pg. 176
ATTACHMENT A
9.1.a
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation.
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.080 Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
For each significant tree greater than 14 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are
required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor.
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021
Page 10 of 15
Packet Pg. 177
ATTACHMENT A
9.1.a
C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval
by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for
each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site location.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the
tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
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. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this
provision.
23.10.090 Bonding
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements
and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following
required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to
ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021
Page 11 of 15
Packet Pg. 178
ATTACHMENT A
9.1.a
maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in
subsection B.
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
buffers.
23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
C. Penalties:
Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree
Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar
growing conditions.
The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021
Page 12 of 15
Packet Pg. 179
ATTACHMENT A
9.1.a
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in
the absence of the violation(s).
If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified
arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and required tree replacement.
Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require
necessary corrective action within a specific time.
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC.
23.10.110 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021
Page 13 of 15
Packet Pg. 180
ATTACHMENT B
9.1.a
20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that
a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet;
b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet;
c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and
d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced.
Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling
units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and
widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements
of the zoning district in which it is located.
Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total,
coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for
the zoning district in which it is located.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city codes and standards.
C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with
design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC
23.10.085.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021
Page 14 of 15
Packet Pg. 181
ATTACHMENT C
9.1.a
3.95 Tree Fund
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund."
3.95.020 Funding Sources
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources:
A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC.
B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC.
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and
D. Other monies allocated by the City Council
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the Tree Fund maybe used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the
city:
1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds;
2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional;
3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health;
4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational
purchases;
6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee.
C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC
23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting.
City Council Adopted March 2, 2021
Page 15 of 15
Packet Pg. 182
9.1.b
Proposed 3/2/20
UPCOMING TREE -RELATED ITEMS & TIMING
ITEM Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2021 2022 or TBD
Inventory of downtown street trees
Inventory of other public trees
Street Tree Plan update
N
c
Tree canopy assessment 0
r
cv
Heritage Tree Program
Tree Canopy goal
I —
Assessment of staffing & other resource needs
aa)
Z
0
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
r
N
c
O
Exploration of other incentive programs
E
c
Open space acquisition
m
E
Tree retention on private property (not related to development)
E
Partnerships with other organizations
Q
Annual reports on City tree activities
Y
0
Tree give-away program
L
View corridors N
r
c
m
Wildlife & habitat corridors E
t
0
Expanded public education & information Q
Stormwater & Watershed Analysis m
E
t
Other tree -related issues M
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 183
9.1.c
Tree Code Amendments 2021
Stage
Code Number
Change
Councilmember
Explanation of Amendment
KEY: Column indicates
Color Key
Green highlight indicates change was accepted
whether item was addressed
Red indicates changes was not accepted
on 3/2 or is Stage 1 or issue
No color highlight indicates change is still being considered
Strike through means change is no longer being considered
Stage Key
Indicates whether change was addressed at the 3.2 Council Meeting, Stage 1 Code Issue or Stage 2 Code Issue
Addressed 3.2
23.10.000
Add new C. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
Paine
Addressed 3.2
23.10.000
Add new subsection C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan;
L. Johnson
Addressed 3.2
23.10.000
[Revise the former subsection C (now subsection D) as follows]: D. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental
health, and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds and provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, and to preserve the
physical and aesthetic character of the city through the preservation of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and
groundcover on improved or partially improved property;
L. Johnson
Addressed 3.2
23.10.000
New D. — Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in Edmonds „whan
tzAw0roPmPA:L nninl +h-,+ h ,ye a reaseRable .-haprne of I".,.._term survival-
Paine
New D was added on 3-2: "Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors
and habitat." This amendment was proposed by Paine and staff thinks replaces this
Addressed 3.2
23.10.020
N2 Delete Track and replace with TRAQ (scrivner's error)
Olson
29 i n 020
F . Change definition of paWF. Hazard tree to read a-sfollows:
u
dead,A eF
tFee that is dying, diseased,damaged,strursturally defeetive as determined by a tFee
B c-G�I(S,hrr i;
SigRifieant qualified prefessiGlFlal,
SiRg SigRifiGaRt damage to a er stri-let-i-lice, sidewalk, euFb, read, water eF sewer er ster.mAvatel: i_ltilitime�l
phySiGal private pi-l-blic
driveway, or parkiRg let."
)2 1 no?()
l' T
F. Delete P NIii_lisaAc_pTrQp anrGhaRge all FQ{pYpycp_,c of }rpp }e "Ha;_z�r}TpQ".
(see definition Hazard tFee TheFe is to distinguish tFees that damage to
RirLchr,io
aac�c�rrrrr.�
revised of above. no Feasen sepaicately aFe ca6ising significant
preperty they a a "hazard")
2340.020
u Tree"
K. Delete K Preteeted Tree and ehange all references ef Preteeted Tree te gRifleant
"
B el(
vci-G,�,-rshrRi-s
2340.020
Q. Delete Q SpeGimeR Tree _AAGI Change all refeFeRees of Spec--appeR Tree to "SigRifiGaRt TFPP"
"
B GI.rhn,
vci-cnT-rrri ;r
In WOTree��FlOtBUGI.ShRiS
Stage 2
23.10.030
A. Applicability: to read as follows: "No person shall remove, excessively prune, top, or cut large lateral roots of any significant tree
without a permit except for removal of trees, with notification to the Planning Department, for one of the following purposes by the
Public Works Department, Parks Department, Fire Department and or franchised utilities:
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."
Buckshnis
This is phase 2. Bassically requires a permit for everything exept the two items noted.
Stage 2
23.10.030
Delete partB. (Not needed with above change to part A) New part B. "B. 1. Application Fees. Permit application fees will be assessed
for permits to remove significant trees, except no fees will be charged for permits solely for the removal of a significant tree on an
improved single-family lot that is not suitable for subdivision." "B.2. Significant Tree Removal Fee. Significant tree removal associated
with a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be assessed a [$2,000 to $5,000] fee for each significant tree
removed. The fees will be placed in the Tree Fund established in Section 3.95."
Buckshnis
Phase 2. Related to permits on all properties.
Stage 2
23.10.040
Delete entire Section 23.10.040 Exemptions. (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)
Buckshnis
Stage 2
23.10.040
Delete the blue (new change) as growth above topped line of previously topped trees are inherently weak and dangerous to
structures and/or people and animals who end up underneath at the wrong time.
Olson
Stage 2
23.10.040
A. Delete exemption from subsection (or otherwise modify to meet goal of reducing canopy loss and cutting of significant trees)
I. Johnson
Stage 2
23.10.040
A. Delete this exemption
Buckshnis
Q
Packet Pg. 184
9.1.c
Tree Code Amendments 2021
Stage
Code Number
Change
Councilmember
Explanation of Amendment
E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management
of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management
— Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or
planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they
have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone and pruning will be undertaken only to the extent
Addressed 3.2
23.10.040
necessary for public safety and tree health, with the goal of reversing damage from initial topping.
L. Johnson
Change/simplify this section to read as follows: "Removal or alteration of a significant tree is prohibited except as provided in a permit
Stage 2
23.10.050
issued by the City of Edmonds."
Buckshnis
If the above amendment approve is not approved Add E. Tree removal on developed lots is to be limited to no more than 3 significant
Stage 2
23.10.050
trees in a 24-month period beginning on the date of the issuance of the permit for tree removal.
Buckshnis
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the
development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention and protection
plan in conjunction with the following applications:
o In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention plans will
require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided
3.2 amendment added "tree retention and replacement plan". Staff missed adding the
in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation
language in some other sections of the code but will do so on the next version.
of viable identified trees.
Meanwhile, no harm; it's easy for staff to indicate to applicants that the required plan is
Addressed 3.2
23.10.060
Paine
the same.
Addressed 3.2
23.10.060
A. Add "and tree crown diameter;" to DBH measurement
Paine
Stage 1
23.10.060
A.5 Delete exemption
Buckshnis
B. Add "Describe and on show on maps exactly where replacement trees will be planted including location and description of
Stage 1
23.10.060
alternate site and evidence of landowner approval for replacement plantings on the alternate site."
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.060
B.2.c.iv Change to "Description of any hazardous tress including location and basis for hazardous determination."
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.060
CA change to 50% retention of significant trees (regardless of type of development)
Buckshnis
D.1 Eliminate long list priorities and change to read:
"Groupings of significant trees that form tree canopy and wildlife corridor must be retained to the maximum extent possible."
Stage 1
23.10.060
Buckshnis
B.2a,b,c Add requirement that the tree inventory, site plan, and arborist report must include trees outside the development boundary
Addressed 3.2
23.10.060
and having a critical root zone that extends into the development area.
Buckshnis
3.2 amendment added the critical root zone language on adjacent trees.
B.2.b.ii Add and location of any neighboring properties (a) significant trees abutting subject property line and (b) shared groves
Potentially covered by the 3.2 amendment regarding canopy and critical root zones of
Addressed 3.2
23.10.060
(surveyed locations may be required).
I. Johnson
trees on adjacent property.
C. Divide this section into multiple "Districts" within the city to acknowledge that tree retention requirements in the Bowl should not
Stage 2
23.10.060
be the same as in the Seaview or Firdale Village neighborhoods.
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.060
C.4 At beginning of sentence, add "In addition to the tree retention requirements noted above, every significant tree..."
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.060
D.1 Add (f) Development Services may require site plan revisions in order to preserve Priority One trees on the site plan.
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.060
D.2 Add (f) Development Services may require site plan revisions in order to preserve Priority One trees on the site plan.
Add F. For developing properties identified in subsection A of this section that have fewer than three significant trees, tree planting
shall be required to ensure that the site has trees that will be significant at maturity. An applicant subject to this subsection must
submit a plan that shows existing and proposed site improvements, including topography, and identifies the location, species, and
mature canopy of trees to be planted or retained that will result in the site having at least three significant trees per 8,000 square feet
of area. Where possible, native trees shall comprise some or all of the trees being planted. Trees to be retained shall be subject to
IThis
Addressed 3.2
23.10.060
ECDC 23.10.070. Site development must comply with the planting plan as approved by the City.
I. Johnson
change is captured in the 3.2 change to 23.10.060.C.5
Stage 1
23.10.070
In opening paragraph, add "...and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC23.10.060.8 shall be protected from..."
Buckshnis
Q
Packet Pg. 185
9.1.c
Tree Code Amendments 2021
Stage
Code Number
Change
Councilmember
Explanation of Amendment
Stage 2
23.10.080
Change/simplify this section to read as follows: "Every significant tree removed 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." "Significant trees removed from a watershed where residential views of Puget Sound
and/or the Olympic mountains are an established real-estate marketing priority for that area of the watershed may be replaced with a
different tree species that doesn't grow tall, or the same species replacement trees may be planted in a different watershed or a City
Park."
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.080
B.1. Add ",as determined by City arborist or other certified arborist."
Olson
Addressed 3.2
23.10.080
(or perhaps a new section for "Minimum Tree Planting Requirements") — Add provision that a minimum number of trees are required
to be planted on all development parcels. The number of trees will be a function of the zoning, e.g., min 3 trees for small parcels, and
min 6 trees for large parcels.
Buckshnis
Addressed by 23.10.060.C.5
Stage 1
23.10.80
E. Delete E. Tree Replacement Fee In -lieu (All significant trees removed should be replaced with same or similar species tree - no
exception!)
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.080
E. Change opening sentence to "After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree retention and/or
replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer may apply for a
fee -in -lieu exemption to the tree retention/replacement requirements. A tree replacement fee shall..."
Buckshnis
Stage 1
23.10.080
E. 1. Strike "$1000" and replace with "$350" (the cost to buy and plant a replacement tree per Parks staff)
Olson
Stage 1
23.10.080
E.1 The amount of the fee shall be $1000 350 for trees under 10.1 "and $1000 for trees over 10.1 multiplied by the number of trees
necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
Distelhorst
Please see Columns D&E
Stage 1
23.10.100
2. C. Change to 8" diameter
Paine
Stage 1
23.10.100
C.2.f In last line change "and required..." to "and/or required..."
Olson
Stage 1
23.10.100
2. D Change to $1000 per tree less than 8"diameter and the appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter.
Paine
Stage 2
23.10.120
New Section - Add section for incentivizing retention of trees on developed parcels and on parcels being developed. Include storm
drainage fee credit at various levels depending on the tree canopy cover on the property.
Buckshnis
Stage 1
3.95.040
3. Add and health, including canopy data collection and analysis;
Paine
Stage 1
3.95.040
A. Add (7) Public Works capital improvement infrastructure upgrade projects to enhance public rights of way with additional tree
planting, improved sidewalks, etc.
Buckshnis
Stage 1
3.95.040 Council talked about at early meetngs on the tree code about adding something regarding purchase of forested areas to this section.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 186
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
23.10.020
Definitions
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
23.10.090
Bonding
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.110
Liability
20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation,
protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees
This includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan;
D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the
residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and
aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of
trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
v
r
c
m
E
a
c
m
E
U
a
r
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 1 of 16 Q
Packet Pg. 187
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of
development.
J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic
and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease,
danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and
K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
K-.L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which
the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures
taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchv to avoid and minimize the impacts. undertake
site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to
PXCPP(i the IOSS_
23.10.010 Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.020 Definitions
A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Canopy — The leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top.
C. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH.
D. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
E. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
F. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
G. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective OF expesed-by
Feeent reelmle-val A-fad-Jaeent trees 40.ghieh Make-,; at subject to a high pFebability ef failuFe as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
H. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
I. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 2 of 16
Packet Pg. 188
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
J. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
K. Native Tree — Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being
well -suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains
a partial list of species that are considered native trees.
L. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
M. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and
protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction.
N. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
O. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
Q. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional...
R. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries.
S. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 3 of 16
Packet Pg. 189
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
U. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
V. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.
23.10.030 Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. 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. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for:
That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:
Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 4 of 16
Packet Pg. 190
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
for these trees alone provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public
safety or tree health.
Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.
23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC
23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except
as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree
replacement may be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following
applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-
family house, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the
existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 5 of 16
Packet Pg. 191
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to
development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees.
B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention and
protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to
prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense.
2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall
contain the following information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
corresponding tags on trees);
ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter;
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short
subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed
improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and protection
plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties
where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the
subject property (surveyed locations may be required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an `X' or by ghosting out;
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080
and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 6 of 16
Packet Pg. 192
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
those in a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention and Protection Plan that
addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
A new Tree Retention and Protection Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of
the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is
known subject to all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
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
Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area
hazard tree.
3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
4. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 7 of 16
Packet Pg. 193
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
5. For developing properties identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A that have fewer than three significant
trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three
trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space,
wetlands or creek buffers.
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to
utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may
be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting
the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity.
23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following
standards:
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 8 of 16
Packet Pg. 194
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
B. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the
applicant shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum
"Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for
code enforcement to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the director authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 9 of 16
Packet Pg. 195
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.080 Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3)
replacement trees are required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 10 of 16
Packet Pg. 196
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all
tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including
arborist reports as necessary, the developer may apply for a fee -in -lieu exemption to the tree
retention/replacement requirements. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to
approval by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be
required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site
location.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the
tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
2-3. For each significant tree greater than 24" in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the
tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current
edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required.
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved
tree retention and protection 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. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with
this provision.
23.10.090 Bonding
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 11 of 16
Packet Pg. 197
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements
and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following
required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to
ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The
maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in
subsection B.
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
buffers.
23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
C. Penalties:
1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 12 of 16
Packet Pg. 198
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree
Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar
growing conditions.
The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in
the absence of the violation(s).
If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified
arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and required tree replacement.
Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require
necessary corrective action within a specific time.
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC.
23.10.110 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 13 of 16
Packet Pg. 199
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT A
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 14 of 16
Packet Pg. 200
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT B
20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that
a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet;
b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet;
c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and
d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced.
Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling
units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and
widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements
of the zoning district in which it is located.
Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total,
coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for
the zoning district in which it is located.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city codes and standards.
C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with
design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC
23.10.085.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 15 of 16
Packet Pg. 201
9.1.d
ATTACHMENT C
3.95 Tree Fund -6;
c
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established °
r
R
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund." a,
a�
m
a�
3.95.020 Funding Sources
3
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: z
0
A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC. N
B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC.
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and
a�
D. Other monies allocated by the City Council E
a
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the
city:
1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds;
2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional;
3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health;
4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational
purchases;
6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee.
C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC
23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting.
v
r
c
m
E
0
.r
Q
c
m
E
t
U
0
r
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 16 of 16 Q
Packet Pg. 202
10.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Update on Trends and Data from Alliance for Housing Affordability
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Preparer: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) is a countywide organization that started in 2013 under an
interlocal agreement among many Snohomish County jurisdictions, including the City of Edmonds. It is
based on work originally begun by Snohomish County Tomorrow. AHA focuses on providing housing -
related technical information and assistance to jurisdictions. For example, in cities' last major
Comprehensive Plan update, AHA staff provided profiles for each jurisdiction with data about local
housing issues/data needing to be addressed by state law.
AHA is managed by a joint board, consisting of one elected official representative from every member
jurisdiction. For Edmonds, the current elected official is Council member Luke Distelhorst. The board
meets quarterly.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the information
Narrative
At the City Council's March 23 meeting, the AHA Program Manager (Chris Collier) will present data on
countywide housing needs, with some information specific to Edmonds. The AHA presentation slides,
along with a one -page explanation of data sources, are attached.
Attachments:
Housing_lnfo_AHA
Data.Source.Memo
Packet Pg. 203
10.1.a
Edmonds Regional
Housing
Chris Collier
AHA Program Manager
City of Edmonds
3/23/2021
Packet Pg. 204
10.1.a
Background
• AHA comprised of local jurisdiction in Snohomish County
• AHA's role to provide data & analytics, technical expertise &outreach
• Assist cities in understanding housing affordability shortage
Please reach out & ask questions, learn more, help me help you!
Packet Pg. 205
In One Slide: Regional Context
2003, 6263 Total surplus '
housing units, 2000-2003
2003, 935 More Units
Built than New
Households
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Housing Stock
0
Annual Total
zi
E
O
4
r
c
.N
O
x
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2 0
a
Packet Pg. 206
In One Slide: Regional Context
10.1.a
2020 5525.001 c
2020, $1,550
0
x
L
2020, $121,90!
c
a
2019, $92,781 a
E
0
L
N
C
N
L
0
Q
a
x
a
0
4-
c
c
.N
0
x
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2 0
Housing Stock E
A
Annual Total a
Median Sale Price Median Income Required Income Avg. Rent
° 30- ear term, 10% down mt., 26% DTI, real property tax fi ures Packet Pg. 207
Income requirement based on sale price, assumed 3.5/° interest, y p p p y g
Occupation: 25t" Pct — 501" Pct
10.1.a
f h $107k
+#
+-
LakeStet'ens
r $97k
i x
+, -~ $111 k�f
- Everett
' $78k �4 $127k
a. ! Snohomish �
$172k - r $101k
_ , j ;+'.
.'R
l Mukilteo
$12 2 k
Administrative Law Judge: $110k — $132k
Physicist: $104k - $130k
Emergency Mgmt. Director: $95k - 115k
Audiologists: $77k — $92k
...and so on.
1.5M occupations pay <$85k/year median
in the Puget Sound region.
.r IA/hn 6u IA/hara?
$132k
L �
$172k $82k-
L}nrmood
$114 k
L,Inlonds CJ+
$122k $137k
+ } MoantFake
way .j •4 Terrace - +
$176k
$137k SFR
x $750k $560k $519k $751k $729k $458k $445k
� BolffekE I
TH/Cndo
L�4 $439k
$290k $597k* $545k $459k $280k $396k
3
0
_
0
C
a
0
4
0
N
H
C
0
CL
a
C
$5001
0
a�
E
$3601
a
I Packet Pa. 208 L—
Income requirement based on sale price, assumed 3.5% interest, 30-year term, 10% down pmt., 26% DTI, real property tax figures
Pogo Soond
LakeStevens� --- �-
$1,502
i Mukiltao
!
�i.
jo ! �t
$1,358
lrj
$1,451
4y ,
Ly n nw cod ..
`ry
$1,484 4 r
Terrace + r
JI S5
L
$1,313 �f
r�
Everett
!ip
$1,504
Mill CFeek j
�e' I
� Bolhekl I
�k
10.1.a
.y
3
0
w
C
a
0
0
N
.� (Annual Income / 12) *03 = Monthly Affordable Rent
...and so on.
H
0
In the Puget Sound region...
-a
1991-520 (85.8%) of Office & Admin Support roles cannot affordably pay $1450/mo rent.
a
_
451600 (46.7%) of Educational Instruction occupations cannot affordably pay $1450/mo for rei oI
531130 (54.3%) of Educational Instruction occupations cannot affordably pay $1680/mo for rei =�
WhO-MEMO
0
r
mp I
Occupation: 25t" Pct — 50t" Pct
Chemist: $58k
— $79k
$1,458 -
$1,963
Plumber: $56k
— $79k
$1,401 -
$1,976
Graphic Designer: $57k
— $72k
$1,444 -
$1,790
Marriage & Family Therapist: $43k
— $51k
$1,077 -
$1,276
1B Rent $1,358
$1,451
$1,484
$1,504
$1,502
$1,313
$1,436 a
2B Rent $1,646
$1,752
$1,722
N/D
$1,723
$1,497
$1 Packet Pg. 209
Let's Combine Incomes
Cohabitation has become more common among 5- to .3 year -olds.
Living Arrangements of young Adults Ages 25 to 34
100 Percent
81.5
80
60
40
Living Wth spouse
40.3
0 14.8
Living with partner
0.2
0
1968'70 `75 `80 185 190 195 2000 r `lo 115 '18
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 1968 to 2018.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 210
Let's Combine Incomes
Police/Sheriff
Firefighter
Architect
Accountant
Curator
Middle School Teacher
$87,220
$85,850
$78,480
$77,080
$66,390
$70,360
Carpenter $63,460
Marriage Therapist $51,060
IncomeReq. for Loan
Arlington $99,915
Edmonds $158,711
Eve rett $104,172
Granite Falls $901177
Travel Agent
EMT/Paramedic
Security Guard
Receptionist
Floral Designer
Waiter/Waitress
Cashier
.y
3
O
• •• _
L
O
Sheet Metal Worker $64,970
CU
Industrial Machinery I
Mechanic $64,510 4
r
Heavy Equipment Mechanic $64,680
Inspector/Tester/Weigher $61,630
L
Machinist $54,040
O
a
r
Welder $55,680 Q
Automotive Mechanic $50,330 a
O
Barista $28,280 General Maint./Repair $45,970
PEW
Income Req. for Loan income Req. for Loa:
O
as
$54,490
$42,770
$32,720
$36,300
$34,090
$33,320
$29,840
Lake Stevens $104, 743
Lynnwood $121,256
Marysville $100,227
Mill Creek $168,206
2
MLT $124,140
Mukilteo $162,314
a
Snohomish $120,602
Stanwood $102,369 1Packet Pg. 211
Getting Built.?
Edmonds
SF MF1-49 MF50+
2006 51 111 0
2007 26 65 0
2008 2 67 69
2009 -1 7 0
2010 13 25 0
2011 8 35 60
2012 17 0 0
2013 14 0 0
2014 27 58 0
2015 40 4 0
2016 32 32 128
2017 42 41 91
2018 49 11 0
Count F 320 456 348
%of totall 28.5% 40.6% 31.0%
Uninc. Snohomish County
SF
MF1-49
MF50+
3,136
252
0
2,326
391
88
1,194
357
0
1,076
112
0
1,059
247
0
1,167
325
88
1,300
700
480
1,239
655
691
1,338
472
51
1,521
516
70
1,485
675
0
1,499
682
0
972
1387
0
19,312
6,771
1,468
70.1%
24.6%
5.3%
Regional Totals
SF
MF1-49
MF50+
13824
5075
3728
10,940
5,639
8,010
5,586
3,225
7,871
4,528
1,159
2,104
5,680
1,933
2,926
5,465
2,043
4,913
7,031
2,666
9,126
7,619
3,287
8,924
6,866
4,912
8,896
7,241
4,962
13,468
7,864
5,916
10,221
7,928
6,505
10,643
6,840
6,666
12,982
97,412
53,988
103,812
38.2%
21.2%
40.7%
a
Packet Pg. 212
What Doc
• Protection from change only ensures unaffordability for our children
• Seniors struggle to downsize
• Homeowners &renters are both overleveraged &vulnerable
1
SnoCo 1,970 2,845
Edmonds 49 103
3,091
1,588
746
487
456
39
7
25
42
11587
91
60
29
15
20
1
0
4
2
79
7
O
2
L
O
4)
ci
C
E
O
L
4
0
N
C
O
L
C
O
2
M
Q
Q
a�
O
4-
.N
O
C
d
E
M
V
r
a
Packet Pg. 213
10.1.a
Alternative(s)?
• Create homeownership options for incomes >$90k — requires $0
subsidy
• Create market rate housing options for $50k/y incomes
• Create? You mean the city builds housing?
• Let's say allow, instead of create.
• ALLOW. Current zoning must explicitly allow, otherwise it isn't.
• Supply takes a while, meanwhile... other tools available.
Packet Pg. 214
'Change
Str..
1
s the only constant
Heraclitus
Thank You
Chris Collier
AHA Program Manager
10.1.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Edmonds City Council
FROM: Chris Collier, AHA Program Manager
DATE: 3/23/21
SUBJECT: 3/23/21 Data Background
Dear Councilmembers,
This memo is submitted to provide a brief background to data sources used in the presentation on
3/23/21 to the Edmonds City Council.
The goal of these data sources is to provide a common, apples to apples comparison for municipalities
and the region in understanding the regional issue of housing (un)affordability. It is understood that
using a regional lens will in fact not accurately describe any city. What this does show is the
fundamental truth that any further analysis will only reveal more clearly: income progression is being
rapidly outpaced by cost increases in housing. While this trend, again, does not accurately describe any
one city, it does explain the regional context that all Snohomish County cities exist in. As no city exists
outside of the regional context, and all cities' futures are indelibly tied to regional success or failure,
information in this format is a critical piece of understanding the puzzle we all face on this issue.
The data sources described below are ordered by source, with notes on slides where they are used.
Puget Sound Regional Council:
• Municipal permit survey (2000-2018), an annual survey by PSRC of municipal units created by
structure density (Slide 3, Slide 8).
Office of Financial Management:
• April 1 population intercensal population count, change divided by avg. household size. (Slide 3)
• April 1 housing stock count, intercensal estimate, 2019-2020 (Slide 3). (Used to fill out data not
yet generated by PSRC's permit survey data)
St. Louis FED: Snohomish County Median HH Income, adjusted for inflation. (Slide 4)
Dupre & Scott: Avg. monthly rental price, all unit types (Studio — 31311), all Snohomish County, adjusted
for inflation, 2000-2017 (D&S closed December, 2017). (Slide 4)
Commercial Analytics: Avg. monthly rent price, all unit types (Studio — 31311), all Snohomish County,
adjusted for inflation, 2018-2020 (billed as a replacement for D&S). (Slide 4, Slide 6)
Snohomish County Assessor's Office: All Property Sales
• Slide 4:
o Property Code: 111-115 (Single Family Detached, 1 (111) to 5 (115) structures).
o Sale Qual Code: Q (Qualified Sale)
o Exclusions: Address listed as "Unknown" or left blank
• Slide 7:
o Property Code: 111-115, 116, 141-143 (SFR, Townhome (116), Condo units (141-143)
Packet Pg. 216
10.1.b
o Sale Qual Code: Q
o Exclusions: Address listed as "Unknown" or blank
o Run for every AHA Jurisdiction
■ City filtration done by address keyword search (e.g., "Edmonds, WA") + filtering
out parcels sold when in a "SNC" (Snohomish County) coded zone.
• Slide 9:
o Property Code: 111-115, 116, 141-143
o Sale Qual Code: V (Forced Sale)
o Exclusions: Addresses listed as "Unknown" or left blank
o Edmonds figures arrived by filtration of address ("Edmonds, WA), + filtering out parcels
sold under "SNC" zone.
Alliance for Housing Affordability:
• Slide 4, Slide 7: Required Income
o Using aggregated real sale price from filtered County Assessor's Office (see above)
o PMT function to calculate principal + interest, assuming 30-year term, 3.5% interest,
10% down payment
o PITI calculated based on real property tax values & assumed 1:1000 ratio of insurance to
assessed value on structure, aggregated
o Required Income calculated by PITI divided by Debt to Income (DTI) ratio (stand in for
other household obligations, household credit rating, other financial particulars).
o DOES NOT include non -legally obligated debts like childcare, food, transportation.
Bureau of Labor Statistics:
• Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates — Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue (Slides 5-7)
o Note 1: Data covers Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties. Used to view regional
employment and wages relative to local housing costs, noting —47.6% of Snohomish
County workers work in King or Pierce County. 44.5% work in Snohomish County.
(USCB LEHD On The Map estimate, 2018).
o Note 2: Occupations chosen to reflect occupations that are not clearly tied to a specific
local area or district.
• CPI-U Western Region (Slide 4).
Packet Pg. 217
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Outside Boards and Committees Reports
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be added to the end of the Council meeting packet for the
last meeting of the month.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from Councilmembers
Distelhorst, Buckshnis, and Olson.
Attachments:
MIN_SCT SC 012721
WRIA 8 DEI Strategic Plan —Formatted
W8_SRC_031821_Meeting Minutes
EDC Minutes Feb 2021
Port 2-8-21-MINUTES
Packet Pg. 218
Stanwood Darrington
Snohomish County Tomorrow
A GROWTHMANAGEMENTADVISORY COUNCIL
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
1�
14
19
17
A
21
22
23
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Via Zoom
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
Participatinq Jurisdictions/Members
Tulalip Arlington
Tribes
Granite Falls
Marysville
Everett Lake Stevens
Mukilteo Mill Creek
Lynnwood Snohomish
Edmonds Mountlake Monroe
Terrace Sultan Gold Index
Noodwav Brier Bothell Bar
Arlington
Barbara Tolbert, Vice Chair
Bothell
Liam Olsen
Darrington
Dan Rankin
Edmonds
Luke Distelhorst
Everett
Liz Vogeli
Granite Falls
Matt Hartman
Lake Stevens
Brett Gailey, Co -Chair
Lynnwood
Julieta Altamirano Crosby
Marysville
Kelly Richards
Mill Creek
Brian Holtzclaw
Monroe
Heather Rousey
Mountlake Terrace
Bryan Wahl
Mukilteo
Bob Champion
Snohomish
John Kartak
Snohomish County Executive
Dave Somers, Vice Chair
Snohomish County Council
Jared Mead
Snohomish County Council
Nate Nehring, Co -Chair
Stanwood
Patricia Love
Sultan
Russell Wiita
Town of Woodway
Mike Quinn
Citizen Representative
Mike Appleby
Citizen Representative
Peter Battuello
Citizen Representative
Melissa Blankenship
Citizen Representative
Alicia Crank
Citizen Representative
Michael Finch
Citizen Representative
Linda Hoult
CAB Representative
Phil Lovell
Other Attendees/Presenters: SEE LAST PAGE
ADD SUMMARY OF POLLS
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Co -Chair Nate Nehring.
1.a. Introductions/Roll Call
Roll call was taken (as listed above).
5. Briefings; SCT Annual Assembly
a. Milestones
Page 1 of 7
I 11.1.a I
a
Packet Pg. 219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Co -Chair Nehring displayed the SCT Milestones for September 2019 — December 2021.
b. Josh Brown; Trends in Traffic, Aviation, Population and Employment
Mr. Brown explained that his focus would be on pre- COVID-19 trends because the data since the
pandemic's start is in continuing flux. The trends leading up to the pandemic were:
• Our region was one of the fastest growing in the U.S. last year
• Snohomish County was one of fastest growing counties in the U.S.
• The Puget Sound region was fast growing in transit; far ahead of other metro areas in the
U.S.
• In the land use arena, multifamily developments, including condominiums, townhouses
and more traditional multifamily, had really taken off
• There had been record growth at SeaTac airport; it was the eighth busiest airport in the
U.S.
While there was a drop in many things when COVID-19 hit, housing values have continued to
increase, and the stock market is doing well.
Many pre -pandemic trends would probably accelerate post -pandemic such as: 1) disruption from
technology (e.g. how meetings occur), 2) retail as a key contributor to local government and the
need to fill old shopping malls with something other than retail, and 3) health (possible
continuation of new habits like washing hands, wearing masks in airplanes, etc.)
Mr. Brown pointed out some trends to watch looking forward:
Transportation:
• Transit; while commuter service into downtown Seattle has decreased with people
working from home, people who do not have other options will contribute to transit
rebounding
• Traffic; freeway levels are already up to 80-95% of pre-COVID levels
• Ongoing collaboration on planning in Snohomish County, such as the work on Link Light
Rail, will result in coming out of the pandemic with an effective game plan. The planning
that we have done in this county will make us competitive.
Housing
• We need to look at our options for supplying the missing middle
• We need housing that is in between tall buildings and single-family housing. It is an
opportunity for single family builders to ramp up to townhouses.
Aviation
Studies pre-COVID-19 showed that demand was growing faster than population growth
in the Puget Sound Region. This trend implies that once the vaccine is distributed broadly
domestic travel will expand.
Original forecasts showed there would be a deficit in airport capacity by 2027; with
COVID-19 that might be pushed back 4-5 years but no more than that
Capacity cannot be solved by Paine field; a 3rd facility in the south sound is needed
Social Equity
• The issues brought to light last year have been driven by government policy, (e.g. HUD's
historical funding policies, policies on who could get home and college loans after WWII)
• PSRC is implementing several initiatives
o GEAR (staff training with other agencies across Western Washington on race
and equity)
o Establishing an Equity Advisory Committee who will seek meaningful input into
the work we do by enlisting not just the usual PSRC committee members
o Regional Equity Strategy; input to next round of comprehensive plan updates
Data
Page 2 of 7
Packet Pg. 220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
43p9
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6.
• PSRC will do pre-COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 "snapshots" of data across all the work
they produce
• They will use an equity "lens" to develop data to guide public policy decisions
He closed by saying that Snohomish County has already been able to come together and that will
contribute to our recovery.
c. Russ Elliott; Changed Demand on Infrastructure as Result of Teleworking
Mr. Elliott said he has been working with many Snohomish County representatives to bring
broadband here. The State Broadband Office started in 2019 and has the most aggressive goals
in the country - to reach 150 Mbps up and down. Urban areas in the state have the good
broadband service but as population density lowers outside urban areas, providers do not have
as much interest in ensuring service. The question is how to get providers' attention and
encourage investment. His office approaches that through partnership and enlisting the
community into discussion.
There is a need to install infrastructure that will be the right scale, sustainable, and usable in the
future. Then we need to maximize funding opportunities and service providers. Finally, it is
important to get the projects ready and in a position to capture funding. His office has had
success with that strategy; they recently got USDA funds for Point Roberts (just south of the
border with Canada).
He recommends that our communities identify their areas of need and then approach his office
for help to get funding.
He also encouraged participation in the State Broadband Survey. Survey results so far show that
we have good access along the 1-5 corridor, but it drops further away from the freeway. Under 25
Mbps is inadequate broadband service; 63% of the people responding to the survey have less
than that. (For example, the Frontier Airpark documented their poor service and the state, as a
result, is helping.)
Plans for 2021-2023 include hiring a digital equity officer to incorporate "best practices," and
address language barriers.
He suggested that the next steps for his office and Snohomish County communities are: 1) fill out
the survey at broadband.wa.gov, 2) identify "shovel ready projects" for funding applications, 3)
hire a Broadband Office Digital Equity Manager, and 4) design and implement a Digital Equity
and Inclusion program.
His presentation can be viewed here.
d. Chris Mefford; State of Economy, Regional Recovery
Mr. Mefford gave the Assembly an update on the Economic Alliance Snohomish County's
transition.
In discussing regional recovery, he predicted that once the vaccine is widely distributed and the
pandemic brought under control then economic productivity should start to open up.
He noted that there was a steep spike in unemployment at the start of the pandemic.
Unemployment is low as of November 2020 (4.8%), though that figure probably does not reflect
people that are underemployed. If recovery occurs at a similar pace as previous recoveries, it will
take many months. He gave, as an example, New Orleans which took over a year to get much of
its businesses going again.
Last year due to the pandemic Snohomish County lost the most jobs in aerospace jobs.
Government, education, health, and retail jobs were also lost. The highest loss in occupations
were in management, construction and extraction, food preparation and serving, production,
office and administration support, sales and related. These occupations are in sectors where
employees could not work from home.
Page 3 of 7
Packet Pg. 221
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Our near -term goals should be to: 1) make it safe to work (or play), 2) make it safe to get to work,
and, 3) make it safe for our family while at work (e.g. childcare). The economy needs the
vaccination rates to accelerate and the governor to tweak the phases, so they serve the
economy.
Longer term expectations are that major employers will drive the recovery and small businesses
will follow. Restarting the economy will be slower than desired but people will want to get out of
the [home] office. Key indicators to watch include air travel, hotel occupancy, and convention
attendance. He predicted that the Seattle area will lead the country with tech and competitive
advantages. Within the region, cities must show a plan to scale and accommodate growth, or
they will lose out.
e. Question and Answer
Audience members posted questions for the panelists. The questions, along with the panelists'
answers follow:
Question: Can we leverage broadband infrastructure with other infrastructure needs? Russ Elliott
replied that would be a critical thing to do.
Question: Can we expect reverse commutes into Snohomish County as well as changes in
living/purchasing patterns afterwards? Josh Brown replied that those changes are happening
now. Reverse commutes have to do with major job centers. People go both directions already
Question to Chris Mefford: Having worked now in Snohomish County [as interim CEO of EASC]
do you see any opportunities for the county? Mr. Mefford replied that in Seattle the hot topic is
business taxing levels. The business climate is poor, and the County can take advantage of that
to be more competitive.
Question: Do PUDs have [capabilities to help install broadband infrastructure]? Russ Elliott
replied that the challenge is to not overbuild private infrastructure. PUDs can be a big part of the
equation in supplying infrastructure, but they are not recognized by the federal government as
being part of the communication sector.
Question: If [governments] laid some of the infrastructure [would it encourage] private suppliers of
broadband to invest more? Russ Elliott explained that there should be a policy of "dig once."
Every subdivision should have pipes installed for broadband along with the other infrastructure it
installs. It is more expensive to dig up streets again later to install broadband.
Question: Regarding the business climate in Seattle and the region; what are the cons for the
region of that climate? Chris Mefford replied that Washington's tax structure, particularly the
Business and Occupation (B & O) tax, is confusing. There is no awareness of how to use B & O
incentives because of the way those incentives are established. It is a dysfunctional tax and holds
recovery back. It needs to be addressed to enable business recovery.
f. Summary and Closing
Executive Somers closed by noting that incidents, like floods, wreak havoc but then open
opportunities e.g. for housing, workforce and broadband. Boeing has said it is not going to walk
away from their Everett facility, and the Cascade Industrial Center is progressing. He is optimistic
about the future and looking forward to working with all the jurisdictions here tonight.
The audience gave feedback via polls. (The first poll, launched at the beginning of the Assembly,
identified the role that audience members played in their community.) In the second poll 72% of
the audience reported that the Assembly was better than expected.
When asked via the third poll what they would like SCT programs to address in the future they
reported (highest numbers of votes at the top of the list):
• Affordable Housing & Missing "Middle"
Page 4 of 7
Packet Pg. 222
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
• Transportation congestion — challenges and solutions
• Economic Recovery
• Homelessness
• Transit including light rail
• Annexation
• General growth issues
• Buildable Lands Report including vacant land availability
• Growth Targets (population and employment)
• Airport & Aviation including Regional Airspace Capacity
8. Next Meeting Date
February 24, 2021; 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by Vice Chair Dave Somers.
All presentations given, discussions held, and actions taken at this meeting are kept on file (via recording) in PDS until six years
from December 315t of this year.
Page 5 of 7
Packet Pg. 223
Presenters, SCT Staff
SCT Coordinator
Cynthia Pruitt
EASC/CAI
Chris Mefford
PSRC
Josh Brown
WA State Dept. of Commerce, Broadband Offc.
Russ Elliott
Other attendees:
City of Arlington
Paul Ellis
City of Arlington
Marc Hayes
City of Arlington
Michael Hopson
City of Arlington
Debora Nelson
City of Arlington
Jan Schuette
City of Arlington
Ashleigh Scott
City of Arlington
Don Vanney
City of Arlington
Michele Blythe
Dick McKinley
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
City of Bothell
Liam Olsen
City of Bothell
Michael Kattermann
City of Bothell
Jeanie Ashe
City of Brier
David Marley
City of Brier
Valerie Rosman
Community Transit
Roland Behee
Community Transit
Ric Ilgenfritz
Community Transit
Deb Osborne
City of Darrington
Reed Rankin
Edmonds
Phil Lovell
City of Edmonds
Diane Buckshnis
Edmonds School Board
Carin Chase
City of Everett
Cassie Franklin
City of Everett
Nick Harper
City of Everett
Scott Bader
City of Granite Falls
Thomas FitzGerald
City of Lake Stevens
Kim Daughtry
City of Lynnwood
George Hurst
City of Lynnwood
Corbitt Loch
City of Lynnwood
Nicola Smith
City of Lynnwood
Art Ceniza
MBA
Dylan Sluder
City of Marysville
Tom King
City of Mill Creek
Tom Rogers
City of Mill Creek
Mike Todd
City of Mill Creek
Stephanie Vignal
City of Mill Creek
Benjamin Briles
City of Monroe
Brad Feilberg
City of Monroe
Rich Huebner
City of Monroe
Deborah Knight
City of Monroe
Ben Swanson
City of Monroe
Stacy Criswell
City of Monroe
Tyler Christian
City of Mountlake Terrace
Erin Murray
Page 6 of 7
0
Q.
m
d
r
E
E
0
U
c
L
0
m
m
:a
N
O
N
I -
cm
0
U
U
z
c
m
E
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 224
City of Mountlake Terrace
Steve Woodard
City of Mountlake Terrace
Kyoko Matsumoto -Wright
City of Mukilteo
Jennifer Gregerson
City of Mukilteo
Louis Harris
City of Mukilteo
Steve Powers
City of Mukilteo
Andrea Swisstack
Naval Station Everett
Rima Blackwell
Naval Station Everett
Glynis Casey
PSRC
Ben Bakkenta
PSRC
Nancy Grennan
Seattle
KIRO Radio
Silver Lake Water and Sewer Dist.
Curt Brees
Sound Transit
Peter Rogoff
City of Snohomish
Judith Kuleta
City of Snohomish
Tom Merrill
City of Snohomish
Glen Pickus
City of Snohomish
Linda Redmon
Snohomish
Jeanine SanClemente
Snohomish
Alice Armstrong
Snohomish
Heidi Johnson
Snohomish
Tony Niolu
Snohomish County
Angela Ewert
Snohomish County
Garth Fell
Snohomish County
Linda Hjelle
Snohomish County
James Henderson
Snohomish County
Ken Klein
Snohomish County
Jay Larson
Snohomish County
Doug McCormick
Snohomish County
Michael McCrary
Snohomish County
Barbara Mock
Snohomish County
Tom Teigen
Snohomish County
Max Phan
Snohomish County
Stephen Toy
Snohomish County
Steve Dickson
Snohomish County
Josh Dugan
Snohomish County
Tiffany Kelly
Snohomish County
Mary Jane Brell Vujovic
Snohomish County
Eileen Canola
Snohomish County-Camano Assoc. of Realtors
Cami Morrill
Snohomish County Council
Megan Dunn
Snohomish County Council
Stephanie Wright
South County Fire
Thad Hovis
Snohomish County PUD
Brenda White
Snohomish County Transportation Coalition
Brock Howell
City of Stanwood
Jennifer Ferguson
City of Stanwood
Kevin Hushagen
City of Sultan
Christina Sivewright
City of Sultan
Jeffrey Beeler
Tulalip
Julia Gold
Washington State Dept. of Commerce
Valerie Smith
City of Woodway
Brian Bogen
Page 7 of 7
0
Q.
m
d
E
E
0
U
c
L
0
m
m
:a
N
0
T
N
I -
cm
0
U
U
z
c
m
E
z
c�
a
Packet Pg. 225
WRIA 8 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Subcommittee
Strategic Plan
I. Vision Statement:
Since 2000, 28 local governments in WRIA 8 and representatives from businesses, community
groups, residents, state, and federal agencies have partnered to recover endangered Chinook
and other salmon species in the watershed. As the most populated watershed in Washington
State, WRIA 8 is dedicated to restoring watershed health for the benefit of salmon and people
and to strengthening our commitments to diversity, equity, inclusion, and environmental
justice.
Our vision is grounded in an understanding that salmon recovery and values of diversity, equity,
and inclusion are fundamentally inseparable. Recovering salmon takes working together and
ensuring those contributing to and benefitting from salmon recovery reflect the diversity of
communities in the watershed. Maintaining and expanding involvement of all people in the
watershed and empowering diverse perspectives better equips us to tackle the complex
challenges we face in salmon recovery efforts. We recognize recovering salmon requires long-
term commitment, and efforts to engage and inspire a next generation of salmon recovery
leaders are critical.
Restoring salmon habitat benefits human health and well-being by protecting and increasing
open space, reducing flood risk, improving water quality and quantity, improving stormwater
management, increasing recreational opportunities, and helping mitigate impacts from climate
change. We acknowledge our role and responsibility to affirm and advance environmental
equity and justice and are committed to advancing equitable distribution of the benefits and
burdens in setting and implementing salmon recovery priorities throughout the watershed. By
advancing equity in recovery outcomes, we open the door for increased and more innovative
opportunities to restore the whole watershed for salmon and people.
II. Tribal Land Acknowledgement:
The WRIA 8 watershed has comprised the traditional homeland of Coast Salish peoples from
time immemorial. We hold deep gratitude and respect for the historical and ongoing self-
determination of Tribes to steward the water, land, and natural resources. As defined in the
Point Elliott Treaty (1855) and reaffirmed in the Boldt decision (1974), the Muckleshoot,
Suquamish, and Tulalip Tribes hold treaty -reserved rights to fish, hunt, and steward resources
in their usual and accustomed territories in the watershed and marine nearshore. WRIA 8 is
committed to supporting tribal treaty rights in recovering sustainable and harvestable salmon
stocks that, in turn, sustain tribal fisheries and cultures.
Packet Pg. 226
III. Goals:
1. Achieve equitable and intentional distribution of resources, benefits, and risks of WRIA
8 salmon recovery work.
2. Identify and address barriers that may prevent diverse and inclusive participation in
WRIA 8, so we reflect all people in the watershed and benefit from a richness of
perspectives, experiences, and skills.
3. Center environmental justice in opportunities and outcomes of WRIA 8 salmon
recovery.
4. Ensure WRIA 8 provides culturally appropriate and accessible opportunities
and information for the communities we serve.
5. Support tribal treaty rights in recovering sustainable and harvestable salmon stocks
that, in turn, sustain tribal fisheries.
IV. Definitions for DEI Related Terms:
Diversity: Demographic representation and appreciation of individual, social, economic, and
cultural differences based on race, ethnicity, gender expression, sexual orientation, national
origin, socio-economic status, age, educational background, abilities, religious beliefs, and other
factors.
Equity: A state, quality, or ideal of being fair and just. The principle of equity acknowledges
certain groups have systematically and historically been excluded or marginalized and that
fairness or justice is needed to balance access to opportunities and resources for all groups
Inclusion: A state, quality, or ideal of being a part of a group or structure where the inherent
worth and dignity of all people are recognized and respected. More than diversity and
numerical representation, inclusion involves authentic and empowered participation, full access
to opportunities, and a sense of belonging and of feeling valued.
Equality: A state, quality, or ideal of being the same or equal. Equality aims to promote fairness
and justice, but does not account for systemic inequities, differing needs, or circumstances. For
example, equality in resource distribution can perpetuate current inequities and injustices that
exist and have been created by policies, practices, prejudices, and biases. For the purposes of
WRIA 8's work to advance DEI, the definition of equality is included as an aspiration.
Environmental Justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless
of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This includes using an
intersectional lens to address disproportionate environmental and health impacts by
prioritizing highly impacted populations, equitably distributing resources and benefits, and
eliminating harm.
Packet Pg. 227
Intersectionality: A term to describe complex and cumulative ways multiple overlapping
categories of identity can impact individuals and institutions and to account for these cohesive
identities when working towards diversity, equity, and inclusion.
V. Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Subcommittee
A. Purpose - Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Subcommittee:
• Develop Strategic Plan to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in WRIA 8 salmon
recovery.
• Provide recommendations to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council and committees
• Lead implementation of DEI strategies and actions.
• Ensure continuous learning, partnerships, ongoing engagement, evaluation, and
adaptation.
B. Ground Rules:
• Listen actively: Respect others when they are talking, seek to understand, actively listen
before responding.
• Speak your truth: Share from your own experiences instead of generalizing ("I" instead
of "they," "we," and "you").
• Disagree without discord: Do not be afraid to respectfully disagree or challenge one
another by asking questions, but please debate and challenge ideas and not the
speaker. Approach differences with a perspective with curiosity, not argument.
• Participate to the fullest of your ability: This subcommittee will be most effective when
we hear every individual voice. Also, step back and share the air if you tend to dominate
conversations.
C. Initial Strategies
• Establish a WRIA 8 SRC Subcommittee to create and implement WRIA 8's DEI vision.
• Revise grant funding applications and review criteria to strengthen DEI principles in the
grant round process and funding decisions and outcomes.
• Incorporate DEI principles in WRIA 8 communications and outreach.
• Strengthen connections between WRIA 8 and community groups and organizations
focused on environmental equity and justice.
Packet Pg. 228
D. Strategy Roadmap with Example
Roadmap purpose: Lay out the steps to operationalize and achieve our goals. Start with
goal (endpoint) and work backwards to identify and implement strategies. Define SMART
objectives to track whether we are achieving desired outcomes.
Example strategy: Revise grant funding applications and review criteria to strengthen DEI
DrinciDles in the Brant round process and fundine decisions and outcomes.
Associated WRIA 8 DEI goals:
1. Achieve equitable and intentional distribution of resources, benefits and risks of our
salmon recovery work.
3. Center environmental justice in opportunities and outcomes of WRIA 8 salmon
recovery.
SMART objectives (Specific/measurable/achievable/relevant/timebound actions associated
with the strategy; 1-5 per strategy):
Objectives - DEI Subcommittee
Objective 1: By Jan 2021 incorporate revised DEI language into WRIA 8 supplemental
application materials and ranking criteria, and review language with project
subcommittee after the grant round. Appraise how the language revisions
worked to engage with a wider breadth of projects that strongly support DEI
goals, support projects that prioritize our DEI goals, and whether funding allocation
better fit with equity goals than in the past? Further revise language based on
feedback.
Objectives - WRIA 8 (SRC and Committees)
Objective 1: Strengthen DEI expertise and input in grant review process during
the 2021 grant round. Provide that feedback to applicants and the WRIA 8 Project
Subcommittee.
Objectives - External to WRIA 8
Objective 1: Encourage project sponsors to include DEI in their proposals and
work (signaling to people this is important — central value of the organization to
facilitate more of this work).
Objective 2: Capacity building and more broadly advertise the opportunity and recruit
new applicants. Reach out and support applicants in submitting proposals.
Packet Pg. 229
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 11.1.c
Zoom Video Conference I I January 21, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m.
Members
Present
#
Name
Affiliation
1)
Councilmember (CM) John Stokes, Chair
City of Bellevue
2)
CM Mark Phillips, Vice -Chair
City of Lake Forest Park
3)
CM Tom Agnew
City of Bothell
4)
CM Bruce Dodds
City of Clyde Hill
5)
CM Diane Buckshnis
City of Edmonds
6)
CM Victoria Hunt
City of Issaquah
7)
CM Neal Black
City of Kirkland
8)
CM Adam Morgan
City of Mill Creek
9)
CM Varisha Khan
City of Redmond
10)
CM Ryan Mclrvin
City of Renton
11)
CM Keith Scully
City of Shoreline
12)
CM Susan Boundy-Sanders
City of Woodinville
13)
CM Ted Frantz
Town of Hunts Point
14)
CM Carl Scandella
Town of Yarrow Point
15)
Corinne Helmer
Cedar River Council
16)
Larry Franks
Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH)
17)
Kirstin Haugen
King Conservation District
18)
Tor Bell
Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
19)
Eric Adman
Sno-King Watershed Council
20)
John Sherman
The Boeing Company
21)
Gary Smith
Trout Unlimited/Water Tenders
22)
Connie Grant
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
23)
Mary Shustov
Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts
24)
Cleo Neculae
Washington State Department of Ecology
25)
Jordanna Warneck
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Alternates
Present
26)
Jeanne Zornes, Deputy Mayor
City of Bothell
27)
CM Kim Muromoto
City of Clyde Hill
28)
CM Laura Johnson
City of Edmonds
29)
CM Valerie O'Halloran
City of Renton
30)
Michele Koehler
City of Seattle
31)
Brandy Reed
King Conservation District
32)
Josh Thompson
Snohomish County
33)
David Bain
Sno-King Watershed Council
Other
Attendees
34)
Kenny Down
Citizen
35)
Janet Geer
City of Bothell
36)
Allen Quynn
City of Issaquah
37)
Richard Sawyer
City of Kenmore
38)
Rachel Konrady
City of Kirkland
39)
Mike Todd
City of Mill Creek
40)
Peter Holte
City of Redmond
41)
Tom Hardy
City of Redmond
42)
Kristina Lowthian
City of Renton
43)
Toby Thaler
City of Seattle
44)
Joanna Stodden
Environmental Science Center
2
c
m
E
M
Q
3of31
Packet Pg. 230
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 11.1.c
Zoom Video Conference 11 January 21, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m.
45)
Kelly Steffen
Environmental Science Center
46)
Larry Reymann
Environmental Science Center
47)
Eli Tome
Forterra
48)
Garrett Holbrook
King County
49)
Joan Lee
King County
50)
Judy Blanco
King County
51)
Denise Di Santo
King County
52)
Mike Burger
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
53)
Alexandra Doty
Puget Sound Partnership
54)
Tracy Banaszynski
Sno-King Watershed Council
55)
Ryika Hooshangi
Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts
56)
Miles Penk
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
57)
Stephanie Potts
Washington Department of Ecology
58)
Whitney Neugebauer
Whale Scout
59)
Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager
60)
Jason Wilkinson
WRIA 8 Project Coordinator
61)
Lauren Urgenson
WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator
62)
Carla Nelson
WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator
1) Call to Order / Introductions
Councilmember (CM) Mark Phillips (Vice -Chair) called the January Salmon Recovery Council (SRC)
meeting to order at 2:04 pm. Vice -Chair Phillips welcomed everyone and conducted introductions.
11) Public Comment — Kenny Down, citizen, spoke on behalf of his organization, Wooshh Innovations to
announce their interest in working with WRIA 8 and other interested partners to address improvements
to the fish ladder at Ballard Locks. Lauren Urgenson, WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator agreed to reach out
to him to discuss further.
III) Consent Agenda - SRC Meeting Minutes from November 19, 2020 were discussed.
Action: The Council unanimously approved the November 19, 2020 meeting minutes.
IV) Updates & Announcements
Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz (Jason M-K), WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager highlighted the following updates
• Puget Sound Regional Update —The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PS SRC) met on November 19.
The meeting focused on: Proposals to advance the concept of 'net ecological gain'; 2021 legislative priorities
update; approval of PS SRC's Funding Subcommittee recommendations; discuss ongoing challenges of
operations at the Electron Dam; and, presentations on conservation finance mechanisms.
The South Central Action Area Caucus met on December 2. The meeting focused on discussion of King
County's new approach to stormwater management planning and resource allocation; and a presentation
from King Conservation District on work to map tree canopy and assess its impact on stormwater runoff that
could serve as a resource for local governments.
• 2021 Grant Round Announcement and Schedule - The 2021 WRIA 8 grant round opened on January 5.
Please note key deadlines: Notice of intent to apply deadline (SRFB) is 2/1/21; Notice of Intent deadline to
apply (CWM) is 2/10/21; SRFB application deadline is 2/24/21; and CWM application deadline is 3/24/21. If
you have any questions, please contact Jason Wilkinson, WRIA 8 Project Coordinator
(iason.wilkinson@kin�county.�ov).
• WRIA 8 E-News — The December edition of the WRIA 8 E-newsletter included topics on climate impacts,
virtual community events, salmon in the news, and local conservation and restoration efforts. The next
edition is scheduled for release on February 26. Please submit topics by February 12 to Carla Nelson
(carnelson@kingcounty.gov).
4of31
Packet Pg. 231
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 11.1.c
Zoom Video Conference 11 January 21, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m.
• Ballard Locks Stoney Gate Valves update — At the end of last year, the Army Corps of Engineers completed
work to replace six failing large lock gate valves and machinery at Ballard Locks. This was the highest priority
Locks facility repair for improved fish passage.
• 2020 State of Salmon in our Watersheds report — The report released on January 15 from Washington State
Recreation Conservation Office provides details on the status of the state's salmon populations, habitat
restoration, and overall recovery efforts.
• WRIA 8 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) update — Since its inception late last fall, the WRIA 8 DEI
Subcommittee focused on incorporating DEI principles into revisions to the WRIA 8 grant round application
and ranking criteria. They are now working to complete their foundational work to finalize goals, vision and
identifying opportunities to expand communication efforts using the newly adopted WRIA 8
Communications and Outreach Framework.
Updates Discussion:
• CM Ted Frantz asked if the Locks Stoney Gate valves were fish friendly. Jason explained that being fish
friendly was a primary purpose for replacing them, and that these slow -fill valves will improve juvenile
fish passage.
• Chair John Stokes commented on recent statements of support for diversity and equity a consortium of
local businesses put in the newspaper. He suggested the DEI Subcommittee consider this statement in
developing WRIA 8's DEI vision statement. WRIA 8 staff will obtain and provide this statement to the DEI
Subcommittee for consideration.
• Alexandra Doty expressed the importance of equity and environmental justice for the State of
Washington. She noted that Puget Sound Partnership is supporting House Bill 5141, which establishes a
formalized and environmentally just body within their agency. Alexandra also encouraged the SRC to
attend Puget Sound Day on the Hill. Formal details are forthcoming; however, these virtual events will
happen every Friday starting in late April into May.
• CM Boundy-Sanders asked that the nexus between DEI and salmon recovery be made clear in the DEI
Subcommittee's work.
• CM Ted Frantz asked when the DEI Subcommittee will present to the SRC. Lauren Urgenson affirmed
that the subcommittee will present proposed vision, goals, and a strategy framework at the March 18
meeting.
V) Legislative Priorities Update and Draft Letters to State Legislators and Congressional Delegation — Jason
Mulvihill -Kuntz
Jason M-K reviewed the Governor's budget funding levels for WRIA 8's state and legislative priorities. He
then led the discussion for the Council to approve two draft letters conveying WRIA 8's priorities to (1) state
legislators, and (2) the state Congressional delegations. Jason also introduced the opportunity for SRC
members to meet with legislators and asked for those interested to contact him directly.
Legislative Discussion:
• CM Victoria Hunt asked if WRIA 8 has a legislative platform that jurisdictions should discuss. Jason M-K
explained that WRIA 8 does not currently hold a specific position on draft legislation but will be
requesting the SRC to consider a position on a short list of draft legislation to support in meetings with
legislators.
• Chair Stokes asked about the reduction in the funding amounts for salmon recovery budget programs in
the Governor's budget compared to what was requested. Jason remarked that in prior years, the
funding received for most programs has been nowhere near the request amount, and 2021 is the first
year where the Governor's budget includes the full amount requested for a couple programs. Jason
expressed that WRIA 8's priorities support the higher funding request amounts as they are based on
substantiated salmon recovery costs.
• CM Diane Buckshnis asked if WRIA 8 staff would draft a template letter for SRC partners to use to send
individual letters to their respective legislators. Jason M-K agreed to send a template.
5of31
Packet Pg. 232
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 11.1.c
Zoom Video Conference 11 January 21, 2020 2:00 — 4:15p.m.
CM Mark Phillips commented on the importance of sending the letters. He noted the Brian Abbott Fish
Barrier Removal Board budget being more than $20 million less than requested. He added that
successful fish passage improvement projects are a visible sign of work happening on the behalf of
salmon recovery and encouraged Council members to highlight the importance of salmon recovery as
well as their local restoration efforts in their letters.
Chair Stokes emphasized the importance for the jurisdictions to have individual conversations with their
local governments.
CM Victoria Hunt asked for more information on the scope of SB5220 regarding making state salmon
recovery grants exempt from business and occupation tax. Tor Bell explained that the bill is specific to
salmon recovery grants. The legislation is based on a multi -year conversation and he hopes that this bill
will provide non-profit groups some security assurances.
Action: The SRC unanimously approved to send the letters to state legislators and Congressional delegation.
VI) Final Draft Plan from Ecology -led Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committee in WRIA 8 —
Stephanie Potts
Jason M-K introduced Stephanie Potts from Washington State's Department of Ecology to present the
recommendations from the final draft plan developed by the Ecology -led Watershed Restoration and
Enhancement Committee (WREC) in WRIA 8, responding to the legislature's Streamflow Restoration Act
(RCW 90.94) passed in response to the "Hirst decision" to help address withdrawals from permit -exempt
wells and restore and enhance streamflows in watersheds around the state.
WREC Plan Discussion:
• Eric Adman asked if all projects listed in the plan were funded. Michele Koehler replied that they were
not, but they are eligible for funding since they are in the plan. Eric added that these are important
talking points that partners could use to advance projects.
• CM Susan Boundy-Sanders asked how a new well can be permit exempt. Stephanie referred to RCW
90.050 which lists types of wells that are exempt, including for small homes, gardens/landscaping and
small businesses. CM Boundy-Sanders then asked about the well approval criteria and who grants
approvals. Stephanie said Counties approve wells through building permits. She added that most
compliance is managed by educating landowners and businesses, then providing them the tools to
manage flows. CM Boundy-Sanders then asked about the trade-offs of using reclaimed, from the
Brightwater Treatment Plant for example, that is often warm to supplement streamflows. Stephanie
said that there are protocols in place to remedy the flow of this type of water, such as infiltration to
allow the water to combine with groundwater before returning to a stream.
• Chair Stokes asked about the plan's final approval process. He asked if one agency does not agree,
then the work and input from the committee process is not included in how Ecology proceeds?
Stephanie said this is correct. Chair Stokes added that he believes that it should be a locally approved
plan as it is a locally based process that is implemented through statewide rules. He noted he supports
having an approved plan, so the issue does not require a rule -making process at the state level.
VII) 2021 Meeting Themes and Priority Topics — Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
Jason M-K presented a compiled list of topics and key issues to inform what the SRC wants to focus on for
the year. Jason noted that it would not be possible to address the large number of topics, but that staff will
use this as a guide for topics to develop to bring forward to the SRC during the year.
2021 Meeting Themes Discussion:
• CM Ted Frantz indicated his interest in understanding the status of salmon populations in other
watersheds across a wider geography to compare with WRIA 8. He believes other experiences and
solutions could assist or inform WRIA 8's work.
6of31
Packet Pg. 233
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes 11.1.c
Zoom Video Conference 11 January 21, 2021 2:00 — 4:15p.m.
• Larry Reymann asked if the tire run-off flows from the 1-90 floating bridge go directly into Lake
Washington. Jason M-K confirmed he believes that is the case; however, newer bridge construction like
the SR 520 Bridge captures stormwater runoff. CM Buckshnis noted that stormwater runoff from the
older SR 104 structure by Edmonds Marsh flows right into the Marsh. Cleo Neculae offered to look into
the question of stormwater runoff from the 1-90 Bridge and report back.
• Chair Stokes said he believes WRIA 8 is in a good position to be more involved with other organizations
and integrate our findings on several of these topics. He noted the King County Clean Water Healthy
Habitat initiative and suggested WRIA 8 should seek to support and influence this initiative. As Chair, he
is motivated to find ways to assert WRIA 8's priorities into local government decision -making, especially
with land use and development.
Action: The SRC unanimously approved the 2021 meeting themes and priority topics.
Vill) Success Story: Salmon Heroes Program by Environmental Science Center — Kelly Steffen
Jason M-K introduced Kelly Steffen from the Environmental Science Center (ESC), who presented on the
Salmon Heroes program. Kelly provided insight on how the Salmon Heroes program adjusted its
programming in response to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions to continue serving disadvantaged south King
County youth. ESC created virtual content and distributed kits containing educational material to help youth
understand how to perform water quality and habitat surveys to determine if local rivers provide suitable
habitats for salmon. Kelly thanked the King County Flood Control District and the SRC for providing
fundingto support the Salmon Heroes program.
Environmental Science Center Salmon Heroes Program Discussion:
• Chair Stokes asked if the shift to a virtual format increased the number of students participating in
the program. Kelly confirmed that there is a potential to grow the student base even more now
that the program can run through the winter months since it is virtual.
CM Diane Buckshnis asked if ESC has collaborated with other organizations offering similar youth -
focused programming. Kelly said that they are open to collaborating and CM Buckshnis mentioned
the success of the CATS: Community Action Training School program as one example of a potential
collaborative opportunity.
David Bain added that Friends of North Creek Forest is taking a similar approach with virtual
material and outreach efforts. He said that their reach increased more virtually than in person.
IX) Next Meeting: Chair Stokes noted the next SRC meeting is March 18, 2021, 2:00 — 4:15 pm, via Zoom.
Meeting Adjourned at 4:20 pm.
7of31
Packet Pg. 234
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING
February 17, 2021
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Nicole Hughes, Chair
Darrol Haug
Jay Hoag
Kevin Harris, Vice Chair
Scott Merrick
Kevin Smith
Charlie Lieu
Carrie Hulbert
Evan Sittauer, Student -Rep
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
Jamie Reece, unexcused
LIAISONS PRESENT:
Greg Urban, Edmonds Chamber, ex officio
Vivian Olson, Councilmember, ex officio
Bruce Faires, Port Commissioner, ex-officio
Roger Pence, Planning Board, ex-officio
COMMISSIONERS/LIAISONS ABSENT:
GUESTS:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Patrick Doherty, Director
Megan Luttrell, Program Coordinator
Economic Development Commission meeting conducted via ZOOM and called to order by Nicole Hughes
at 6:02 p.m.
Call to Order and Land Acknowledgement
1. Roll Call and recognition of absences:
Jamie absent, unexcused.
2. Approval of Agenda:
Darrol moved to approve; Jay, seconded; motion passed.
3. Approval of January 20, 2021 Meeting Summary.
Darrol moved to approve, Kevin Smith seconded, motion passed.
4. Audience Comments: Nicole recognized an email from former Commissioner Matt Waldron. He was
contacting the Commission to bring up an issue back up that had been previously explored; moving City
services up to Hwy 99 and use for City Hall building.
5. City Update: Patrick shared that Council approved an Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community
Development Code to add Hotel as a permitted use on the waterfront. Daily Journal of Commerce has run
a front-page story regarding the change and recognized the Commission's work on this effort. New
VisitEdmonds.com is up and running. The City is working with Ed! to complement the VisitEdmonds.com
efforts. We're in a preliminary phase of a satellite City Hall on or near Hwy 99. A location has been
identified and preliminary research is being done; it is all contingent on Council approval. Services
provided might be limited but would offer additional accessibility to citizens. Roger emphasized the need
to have this effort be well planned out to lend to its success. Vivian suggested an opportunity for
volunteers to provide services for tutoring. Carrie suggested to staff it with people who speak different
languages.
6. Old Business
DRAFT Meeting Summary
Economic Development Commission
February 17, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 235
a. Data Collection & Analysis: Charlie has contacted and communicated with each Committee
lead and has gathered requests. Data Collection & Analysis Committee will meet last Friday of
every month and review and prioritize the requests that she has gathered. The most common
theme in requests are: how has to City changed over time? How has the demographics evolved?
How has the businesses community grown? Census data is one avenue to pull from. Darrol
mentioned that data can help guide the public perception. Charlie explained that she met with
the Mayor this week and he emphasized that the Commission is serving the Mayor and Council.
Charlie asked for clarification on the directive. Patrick explained that the Code indicates the
Commission serves the City leaders which encompasses the Mayor and Council. Kevin Smith
mentioned that after the Neighborhood group met, they discussed the light -rail coming; it would
be good from a data standpoint to understand how many homes are coming into the surrounding
areas and how that might affect Edmonds.
b. Neighborhood Districts & Business Zones: Kevin Smith shared that they have a standing
meeting every month. Their first meeting this month they discussed each district. They will meet
a second time this month to discuss priorities. Vivian feels it would be interesting to have some
cross -branding between the different business districts. Kevin S. mentioned they discussed
connecting with the owner of Firdale Village to discuss opportunity to redevelop. Patrick
explained that the Firdale Village zoning is very specific. Kevin S. shared that they have discussed
engaging the surrounding community to learn what they would like to see in Firdale Village. He
further shared that they discussed the potential at the SW corner in Perrinville. There are some
challenging requirements to develop that corner. If the post office moved that could be prime real
estate. Westgate and Five Corners are not likely to be redeveloped at this time but there could be
some zoning shifts that could provide some business attraction opportunities. Kevin S. solicited
input from seasoned commissioners that might have more background on some of theseareas.
Roger is interested in some of the micro -corners in the City (OVD & Puget; the five cornersbetween
Westgate and Firdale).
Kevin Harris recommended sharing Committee Meeting progress reports (or other forms of
communication) to the Commission in between meetings to allow the Commission an opportunity to more
effectively respond to Committee requests Commission feedback. Nicole added, right now we are having
reporting meetings, and this would lend to the opportunity to shift the meetings to be a working platform.
c. Edmonds Business Booster web portal: Kevin Harris shared the Edmonds Business Business
website and walked the Commission through the website content. The Committee is in the
process of conducting 1-hour interviews with content providers. Kevin H. will be synthesizing all
the notes into a report which can inform a future brainstorming session with all the content
providers to determine vision, barriers, gaps and how the portal can ensure the best 'user
experience'.. Scott shared the interviews have been insightful; there's lots of enthusiasm behind
the project. Patrick shared that for -profit businesses have contacted him to participate in the
website and we need to explore how to have private sector businesses participate in a public
platform. Carrie suggested seeking end user input to make sure the content is useful for their
needs. A lot of the content providers are regional, statewide or multi -state, not Edmonds centric.
d. Waterfront Center Opportunities: Nicole shared the spreadsheet the committee has been
working on. They are working on Idea Generations: evening educational programs; parking
partnership; pandemic emergence; how do we connect the dots between the open spaces and
the Creative District. The committee is brainstorming ideas to engage the community to the
Waterfront Center: advertising in other business districts, exploring ways to boost business
DRAFT Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 17, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 236
opportunities; thinking about how to tie events into the downtown businesses; retail pop -ups at
the Waterfront Center. Kevin H. asked that they check if teleconferencing is available for potential
virtual/hybrid presentations. Kevin Smith shared that he toured a couple months ago and
recommends that the committee tour the building. There's opportunity for people who are
working from home, to utilize the meeting space. Nicole requested that Patrick arrange an in -
person tour.
e. Parking & Shuttle Service: Darrol led the update and shared the committee has met twice. 20
years ago, parking was not an issue. The 2003 study showed that there was not much issue in
town: 350 permits total; now there are 750 employee permits and 850 resident permits. The
growing restaurant climate in downtown Edmonds draws more people to the downtown core.
There was a downtown parking survey done with 700 responses. The takeaway was residents
want to park near their homes and employees don't want to pay for permits. The idea of a shuttle
could be explored. What can the committee do in the short-term vs the long term? They can
gather information for Mayor, Council and citizens to understand where the parking was and
where it's at now. Carrie shared that Ed! is looking at additional afterhours parking. Jay
emphasized that the growth in the region is going to impact parking and now is the time to start
planning.
f. Communication & Info Flow: Nicole shared that the work they're focusing on is building a
framework for how to express their ideas and when to share recommendations with the Mayor
and/or Council. It's also time to plan a Council report.
7. New Business: None.
8. Extended Agenda and Idea Pipeline: None.
9. Liaison Updates (3 minutes per liaison) (12 minutes)
Vivian Olson (Council) shared that Council has been working on the Tree Code. As always, reach
out with any input.
Bruce Faires (Port) shared the north boardwalk and seawall consultants have been retained;
Makers and Landau. Project is moving forward although held up by permits that can take 3-5
years. They are building a new admin building across from Anthony's; the old building will be
demolished.
Greg Urban (Chamber) shared he's bringing a staff member back in March.
Roger Pence (Planning Board) had two items of interest to share. The Planning Board favorably
commented on the Interim outdoor dining Ordinance (on private property). They also supported
the Code Amendment to Broaden Applicability of the Unit Lot Subdivision Process. Public Hearings
will be held on both items next week and suspect they will be favorable. He will be doing a tour
of Waterfront Center tomorrow at noon if anyone wants to join.
11. Roundtable Discussion: Charlie is signing off. Jay, nothing. Evan, nothing. Kevin H. nothing. Carrie,
nothing. Kevin S., kudos to everyone and energized by the work groups. Darrol, ditto of what Kevin
S said. Scott, nothing. Patrick, nothing. Nicole, thank you for all the groundwork you've laid with
your appointing Councilmember to support the zoning change at the waterfront.
Adjourn at 8:15 p.m.
Next regular meeting: March 17, 2021, 6 PM location TBA
DRAFT Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 17, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 237
O
r
Q
DRAFT Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 17, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 238
L/UL,UJIYII mIVCIUFIC IU. JCL/ 10'F1'/-DVl, O-4Ml,.I-DI /r-I CI%..0 IrD\,YLU
PORT
OF
EDMONDS
PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
(Via Zoom)
February 8, 2021
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Angela Harris, President
David Preston, Vice President
Steve Johnston, Secretary
Bruce Faires
Jim Orvis
CALL TO ORDER
President Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
STAFF PRESENT
Bob McChesney, Executive Director
Brandon Baker, Marina Manager
Tina Drennan, Finance Manager
Brittany Williams, Manager of Properties and Marketing
OTHERS PRESENT
Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Harris announced that the Commission would hold an executive session following the regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED TO INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
B. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 25, 2021 MEETING MINUTES, AS SUBMITTED.
C. APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,893.93
COMMISSIONER FAIRES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
CONTINUATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 20-03 DECLARING LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Mr. McChesney reported that no actions have been taken under the Emergency Delegation of Authority.
Packet Pg. 239
LJUUU,D1 I I CI IvC uyt. ILJ. UC V 10'#lJ 1 -D l..l.rO-4Ml,.1 -D I I r-I C I I, %J I r DL.-FLU
STORMWATER STUDY
Mr. Baker introduced, Joe Kalmar, Landau Associates, Inc., the consultant who assisted the Port to conduct pilot
testing of a stormwater treatment device designed by the Port's Maintenance Manager.
Joe Kalmar, Landau Associates, Inc., explained that, from an experiment in the Boatyard, it was determined that
crushed oyster shells were very cost effective for removing copper and zinc from stormwater. The oyster shells were
placed in low-cost retrievable cartridges that were installed in the catch basins.
Commissioner Faires said he would be interested in knowing whether or not the treatment device has been shared
and/or implemented at other ports in the State of Washington. Mr. Kalmar answered that, many years ago, the Port
of Seattle discovered the use of oyster shells for stormwater treatment. However, instead of using oyster shells in
catch basins, they used the shells in a swale area where stormwater flowed through. Beyond this initial study, they
have looked at different ways to deploy the oyster shell in a more unique manner. In addition to Seattle, a number of
ports have incorporated crushed oyster shell into bioswales and retrofitted catch basins, but he hasn't heard of anyone
using the deployable cartridge that was developed by Mr. Menard.
Mr. Kalmar reviewed that a standard oil/water separator in the Boatyard was converted successfully to use crushed
oyster shell to remove copper and zinc, which are the two main parameters in the General Boatyard Permit for
stormwater discharge. However, this option required vactor truck servicing. To simplify the concept and enable its
use in a lot of other locations, Mr. Menard designed a retrievable cartridge that could be filled with crushed oyster
shells and deployed in storm drain catch basins throughout the Port. The cartridges are easy to retrieve to replace the
oyster shells and no vactor service is needed. He shared photographs and described how the cartridges work.
Mr. Kalmar advised that the purpose of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of the cartridges at three different
catch basins. Samples of water flowing into the catch basins were compared to samples of water flowing out of the
catch basins.
Commissioner Faires said it appears that stormwater is more or less passively accumulated and may or may not flow
through the oyster shell canisters as opposed to being pressure flowed through the canister. Mr. Kalmar agreed that
is the case. He explained that, at the boatyard, stormwater comes into the larger chamber and fills up behind a baffle,
and then the head pressure pushes the water through the baffle and outlet pipes. Unless there is overflow, all of the
stormwater flows through the oyster shell. That is not the case with the canisters. The study was designed to determine
if there would be enough contact for the oyster shells in the canisters to be effective at metal removal.
Commissioner Johnston referred to the photographs and asked if the cannisters had just been placed into the catch
basins or if he had been there for a while. Mr. Kalmar said that the oyster shell canisters had been in place for a while,
and the covers were pulled off for inspection. Commissioner Johnston observed that they look relatively clean, which
means that the sludge doesn't appear to be impacting the cannister conditions too much, which is good news.
Mr. Kalmar explained that initial tests found high metal reduction numbers for the stormwater that flows into the catch
basins versus stormwater measured at the outfall. However, the water going into the catch basins was pretty high in
metals and turbidity. The thought was that some suspended solids dropped out in the catch basins and the oyster shells
were good at taking up dissolved metals. However, there were questions about whether a large amount of pollutant
reduction was a result of the catch basin settling out solids. In the more recent test, the Port implemented more
aggressive best management practices (BMPs) for source removal before doing the testing so they could better assess
exactly how effective the oyster shell cartridges were at taking out metals. This latest source -controlled samples were
taken on June 12, 2020 and found that, with new oyster shells in the cartridges, copper was reduced by 68%, zinc by
72%, and turbidity by 81 %. Tests on the cartridges with oyster shells used over one year but cleaned by pressure wash
found that copper was reduced by 26%, zinc by 5 1 % and turbidity by 95%. From the study, he concluded that the
cartridges were highly effective when the oyster shells were replaced regularly, and decent removal occurred even
after a year of use.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February S, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 240
LJUUUJIIy1I CI IVwUp" IL/. JCL/ 10'+%-/ -D1.,1,.0-'4M1./-O/ / r-/ C/ l,U I r�l�'iLV
Mr. Kalmar summarized that, even with improved BMPs, the results are still higher than the benchmarks for both the
Industrial Stormwater and Boatyard General Permits. He commented that, beyond the cartridges being effective in
helping reduce metals, there is still more to be gained from aggressive BMPs to remove pollutants before they get into
the stormwater. These BMPs could include more frequent sweeping and inspections, identifying sources of erosion
and metals, etc. Moving forward, he recommended that the Port:
■ Continue to implement improvements in pollutant source control BMPs at the paved areas that the Port
manages that have moderate to high vehicle traffic.
Install oyster shell cartridges in catch basins at those moderate to high vehicle traffic areas, removing the
cartridges to pressure wash the shell once (following half the annual rainfall, 15-20 inches), and fully
replacing the shell with new crushed oyster shell after one year of use.
Commissioner Faires challenged Port staff to come up with a new prototype that would, under most conditions,
actually force the water through the canisters as opposed to letting the water passively soak in the oyster shells. The
mechanism could also allow water to be treated passively when overflow occurs. Mr. Kalmar noted that the Port of
Seattle figured out how to retrofit a catch basin where most of the water would be forced through the shell cartridge,
but more capital cost and effort would be needed to permanently retrofit the catch basins and vactor service would be
required. One advantage of the canisters is that they can be easily removed so the oyster shells can be replaced or
cleaned.
Mr. McChesney summarized that the cannisters are effective on the margin if BMPs and source control are followed.
However, they appear to have limited application for a citywide catch basin management program. Mr. Kalmar agreed
that the concept very likely goes beyond what municipalities would be willing to commit resources to on a citywide
basis. While the cannisters have been pilot tested, they could potentially contribute to safety hazards, such as road
flooding, if used in critical catch basins. Municipalities might be hesitant to apply the concept citywide as it could
add to the burden of flood response.
Commissioner Orvis observed that the Port has a unique situation, as they only have to deal with stormwater runoff
from parking lots. The City has catch basins that accumulate large amounts of silt and runoff from yards, construction
sites, etc. Adding the cartridges to City catch basins could end up clogging them almost immediately in some
situations. While the cartridges might be a very useful tool for the Port, it may not be an option for the heavily -debris -
laden water the City must deal with.
Commissioner Preston asked if the oyster shells filter out the oil that drips from cars. He also asked if quarterly
sweeping would be sufficient. Mr. Kalmar answered that quarterly vacuum sweeping would be consistent with the
Industrial General Permit. He said he works with a number of facilities who voluntarily implement a monthly vacuum
sweeping program because they generate a lot of dust and debris. He hasn't routinely inspected at the Port of Edmonds
enough to recommend an appropriate frequency, but quarterly vacuum sweeping is a standard BMP. Mr. Kalmar said
he believes the oyster shells are effective at removing small amounts of oil. The calcium carbonate in oyster shell is
well -suited to pick up the dissolved metals, but biochar would be better suited to absorb a lot of oil.
Mr. Kalmar referred to a recent study that found that toxins from vehicle tires in the surface waters in the state is
causing Coho salmon die -off. While metals have been found to be toxic to aquatic species, more research needs to be
done on how to remove this particular tire compound that is impacting Coho salmon mortality in fresh water.
Commissioner Faires asked if oyster shells would be a potential option for removing toxins found in tires, and Mr.
Kalmar answered that it is not likely, but it hasn't been studied, either. Commissioner Johnston asked if the Port could
anticipate having to respond to regulations to address these toxins at some point in the future. Mr. Kalmar said there
are discussions with tire manufacturers about removing this particular compound that breaks down with exposure to
ozone over time and gets into the stormwater runoff. They are looking at ways to improve highway runoff and expand
filtration until the chemical additive is removed from tires. He doesn't believe this will directly affect the Port.
Council Member Olson announced that the City's new sewer system that is currently under design will create biochar,
which is something the Port could start thinking about using as a resource. Rather than selling the biochar outside of
the City, it could be utilized by the Port. Mr. Kalmar commented that biochar is a good product for use in stormwater
treatment. However, because it is smaller granules, it would be difficult to make a filter that would hold it in a
cartridge.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February 8, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 241
VUL,U01Y1I CI IVtWpt/ IU. OCV / r-/ C/ %_kj IrDIJVLU
Commissioner Faires commented that replacement of the oyster shell compound would be more difficult in a bioswale
environment, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. He would welcome the City to take advantage of any learning
curve the Port has in this regard, but the implementation of oyster shells to absorb contaminants would be different
than bioswales because of the replacement difficulty and costs.
Commissioner Orvis asked if they should continue and potentially expand the oyster shell cartridge program within
the Port's property. Commissioner Harris summarized that the cartridges reduced both copper and zinc by a good
amount, but the numbers are still over the permit benchmarks. More needs to be done via BMPs to further reduce the
numbers. That being the case, the numbers are better than they would have been without the cartridges in place. Mr.
Kalmar agreed that the oyster shells remove a high amount of zinc and copper, but greater source control is needed to
reduce the amount of influent contamination. He felt it would be worthwhile to expand the program to other catch
basins on Port property.
Given the man hours required to remove and wash the oyster shells after six months, Commissioner Orvis suggested
it might be more cost effective to replace the shells every six months. Mr. Kalmar agreed that might be a more cost-
effective option since the oyster shells are not expensive. However, they should also keep in mind that more frequent
replacement would generate additional waste material. Commissioner Johnston asked if the spent oyster shells are
discarded as standard solid waste, and Mr. Kalmar answered affirmatively. Testing found that the discarded shells do
not meet the criteria for dangerous or hazardous waste.
Mr. McChesney recommended that the Environmental Committee meet to discuss potentially expanding the program.
The canisters seem quite useful for Port facility application. If the program pencils out from a cost-effective
standpoint, he would recommend expanding it to other catch basins on Port property. However, they need to discuss
the methodology for replacing or washing the shells on a routine basis. They also need to consider opportunities for
source control and good housekeeping in and around the catch basins.
PROJECT REPORT: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Mr. McChesney advised that Jackson/Main Architects (JMA) has completed a feasibility study to review the previous
design and permitting documentation intended for a commercial marina services building in the vacant lot on the east
side of Admiral Way. That concept didn't materialize and the project went fallow in 2019. The Shoreline Permit has
now expired. In the meantime, constructability became a serious issue as the North Portwalk and Seawall Replacement
Project started to move forward, and it is anticipated the majority of the work will need to happen from the shoreside.
That means the existing Administration/Maintenance Building will be in the way. The building is an obsolete,
concrete block structure, and staff has reached the conclusion that there is no cost-effective way to rehabilitate it. The
study was intended to test the idea of adopting the previous commercial marina services building design and using the
prior Shoreline Permit to construct essentially the same exterior design, but changing the interior to accommodate
administration, maintenance, and some commercial tenant space. If this can be done, the Port could proceed to move
administration and maintenance into a new building and demolish the existing block structure, making construction
of the North Portwalk and Seawall Project much easier and likely save some cost.
Mr. McChesney explained that, over the past month, Port staff has met with JMA and the City's Planning Department,
and it has been determined that the previous Shoreline Permit can be unexpired for this purpose, as long as the Port
doesn't change the building size or footprint too much. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process and
Determination of Non -Significance can also be reused. However, the new building will still be subject to Architectural
Design Board review before making application for a building permit. Another pre -application meeting with City
departments will be needed to review project elements. However, this is a standard process and should be mostly
perfunctory without any major changes or conditions.
Mr. McChesney announced that a pre -application meeting has been scheduled for February 25". After determining
final engineering or design requirements from the City, JMA will submit a scope of work and budget proposal for the
final design necessary to obtain building permits, including contract specifications ready to bid. Further, it is
anticipated there will be additional documentation for City building officials before permit issuance, such as a
geotechnical study and traffic report. He emphasized that the building would not exceed the height restrictions, and
the Port would like to pursue a Leadership Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified design.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February 8, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 242
L/UUUJIYII CI IV UlUptC IU. Jr-1-1 10'#l.. I I-O/ / r-1 c!%,u IrD%a+Z.0
Mr. McChesney explained that since SEPA has already been completed and the project is not within the City's Critical
Area designation vis a vis the Marsh, there should not be any environmental mitigation requirements. He summarized
that they have made good progress in a short amount of time. Because the design, engineering and permitting for the
North Portwalk and Seawall Project is expected to take 18 months or more, staff believes it would be feasible to move
forward with the new Administration Building while that is going on. He recommended they continue through the
design process. If it all goes well and the Commission approves, it is very likely that construction can begin by Fall
2021.
Commissioner Faires said he supports demolishing the present Administration Building and moving it across the
street. He recalled that a previous study of the existing building determined that it was structurally unsafe in earthquake
conditions and straps were put around the building. While this improved the safety of the building somewhat, it is
still unsafe in an earthquake condition. He also pointed out that demolishing the existing building would result in
available land on the waterfront. Before making a final decision, they need to study the financial results of the
proposed new configuration. In particular, they will need to study the use of the land where the present building is,
as well as the conditions under which the new building would be used. He said he supports the effort to make safe
the conditions in which staff is required to function and he is quite sure that the financial decisions relative to the
existing and new site can be worked out so that the Port will not be impacted financially in the future. Mr. McChesney
said that, at this time, he doesn't have even a rough order of estimate of what the new building might cost.
Commissioner Harris asked if solar power might be an option for the new building. Mr. McChesney replied that it
might be a wonderful opportunity to consider solar on the new building, as it would have a lot of sun exposure. He
agreed they should definitely consider the option as work moves forward. Again, he said the goal is to design a LEED-
certified building. Commissioner Orvis said he supports pursuing LEED certification, making the building an example
of what can be done.
Mr. McChesney said he anticipates receiving a scope of work and budget from JMA to go forward with the actual
design work soon, and he very much hopes the Commission can have an in -person retreat in the spring to discuss the
large projects in greater detail.
PROJECT REPORT: NORTH PORTWALK AND SEAWALL RECONSTRUCTION
Ms. Williams said that because the project is so cumbersome and lengthy, staff felt it would be good to provide
periodic updates to the Commission. She reviewed that the Commission approved contracts for the following project
consultants and engineers: CG Engineering, Landau Associates, Makers Architectural and Urban Design, The Harris
Group, and Harbor Engineers. She announced that all of the contracts have been finalized, and bi-monthly
coordination meetings between the Port staff and CG Engineer started on February 1 ". Different consultants and staff
members will be pulled into the bi-monthly meetings as needed.
Ms. Williams reported that at the February 1" Coordination Meeting they discussed the unique constructability of the
project, how access from the waterside will be limited, and how construction will need to take place from the land.
CG Engineering talked a bit about the new seawall location, and it is still undetermined if it will be in front or behind
the current seawall. They are taking it under advisement now, and when it is time to present ideas, they will discuss
the pros and cons of each location.
Ms. Williams said one of the first steps is a topographic survey; using DHS Surveyors, one of CG Engineering's
subcontractors. She explained that most of the consultants will rely on the topographic survey in order to do their
30% drawing sets. DHS Surveyors had APS out doing the utility locations on February 5` and 8", and DHS started
work today and will likely work through the week surveying the Portwalk and parking lot from both the land and a
boat. The turnaround time for their report is four to six weeks.
Ms. Williams advised that CG Engineering and Makers are in the process of applying for a pre -application meeting
with the City of Edmonds to learn more about the environmental mitigation requirements, fire department
requirements, architectural design requirements and specific permitting processes, fees and entitlements for the
project. At this time, they assume the entitlements will include a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February 8, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 243
UVI.U,DlyII CIIv CIVpC IU. icu / r-/ C/ %-kJ I rDl.'4LU
Architectural Design Board review, and potentially a Conditional Use Permit. Permitting is expected to include
building and civil construction permits, as well.
Ms. Williams recalled that an overview of the full schedule was shared at the last meeting. She noted that the current
focus is on the design and permitting phase. The consultants will have received the survey and a design kick-off
meeting will be held on March 11 "'. The consultants will have a few months to work on the 30% design drawings and
meet again on May 13" to coordinate. Staff will attend both of these meetings. Shortly after that, the designs will be
submitted to the Port for review and comment. Staff will continue the bi-monthly meetings with CG Engineering
throughout the process.
Ms. Williams provided a brief recap of the public access projects the Port has been and will be working on in 2021:
• The plaza cover is almost complete and it looks great. There is a nice slant that creates a good drainage
system, and lighting will be provided, as well.
• Work will begin on the north garbage enclosures soon.
• The plaza seating will be refurbished.
• New planter boxes will be installed in the south marina. The location and general dimension of the planters
has been determined, and they will discuss implementing the plan at the February staff meeting.
Mr. McChesney added that the garbage enclosures will be attractive, but not fancy. It is important to understand that
they will be demolished and redesigned when construction on the North Portwalk and Seawall Project starts. The goal
is to get them off the existing promenade and into a suitable enclosure. He noted that staff plans to install some
interpretative signs, as well.
Commissioner Faires asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated when the north garbage enclosures are
relocated. Mr. McChesney said it will likely require the elimination of four to six stalls.
Given that the north garbage enclosures will be temporary, Commissioner Faires asked what the permanent structures
will look like. Mr. McChesney answered that the design has yet to be determined and will be addressed as part of
Makers' work.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. McChesney reported that he had a nice chat with the owners of Puget Sound Express (PSE), and they are getting
excited about the new season and are already accepting bookings. Just last week, they asked the Port to do some leg
work for them in Olympia on Senate Bill 5330, which has to do with the rules for whale watching excursions. He
isn't sure how the hearing turned out, but the Washington Public Port Association (WPPA) attended the hearing. He
said Port staff is looking forward to working with PSE again this year.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Johnston explained that there were some unintended consequences of the Orca Task Force's request
for larger setbacks on the Southern Resident Killer Whales. The setbacks were extrapolated and applied to all marine
mammals, but that was not the task force's intention. All of the whale watching businesses were lumped into the same
pot, and Senate Bill 5330 seeks to differentiate between whale watching organizations that look at the Southern
Resident Killer Whales versus those that do not. The WPPA realized this was a big deal and they attended the hearings.
They reported the hearing was extremely well attended, with a lot of back and forth. It was one of the hot button
issues of the week, and it will be interesting to see where it ends up.
Commissioner Johnston said he attended the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County's (EASCs) Coffee Chat
conducted by Moss Adams on new tax regulations for individuals, corporations, etc. It was noted that taxes across a
wide spectrum will likely go up in the coming year.
Commissioner Faires asked if Commissioner Johnston would report to the Commission when final discussions and
negotiations on Senate Bill 5330 are complete and it is ready to go to the floor. Commissioner Johnston responded
that both he and the WPPA will track the issue and he will report back.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February 8, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 244
LJLPUUJIIJ. II CI IV CIuptC IL/. JCLiI041w/-DVl.0-•4M I-D/Ir-!G/%,U IF D1..'fLU
Commissioner Faires said he would attend the Edmonds Economic Development Commission meeting on February
17", but the agenda has not been published yet. He assumes it will be a continuation of reports on the priority issues
that were brought forward at the last meeting. He said he would provide a report at the next Commission meeting.
Commissioner Preston reported that he attended the Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association (DEMA) meeting
last week, and they are constantly trying new things. For example, some of the merchants have cupid stickers to
recognize Valentine's Day. They are also sponsoring a Localvore Passport Program where merchants offer product
packages for certain dollar amounts. They are talking about doing a virtual month -long Art Walk Program that would
feature local artists.
Commissioner Preston announced he would attend the next Edmonds Yacht Club sponsored Boater Safety Seminar
on February 10". The focus will be "weather."
Commissioner Preston advised that the City Council will discuss allowing hotels in the Waterfront Zone on February
9". He expressed his belief that the action will be irrelevant because it is not likely that the use would pencil out. At
their last meeting, Council Member Kristiana Johnston made some points about constructing a large building where
there is soil liquefaction. However, approval of the amendment would also allow small boutique hotels.
Although liquefaction is always raised as a concern with any development on the waterfront, Commissioner Orvis
pointed out that the Edmonds Yacht Club and the Waterfront Center have been successfully constructed and
liquefaction hasn't been a problem. He observed that everything below the ferry holding lanes is fill and will liquify
because it was all a marsh at one time.
Commissioner Orvis referred to the WPPA Legislative report and noted the following:
• The legislature has finally realized the biggest fight against broadband retail expansion has been big telecom
companies, each of which has pledged to expand broadband into rural and underserved areas. They have
never done it because it wasn't profitable enough. It looks like ports will eventually be allowed to sell
broadband, filling in the gaps in the rural parts of the state. The state's capability was overwhelmed when
over 1,400 people signed up to participate in the hearing.
• The WPPA is working to get ports included in House Bill 1253, which increases the Small Works Contract
Authorization to $500,000. This would be a significant change.
• The legislature is looking at carbon reduction in three ways: clean fuel standards, a carbon tax, and a fuel
tax increase. One of the big arguments is that only the fuel tax would dedicate the money to transportation,
and the other two would increase gas prices with no limit on where the money would go. Fuel taxes are, by
law, required to go to transportation.
• There are four or five very strong transportation packages, but because of the pandemic and other projects,
such as salmon culverts, there isn't money to do much in the way of transportation. In fact, the governor
originally halted projects that were already in construction, but he has since restarted all but a few of them.
• The Shoreline Armory Bill is geared towards preventing more residential armoring of the shoreline. There
is some concern the bill would also apply to ports, and WPPA lobbyists are fighting it.
• There is now concern in the legislature that alternative energy producers may not want to locate their facilities
in Washington because of regulatory uncertainty, which is not a surprise. People are concerned about the
future of the industry and the ability to attract those industries to the state because of uncertain environmental
regulations.
Council Member Olson announced that the City Council is currently working on a Tree Code. The current scope is
narrow and focused on development of new properties. Since the Port Commission always seems to have an eye
towards the environment, she invited them to provide feedback regarding the issue. While the City wants to encourage
development of affordable housing, they want developers to also be conscious of the importance of protecting trees.
Commissioner Faires referred to Commissioner Orvis' earlier comment about development and liquefaction of soils.
He recalled that this was an issue with Harbor Square, too. However, the Port found that two or three-story buildings
can be built on pads large enough to avoid piers. Development greater than three stories is possible, but will require
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February 8, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 245
UUUUJII,II CI IVCIUPU ILJ. JCV II-D I /r-! CfI,U IrDIJYLU
piers. Commissioner Johnston said most of the industrial area in Seattle, as well as the Port of Seattle property are
illustrative examples of buildings that are constructed on liquefaction. Billions of dollars of investment and high-rise
buildings have been built upon those conditions.
Commissioner Harris announced that the topic of the next EASC Coffee Chat will be "Mental Health Self Care."
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Commissioner Harris announced that the Commission would recess into an Executive Session that would conclude
by 8:40 p.m. The purpose of the Executive Session was to discuss the Port's Professional Services Agreement for
Legal Services. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, there will not be action taken by the Commission and
there will not be any announcements made. The regular meeting will be adjourned at the conclusion of the Executive
Session.
ADJOURNMENT
The regular Commission meeting reconvened and subsequently adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
OpcuSignod by:
43C72A$CBl E4424...
Steve Johnston
Port Commission Secretary
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
February 8, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 246
12.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/23/2021
Council Committee Minutes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A. For information only.
Narrative
The Council committee meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PPW030921
FC030921
Packet Pg. 247
12.1.a
PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
March 9, 2021
Elected Officials Participating Virtually
Councilmember Laura Johnson
Councilmember Luke Distelhorst
1. CALL TO ORDER
Staff Participating Virtually
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir.
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec. & CS Dir.
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
The Edmonds City Council virtual online PPW Committee meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Councilmember Distelhorst.
2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Public Hospital District 2 Grant ILA #2 - LEAP
Councilmember Distelhorst advised he will abstain from the discussion for reasons previously disclosed
Ms. Feser relayed this is the second part of the Learning Enhancement and Activities Program (LEAP)
that began October 2020. Expenses were covered by the federal CARES Act through the end of 2020.
The program with the Public Hospital District 2 (Verdant) providing 50% of the cost for January and
February 2021. The Finance Committee and Council previously approved an ILA for that funding. The
City applied for and received another $36,000 Verdant grant for to continue the program April through
June. Some of the LEAP programming is changing with Edmonds School District returning to in -person
education; however, support services for three days/week will be needed. Beginning March 1, the
Edmonds School District Foundation began providing free breakfast and lunch for eligible participants,
both weekdays and weekends. Staff recommends approval on the March 16th Consent Agenda.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Verdant for their continued support and Parks for their ingenuity
and perseverance. She agreed with staff's recommendation to forward this item to the Consent Agenda.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
2. Garden and Summer Market Event Contract
Ms. Burley relayed many larger festivals/events have reserved dates in August/September. The Garden
and Summer Market has a long standing history in Edmonds; last year it was deemed a priority by the
governor's office and Snohomish Health Department. Health and safety standards, which are monitored
by the Health District, shifted and evolved last year and she expected the same this year. The
agreement allows the market to utilize the right-of-way and other amenities such as access to
restrooms. The City's street team assists with placing no parking signs and traffic barriers. The contract
is drafted to include all the potential opportunities rather than the current guidelines as it is anticipated
those will continue to evolve.
Packet Pg. 248
12.1.a
03/09/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2
She relayed an internal team comprised of Police, Fire, Planning, Public Works, Parks and the City
Attorney have reviewed the contract and concur with the market layout and plan. Staff recommends
forwarding authorization for the Mayor to sign the special event agreement to the Consent Agenda.
Discussion followed regarding COVID-related sanitation of restrooms and appreciation for the COVID
clause in the contract.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda
3. Report on Construction Bids for the 2021 Overlay Program
Mr. English reported the City received 7 bids ranging from $760,596 to $941,232; the engineer's
estimate was $966,157. Central Paving provided the low bid, the same company the City used last year.
Staff is in the process of reviewing bid documents. As the bid was lower than engineer's estimate, there
may be opportunity for a supplemental contract for additional work. This contract covers street funded
by the REET Fund ($700,000) and the 112 Street Fund ($100,000) as well as funds from Water,
Stormwater and Sewer. A budget amendment may be required for additional Utilities funding. Staff
recommends forwarding award of the contract to next week's Consent Agenda. Construction is
anticipated to begin in May and be completed mid -summer 2021.
Mr. English described the City's experience with Central Paving who was new to Western Washington
last year. In response to a question, Mr. Williams described this year's overlay program compared to
previous years.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda
4. Report on Construction Bids for the Phase 11 Waterline Replacement Protect
Mr. English reported the City received 4 bids ranging from $1,522,684 to $1,636,428; the engineer's
estimate was $1,505,000. The low bid was provided by SRV Construction, a company the City has not
worked with since the early 2000s. Staff is in the process of reviewing the bid documents. Construction
is anticipated to begin late April/early May and extend into the fall. The $2.1 M in the 2021 budget will
be sufficient to cover construction management and management reserve. Discussion followed
regarding colors used in the map identifying the waterline replacement locations.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda
5. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Murraysmith for the Phase 9
Sewerline Replacement Proiect
Mr. English explained an RFQ was issued in 2019 to design a 2-year sewer replacement program. Four
engineering firms responded and Murraysmith was selected. Last year's base contract included design
of the 2021 construction program which will go out to bid soon. This supplemental agreement is to
design the 2022 program. The scope of work includes 4 sites which were selected from the 2013 Sewer
Comprehensive Plan as well as input from the sewer operations division. The supplemental fee is
approximately $420,000 which includes a $20,000 management reserve and will be funded by the 423
Sewer Utility Fund. Staff recommends forwarding to the Consent Agenda for approval. Questions and
discussion followed regarding lessons learned from previous projects, clarifying details with contractors,
and pipe replacement versus rehabilitation.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda.
6. Presentation of Professional Services Agreement Ph. 12 Waterline Replacement
Blueline Group
Packet Pg. 249
12.1.a
03/09/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3
Mr. English explained an RFQ was issued in 2019 to design a 2-year waterline replacement program.
Last year's baseline contract included design of the 2021 construction program; this supplement will
cover design of the 2022 program which includes 6,700 feet of pipe replacement in 5 sites. The
supplemental fee is $303,100 which includes a management reserve of $27,400 and will be funded by
the 421 Water Utility Fund. Staff recommends forwarding to the Consent Agenda for approval.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda
7. Job Order Contracting
Mr. Williams explained the 2019 legislative session allowed public agencies to use job order contracting
(JOC) for Public Works projects when a determination is made that the use of JOC will benefit the
public. He compared it to an ESCO project, but with a private company as the coordinator instead of a
state agency. The request of Council is to authorize issuing an RFP to select a company to create and
administer the City's program. The City could then have up to three JOCs under that company that
specialize in certain areas. There are dollar limits for individual contracts as well as an aggregate
amount; those amounts may be changed during 2021 legislative session although he did not anticipate
the City would reach those amounts initially as the intent is to start small. Benefits include getting work
out and completed more quickly and cost control.
He described the JOC process for developing project proposals. The price provided by the JOC is
guaranteed and is based on a national database, RSMeans, that has costs by region including the
Puget Sound area. Everett, Shoreline, Tacoma utilize JOC. Following the RFP, approval of the JOC
contract will come to Council. Questions and discussion followed regarding pros and cons of the
program; the City having complete control over how often the program is used, the type of projects, etc.;
projects not going out to bid; including more diverse businesses in the City's contracting and
procurement; including in the RFP or JOC contract their experience with diverse businesses; the JOC
administrator's requirement to follow the City's policies; and ability for the City to identify preferred
contractors.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda
Committee members and staff discussed next steps related to Perrinville Creek, reestablishing fish
connection with Puget Sound, culverts that need to be replaced (Talbot Road and under BNSF tracks),
RFQ for the PROS Plan update, Civic Park going out to bid on March 15th and bids due by April 8tn,
plans to repair the fishing pier, parks programming under the governor's latest guidelines, and
appreciation for outreach to the Youth Commission and the Diversity Commission regarding the PROS
Plan update.
3. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.
Packet Pg. 250
12.1.b
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
March 9, 2021
Elected Officials Participating Virtually
Councilmember Vivian Olson
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis
1. CALL TO ORDER
Staff Participating Virtually
Dave Turley, Finance Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
by Councilmember Buckshnis.
2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting Electronic Signatures Policy and Budget Authorization
Mr. Passey explained the City is allowed to use electronic signature platforms unless federal or state
law requires a wet signature. The primary intent is to use electronic signatures on outside contracts.
Electronic signatures must be given the same legal effect as a wet signature. Given changes in the
way public agencies are doing business during a worldwide pandemic, use of electronic signatures is
very commonplace. To use electronic signatures, an agency must first adopt a local policy. The
packet contains a boilerplate policy used by several other cities authorizing an electronic signature
platform. He favors DocuSign as they have the most market share among local government agencies.
The annual cost is $3200-$5200; he anticipated the City's needs could be met by the lower cost
product. He recommended adopting the policy on a future Consent Agenda. The cost will be included
in a future budget amendment.
Questions and discussion followed regarding DocuSign, effective date of the resolution, the policy as
an attachment to the resolution, resolutions are not codified, and the remote notarization policy.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda.
2. Job Order Contracting
Mr. Williams explained this item is authorization to issue an RFP to develop, implement and
administer a job order contracting (JOC) program for the City. Several other cities including Shoreline,
Everett, and Tacoma utilize JOCs. JOC was established as a procurement method by the legislature
in 2019. Once the City selects a JOC firm, there can be three JOC contractors that specialize in
certain areas. He described the JOC process for developing project proposals, explaining it is similar
to an ESCO project except the administrator is a private company working on the City's behalf. The
original dollar limits established by the legislature have been increased and are expected to be
increased against this year (current limits are $500,000 for a single job and $3M for the year). The
City likely will not reach those limits as the plan is to start small. The price provided by the JOC is
guaranteed and is based on a national database, RSMeans, that has costs by region including the
Puget Sound area. JOC would allow work to get started more quickly. He was not aware of any
downsides to the program. The purchasing policy was previously updated to allow JOC and a
presentation was made to the PPW Committee tonight. The contract for the JOC administrator will
come to Council for approval.
N
CD
0
M
O
U
U-
c
as
E
U
2
a
Packet Pg. 251
12.1.b
03/09/21 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
Questions and discussion followed regarding whether in-house staff could coordinate JOCs instead of
contracting for a contracting officer, benefits of a JOC overseeing smaller projects, and ability for the
City to try JOC and not continue if it doesn't work out.
Action: Schedule on upcoming Consent Agenda
3. January 2021 Monthly Financial Report
As there was not a lot to talk about for one month Mr. Turley provided background on the 1 % limit on
property tax increases, a limit that was enacted 20 years ago. He displayed graphs illustrating the
effect the 1 % limit has had on the City's finances:
• Graph of property tax growth 2010-2020 - actual collections versus CPI-U
o Conclusion: Property tax have grown slower than inflation
• Graph of sales and use tax growth 2010-2020 - actual collections versus CPI-U
o Conclusion: Sales and use tax have grown faster than inflation
Graph of collections compared to inflation (annual difference and cumulative difference)
o Conclusion: Sales tax revenue has made up for the dollars left on the table by the 1 %
property tax limit ($3M over 10 years)
Mr. Turley highlighted the following in the January 2021 Financial Report:
• REET: January budget was $195,000; actual was $625,840
• Sales tax: January budget was $661,963; actual was $774,198
Questions and discussion followed regarding reasons for increased sales tax, facilities maintenance
expense in late 2020, the City's investment portfolio, and new buildings with MFTE that do not pay
property taxes.
Action: Forward to upcoming Consent Agenda
4. PFD Financial Presentation
ECA Director of Operations Matt Keller, ECA Board Member and Chair of Admin/Fin Committee Rick c
Canning, Executive Director Joe Mclalwain, and EPFD Board President Dave Brewster were present. c
U
U_
Mr. Keller reviewed the EPFD Income Statement, highlighting 2020 total net surplus of $228,000,
sales tax revenue, grants received for capital projects, cost savings in payroll (staff's participation in a
shared work program cut payroll 30%), and contributions that exceeded budget and the prior year's
contributions. a
Q
Mr. Keller reviewed the 2021 Operating Budget which assumes reduced activity through September.
Revisions to the budget are anticipated due to changes in the state's phases, additional fundraising
activities, and grants. He reviewed the EPFD/ECA monthly cashflow projection for 2021 highlighting
revenue/receipts, expenses/disbursements, non -operating, and potential initiatives to eliminate
negative cash position.
Questions and discussion followed regarding bond payments, what constitutes other income, EPFD
not qualifying for a PPP loan as a municipal entity, potential for a SBA Shuttered Venue Operators
Grant, lead time required to book and market quality performances, plans for a spring fundraising
event, summer programming, and potential uses of the SBA grant.
Action: Information only. Committee requested the EPFD return to the April Finance Committee to
discuss refinancing 2012 bonds.
3. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Packet Pg. 252