2021-05-25 City Council - Full S Agenda-2876o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
MAY 25, 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
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2021
2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2021
3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2021
Edmonds City Council Agenda
May 25, 2021
Page 1
4. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
5. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Nancy Poznoff and Adrian Marchis
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing for the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (30 min)
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor (25 min)
2. Master Permit authorizing Placement of Small Wireless (Small Cell) Facilities in the City's Rights -
of -Way (60 min)
3. Process for Reviewing Housing Commission Recommendations (15 min)
4. Stage 2 Tree Issues (30 min)
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Outside Boards and Committees Reports (0 min)
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
May 25, 2021
Page 2
6.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of April 20, 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:
04-20-2021 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
6.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
April 20, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tern
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Mayor
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Angie Feser, PRCS Director
Phil Williams, PW Director
Rob English, City Engineer
At 6:00 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nelson. The Council
utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
The Council then convened in Executive Session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
ADJOURN
At 6:48 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
6.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of May 18, 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:
05-18-2021 Draft Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 5
6.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
May 18, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor Scott Passey, City Clerk
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council special virtual online meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Nelson.
2. INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION
INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR BOARD/COMMISSION
Council President Paine described the procedures for the interview and Councilmembers introduced
themselves. Councilmembers interviewed Richard Kuehn (responses in italics):
Councilmember Distelhorst: I'm curious if there is a Planning Board issue or topic that you are passionate
about. I cannot pick just one. In my line of work, much of which is demographics, there is so much growth
happening in Edmonds, the Pacific Northwest and the west coast. I am interested in the process and
ensuring I am pragmatic in my approach and bringing in as much information as I can. I like looking at
problems and ensuring we get the solution right.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: I am aware of the work you and your wife have done regarding ADA
accessible playgrounds. The viewpoint of ADA accessibility is lacking on the Planning Board; accessibility
is not just related to children but all adults. I have a six year old son with cerebral palsy. Prior to six years
ago, I did not notice the nuances that effectpeople with disabilities. I see them now, notjust how they affect
my family and my son. The ADA accessible Seaview playground does not mean it is accessible to everyone.
That is a perspective I can bring to the Planning Board. Being part of that community, I see what it means
not only to have a son with special needs but how other families are affected. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas: Walking around Edmonds you see things like tables blocking sidewalks, etc., nuances that able-
bodied people may not see.
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
Councilmember K. Johnson: You may not be aware but the Planning Board is also the Parks & Recreation
Board. There is an important update to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan this year which the
Board would be involved in and you have a role to play in that.
Councilmember Buckshnis: I appreciate all the work the Rotary did and the funding they secured. It's great
that you have a financial background because it is important to put dollar amounts to things. How did you
use those skills when working on Seaview Park and Civic Park planning? I did not do much related to
finances for Seaview Park, but I am involved in investments, finances, budgeting, risk assessment, etc. on
a daily basis in my job and I think that experience will be additive to this position.
Councilmember L. Johnson: What are the top issues in the City that you are most interested in or paying
the most attention to? Housing, inclusion, tree canopy, and helping to keep businesses afloat. My wife grew
up in Edmonds; I married into Edmonds. There are a lot of good things going on in Edmonds and I want
to do the right thing for the most people.
Council President Paine advised the Planning Board appointments will be approved on the Consent Agenda
during tonight's regular Council meeting.
2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR BOARD/COMMISSION
Council President Paine described the procedures for the interview and Councilmembers introduced
themselves. Councilmembers interviewed Judi Gladstone (responses in italics):
Councilmember Buckshnis: I've received a number of comments from citizens about this appointment.
Thank you for your hard work on the Housing Commission; from what I've heard, you were quite a vocal
member. How will you handle the Housing Commission recommendations coming to the Planning Board
since you were instrumental in many of the policies? I appreciated serving on the Housing Commission;
that was my foray into civic responsibilities in Edmonds. I have dealt with public issues during my entire
career and I pride myself on balancing the need for information and listening to different stakeholder views.
When I've worked on controversial issues, I am serving the public so it is my responsibility to consider
stakeholder views and information and ask good questions. When the Housing Commission was making its
recommendations, I kept asking for more analysis; the recommendations are just the beginning because
the Housing Commission did not have the time to dig into topics. I come to the discussion with a lot of
background information but I also know where the holes are in the analysis.
Councilmember L. Johnson: Thank you for your service on the Housing Commission; I liked your use of
the term civic responsibility. What are the top issues in the City that you are most interested in or paying
the most attention to? Being new to the local area, I have a tendency to look more state and national;
working on the Housing Commission made me look more locally. Topics I'm interested in are obviously
housing, but also the Climate Plan. There is a lot of relationship between issues such as trees, housing,
traffic, etc. I'm also interested in Highway 99 redevelopment as well as the issue of equity and how it is
woven into everything we do.
Councilmember K. Johnson: What is the relationship between Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Water
and Sewer? They are sister departments; the only thing they share is billing, other than that they are totally
separate. Councilmember K. Johnson: What are your views on single family home development in
Edmonds? Edmonds is predominantly single family, Edmonds is a bedroom community and that is a big
part of what Edmonds is. Councilmember K. Johnson: Should we transition away from single family
towards more dense development? The Housing Commission talked a lot about missing middle housing. I
learned a lot about how cities in the U.S. are shaped compared to Europe. There are two kind of false
choices, single family housing or big high rises with very little between. There is a need for more missing
middle housing that accommodates various income levels that are often priced out by exclusively single
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 7
6.2.a
family. Edmonds is about 63% single family and does not have much missing middle housing and I think
we need more of that.
Councilmember Olson: As someone who witnessed the Housing Commission meetings, Ms. Gladstone
was extremely well prepared and pushed for the right information to inform her decision and the Housing
Commission as a whole. I respect the job you did there and fully expect you will rise to the occasion of the
Planning Board position, and am excited for you to fulfill that role for the City.
Council President Paine advised the Planning Board appointments will be approved on the Consent Agenda
during tonight's regular Council meeting.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m.
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 8
6.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of May 18, 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:
05-18-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 9
6.3.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
May 18, 2020
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
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember 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. PRESENTATIONS
1. RESOLUTION HONORING THE LIFE OF NATALIE SHIPPEN
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recognized members of Ms. Shippen's family in the Zoom audience. She
read a resolution honoring Natalie Shippen and acknowledging that her contributions to the City of
Edmonds will be missed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 10
6.3.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she worked with Ms. Shippen over the years and although they didn't
always agree, they had a good relationship and found ways to work through those issues.
Council President Paine invited family members to speak. Sarah Shippen, Natalie's daughter, thanked the
Council for recognizing their mother. Our mom committed her life to advocating for the Edmonds she
loved. In 1942, at age 15, she moved with her parents from Montana. She attended the old Edmonds High
School (now the performing arts center), graduating in 1946. The high school later became Edmonds junior
high where all four of her children graduated. The creation of a performing arts center was also one of the
projects she advocated for and she happily attended the Cascade Symphony performances into the 2020
season. From an early age, she applied herself energetically to her interests. At Edmonds High, she was an
editor on the school paper and achieved a varsity letter in three sports. She attended the University of
Montana her freshman year, then transferred to the University of Washington, graduating in 1952 with a
degree in anthropology and a teaching certificate. She met their father, Herbert Shippen, a WWII veterans
attending the UW as an anthropology graduate student on the G.I. Bill and they married in Edmonds in
1953. Our father took a job in the territory of Hawaii where they started a family and moved back to
Edmonds in 1960, building a house on Euclid Avenue where she lived the rest of her life.
Ms. Shippen explained her mom had two great passions in her life, the great outdoors and local politics. As
a family, they hiked and skied all over the Pacific NW while growing up. After her children left for college,
she became a backcountry volunteer park ranger in the North Cascades National Park, living in the
wilderness for several summers. Her parents continued to ski and hike into their late 80s. Her interest in
local politics began in the 1960s with her membership in the League of Women Voters. Some of her
youngest brother's first words were, mama go to meeting? While on the Edmonds Council, she advocated
for underground wiring, corner parks, the hanging flower baskets, the fountain at 5t' & Main, building
height restrictions, music in the park, and maintenance of a publicly accessible waterfront. As adult
children, she and her siblings frequently helped her type and read her letters to the editor. This could be an
uncomfortable experience as she could be searingly direct in her opinions. She may have clashed with some
people in her spirited defense of her opinions, but it came from her love of Edmonds. She is missed and her
children appreciate growing up in Edmonds.
Council President Paine commented it was nice to get view from the family's side of the woman who
represented Edmonds so well. The difference that she made is visible.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she knew Natalie well; she was a rebel. She was very good friends with
her neighbor Janice Johnson and they often hiked and skied together. Natalie was extremely educated and
she pushed for transparency, listening to citizens, and protecting the environment. Councilmember
Buckshnis was saddened to hear of her passing; she left great a legacy and was a wonderful gem for
Edmonds.
2. 2020 PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT
7:08 Jim Zachor, Zachor and Thomas, introduced Velena Stock. Mr. Zachor and Ms. Stock reviewed:
• Personnel
o Attorneys
■ Yelena Stock — Supervising Attorney
■ Winston Choe — Associate Attorney
■ James Zachor — Supervising Attorney
o Firm Total
■ 9 Attorneys
■ 1 Full Time Legal Assistant
■ 2 Part Time Legal Assistants
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 11
6.3.a
• Prosecution in a Time of Pandemic
Courts and COVID-19
o Case filing comparison
Year
Traffic
Infractions
Non -Traffic
Infractions
DUI/Physical
Control
Other
Criminal
Traffic
Criminal
Non -traffic
Total
Total
Criminal
Filings
2017
3825
53
90
331
502
4801
923
2018
4547
29
144
328
466
5514
938
2019
1 2804
1 38
1 135
343
507
3827
985
2020
1 1819
1 32
1 105
183
512
2651
800
March
Traffic
Non-
DUI/Physical
Other
Criminal
Total
Total
Infractions
Traffic
Control
Criminal
Non -traffic
Criminal
Traffic
Filings
2019
267
3
13
42
50
375
105
2020
74
2
9
8
34
127
51
April
Traffic
Non-
DUI/Physical
Other
Criminal
Total
Total
Infractions
Traffic
Control
Criminal
Non -traffic
Criminal
Traffic
Filings
2019
334
2
11
36
44
427
91
2020
20
5
4
3
33
65
40
May
Traffic
Non-
DUI/Physical
Other
Criminal
Total
Total
Infractions
Traffic
Control
Criminal
Non -traffic
Criminal
Traffic
Filings
2019
238
9
11
37
43
338
91
2020
55
3
7
9
54
128
70
DWLS 3: Diversion/Relicensing Program
o DWLS 3 Case Statistics
■ Since 1/1/20-5/11/21
- Cases filed (includes bench warrant cases): 168
- Cases pending (includes bench warrant cases): 97
- Cases dismissed for relicensing (or in interests of justice): 82
- Cases amended to NVOL 2: 3
- Cases with guilty finding: 3
- Dismissal for other reasons (Motion, refiling or plea to other charges): 5
■ Since 11/1/20-5/11/21
- Cases filed: 20
- Cases pending: 14
- Cases that qualified for filing of DWLS 3 charge: 19
- Cases dismissed (or set for dismissal): 6
- DWLS 3 cases filed on day of general order: 1 (would have been NVOL 2 but for being
filed prior general order.)
Update
0 2020
■ Jury Trials
■ Appeals
o Prospects for 2021
■ Return of Jury Trials
■ Return of Community Court
■ DWLS 3 Diversion/Relicensing Program launch
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 12
6.3.a
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Appendix B which seems to indicate a lot of people have numerous
offenses. Mr. Zachor said the names of the offenders have been redacted; the name on that report is the
police officer's name. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if anything could be done about repeat offenders
of DWLS 3. Mr. Zachor answered with DWLS 3, they try to take a compassionate accountability approach.
The goal of the Prosecutor's Office, Public Defender, the City Council, and the State is to get them
relicensed. The Public Defender's Office is extremely skilled and knowledgeable in navigating the
Department of Licensing. He hoped most of the repeat offenders charged with DWLS 3 will enter the
diversion/relicensing program where they can avoid criminal charges and avoid jail time for not showing
up in court and still get the opportunity to work with the Prosecutor's Office and the public Defender's
Office to help them get relicensed and not face a criminal charge. The goal is to focus on getting chronic
DWLS 3 individuals relicensed, but they have to be willing to accept that help.
Ms. Stock commented for repeat offenders it may be difficult to maintain their license. Just because that
happens, their office doesn't just ignore them, they try to help them get relicensed again. Mr. Zachor said
the new legislation signed last week, SB 5226, removes it from suspension when a person fails to pay. One
of the long time arguments is that people don't pay or respond to their tickets. The action the legislature
has taken will hopefully help people not feel so intimidated by the court system when they cannot pay. The
Department of Licensing (DOL) is reviewing driver histories and removing suspension for failure to pay
which has resulted in people having their licenses unsuspended and reinstated. That bill goes into January
2023 which will give the DOL time to go through their records to determine who should get their license
back.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for the collaborative approach to DWLS 3 program
development, both from the Prosecutor's Office, The Public Defender, the Municipal Court and especially
the Diversion and Relicensing program. Getting people relicensed has to be the number one goal of that
program. It will be approximately 18 months until the state law effective. He appreciated the Prosecutor
cooperating with the other stakeholders on that work and appreciated the benefit to Edmonds residents and
people who come into contact with Edmonds Municipal Court. Mr. Zachor said it has been their pleasure
working with the Council, the Public Defender's Office and the Court on getting a relicensing program
started by July. There will be kinks to work out, but the parties are working well together and will make it
happen.
Council President Paine agreed with Councilmember Distelhorst comments, expressing her appreciation
for the time and effort they have put into the DWLS 3 Diversion program. She asked how many outstanding
trials they have and how long it will take to get through the backlog. Ms. Stock answered they have about
12 cases set for trial between now and three trial sets. Not all of those will actually go to trial; some will
reach resolution and some because they are so old, there may not be witnesses. When they get back to
normal speed, it is not unusually to have 3-5 cases set per trial period.
Council President Paine asked if there had been an increase in domestic violence charges in the past 9-10
months. Ms. Stock said there was not an increase in domestic violence charges, but a change in the type of
domestic violence charges. Victims' ability to protect themselves by leaving or finding solace in public
areas was eradicated by COVID which forced people to be in their homes. There was an increase in violence
against children as children were not in view of mandatory reporters. There was an increase in overall
domestic violence charges in the state, in Edmonds they saw more violation of no contact orders. That was
because an order would be put in place, the offender would go home and due to COVID there was nowhere
else to go. Tensions would increase and a neighbor would call the police, or a fight would break out and
the police would be called, etc. Because COVID forced everyone indoors, they saw more violations of no
contact orders, more alcohol related incidents, although there was a decrease in DUIs.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 13
6.3.a
Councilmember Olson referred to the tracking of NVOL II infractions and the City Council resolution
regarding tracking the filing of NVOL II to ascertain whether the desired effect of getting drivers relicensed
was working. The report states the Prosecutor's Office does not appear on the majority of infractions so
does not have the ability to track the requested track data. She asked who has the data, whether it is the
Edmonds Police Department, or who would work on that report if multiple departments each have part of
the data. Mr. Zachor answered his office does not appear on unrepresented traffic infractions; they only
appear when an officer is subpoenaed or a speed measuring devise expert is subpoenaed or they have an
attorney. People are unrepresented in the vast majority of the NVOL 11 tickets. If they request a hearing, it
is simply before the judge. Either the Police Department or the Court would have that data.
Mr. Zachor presented the Voice of a Victim — Pam Jenness, recognizing Domestic Violence Coordinator
Jill Schick for her work with domestic violence victims. The Jenness family's nightmare began eight years
ago when their daughter began taking classes at the local community college and sat next to an individual
with severe mental health issues. Rejected attempts to study with her ended up with their daughter becoming
his obsession. The harassment became dangerous when she rebuffed his romantic advances. He appeared
at her work place and came after her with a sword in 2013. During that assault, a co-worker physically
removed the individual from the work place and was also assaulted. The individual led the police on a high
speed chase through Edmonds and Lynnwood at speeds reaching 90 mph. After a period of calm, fear struck
their world again on Christmas Day 2017 when the individual appeared in the driveway of their home. He
was subsequently arrested and a determination made by the Edmonds Police Department on criminal
stalking charges.
In December 2019 after a long conversation with the Jenness family, the City agreed to enter into a diversion
agreement with the individual, focused on significant mental health treatment, medication compliance and
a permanent protection order. That diversion agreement is set to expire in December 2021. The individual
has done extremely well; he has obtained the mental health treatment he needed, continues in counseling,
moved several hours away after the determination of the Police Department and the Jenness family to hold
him accountability, and he has been compliant with his medication to the point where he now has a job and
has not contacted the Jenness family or their daughter. Their story is one of many, but rarely has a family
and community come together like the Jenness family and their neighbors. Since filing criminal stalking
charges 3+ years ago, the Jenness family has suffered through the failure of Western State Hospital and the
mental health system, but have persevered. They have appeared at over 50 hearings during that 3 year time
period, just wanting their voices heard in a criminal justice system that rarely affords people in their
situation an opportunity to be heard. Voices of so many victims are rarely heard and are sadly silenced. He
introduced Rick and Pam Jenness.
Rick Jenness said they have had the fortunate/unfortunate opportunity to spend a lot of time with Mr. Zachor
over the past 8 years. Their daughter is a victim of a criminal justice system that is profoundly broken. The
components of that criminal justice system in Edmonds perform at the highest level which seems like a
dichotomy, but starting with the Edmonds Police Department, whom he held in highest regard, Mr. Zachor's
office who has been compassionate on an individual level when his office is bombarded by so many cases,
and Municipal Court Judge Coburn who has heard most of those 50 hearings. Each component of the system
is confronted with a dizzying array of contradictions and forced to choose between horrible alternatives.
For example, after the assault of their daughter, this individual committed numerous other crimes in
Edmonds including assaulting several Edmonds police officers, assaulted individuals in Mukilteo and has
spent a good deal of time in Snohomish County Jail.
From the time of his daughter's first assault to today, she has been in fear for her life for over 3,000 days.
For 104 of those days, this individual was incarcerated in jail or at Western State Hospital. When the first
assault occurred, she was 23 and is now 30; much of her life has been taken from her and it is as if she is
the one in jail, not the person who has stalking her and causing her such fear. The members of the Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 14
6.3.a
criminal justice system have performed near perfection, but the system itself has failed. This individual was
in jail in Snohomish County, awaiting an evaluation at Western State. Western State did not have time to
do the evaluation, the jail did not have space for him so a hearing was set to release him. He and his wife
were outraged that there would be no j ail time, no punishment, and no evaluation for this mentally ill person.
They realized that was how the rules are set up; if there is mental illness or mental disability in a case, there
are numerous exit doors for dangerous individuals. Judge Coburn acknowledged this several times, but it
was with Mr. Zachor's help that a stipulation was made for release and a GPS tracking was placed on this
individual with a radius of 1000 feet from their house. He noted 1000 foot radius is not as far as it seems,
but he had absolute confidence that if this individual penetrated that radius, the Edmonds Police Department
would beat him to their driveway; that is how responsive they are and how much they care. He and wife
are forever grateful for that.
Mr. Jenness summarized there is an opportunity to make the case for closing some of these backdoors out
of the criminal justice system that the criminals know about; victims are powerless. This individual
committed upwards of 20 crimes after he assaulted their daughter, some of which were quite violent, an
individual who was out due to one of the exit doors from the criminal justice system. The pain they and
their daughter feel is caused by the fact there are so many opportunities for criminals to be set free from the
justice system and have no accountability for their crimes. It is the design of the system, not the practitioners
who have been flawless; the system allows these people too many freedoms. Their daughter is a victim who
wants to be called a survivor and wants to live a peaceful life, but cannot do that.
Pam Jenness thanked the Edmonds Police Department, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Jill Schick
and the Prosecutor's Office. She has learned during this ordeal that being present, being at every hearing,
and having a relationship with the Prosecutor's Office and Police Department is important. It has taken a
lot of time, but there is never too much time to keep one's family safe. They will continue their efforts to
keep their daughter safe, but there needs to be a change. In the current climate, there is a lot of focus on
people's rights and ensuring everyone is heard, but a lot of victims like their daughter feel like they are ones
on the back burner or second class citizens when they hear in court all the things that need to be done for
the defendant. If there is anything the Council can do with regard to legislation or their influence, that is
something she and her husband continue to work on, being part of the change in the mental health system.
Their reason for speaking tonight was to make the Council aware that there are people in the community
who should not be free and are a danger. Even though this individual is doing well and is compliant with
his medication, keeping their daughter safe still weighs heavy on their hearts. It has affected their neighbors,
they have cameras all over their property, neighbors check in monthly for updates. Their daughter is a
survivor but works hard every day to ensure this individual does not have a disabling effect on her. She
extended her thanks to the Edmonds Police Department, the Prosecutor's Office and the City's Domestic
Violence Coordinator Jill Schick for their help and support.
Mr. Zachor commented without Ms. Schick, prosecution of a lot of the domestic violence crimes would not
be successful. She is one of the most underpaid and underappreciated people working for the Police
Department, but does more work than anyone to maintain contact with victims of interpersonal crimes.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested items 7.1, 7.3, 7.12 and 7.13 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 15
6.3.a
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the new tree ordinance passed by the City Council which
requires Edmonds land owners and soon every homeowner to pay for an arborist assessment and a fee equal
to the worth of their tree to the City before removing it from their property. The City charges from $3300
to $12,000 for each tree over 24" DBH before removal. Councilmembers have sworn to uphold the
constitution; it's ironic she is now pleading with the Council to reverse an ordinance that violates property
rights given to them by the constitution. Individual property rights are now second to the agenda regarding
trees that do not belong to the City. The move to punish property and homeowners who need to remove a
tree while adhering to the strict guidelines of Edmonds defies the duties of City Council. The Council voted
to place undue hardship on Edmonds land and homeowners; it is a taking of property without compensation
to accomplish an agenda the Council feels is more important that constitutional rights. They worked with
City planning for four years and have spent $100,000 to adhere to City guidelines, only to have delays and
goalposts moved. They cannot trust what they have been told at their preapplication meeting. They have
been given two options, pay $250,000 to the City in tree charges to fulfill their dream to build three modest
homes where they want them on their land or pay $150,000+ in tree charges by placing their homes 10-15
feet apart and shrinking two of the lots, thereby lowering their value. The largest lot with the most potential
view would have to retain the most trees and would be mostly unbuildable. They have lost property value,
time, money and the joy of building and living next to her parents and hold the Council personally
responsible. The people who commend this ordinance live on land where trees have been previously cut for
their homes to be built. It is hypocritical to place restrictions and burdens on others once you have what
you want. Rescind the taking of property rights and value that the Council is inflicting on all of Edmonds
taxpayers. If the trees removed are sold for lumber, landowners optimistically hope to recoup part of the
cost of their removal. If they do make money from their trees, it is their constitutional right to keep it, not
the City's right to take it. When you sell your home, you're allowed to keep that money. Trees are owned
by the property owner, not the City. She urged the Council to consider what they have done.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on the City's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private
property. Although she understood the City's desire to keep trees, if climate predictions are true, trees can
play a vital management strategy for the changing climate. However, regulating tree removal will not result
in trees being retained or maintained to a large tree size that will be most beneficial. Regulating the removal
of trees with fines, prohibitions, and replacement clauses creates negative relationship between trees and
their owners which will result in their premature removal or neglect which then results in their removal.
Trees in the urban environment require maintenance, maintenance that is likely to increase with changing
climate as trees become more stressed and likely will require watering in many situations and increased
maintenance to manage deadwood in the canopy, maintenance that is costly for large trees. Regulating trees
at certain diameters, owners who already face significant barriers will evaluate whether they should
continue to maintain a tree past a regulated size at the risk of permanent encumbrance on their property,
knowing they will never be able to have a garden, lawn or other uses in the critical root zone area or facing
increased scrutiny and permitting for the use and enjoyment of their property or simply remove the tree and
either replant it or undertake other beneficial uses. The smaller the diameter regulation, the earlier this
decision will happen and the resulting urban forest will become younger and younger with reduced benefits.
Regulating trees in many contexts is also inequitable and places a disproportionate burden on owners of
less developed properties who tend to correlate with overburdened communities. It is also inequitable
because those with financial resources can argue a taking while those without those resources or
empowerment face increased hazards and the burden of providing a "community resource" on their
property. She has come to this understanding through her experience and asked that the City Council change
course and consider other, more equitable and effective options to promote trees in the landscape.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 16
6.3.a
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, recommended the City take a good, long look at other places in the U.S. that
have passed ordinances regulating 5G telecommunication. She was concerned as a Snohomish County PUD
Commissioner as well as for Edmonds. She referenced a document she sent to the City Council from the
executive director of Environmental Health Trust who works with Elizabeth Kelly. She attended a 4-day
conference, Science Appeal on 5G, that included a lot of doctors and scientists from the U.S. as well as
Italy and central Europe who have done research about how non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation can
cause genetic mutations, cell tissue damage and other problems. There are also lawsuits from people who
feel they have been charged opt -out fees for the energy that is being provided to them and are suing to get
the fees back because of the damage to their health. She hoped the City would take a hard look at that.
James Deal, Lynnwood, an attorney, recommended Edmonds stand firm against the 5G small cell tower
proposal and not just say they cannot be 200 feet or 1500 feet from a home, but ban them entirely because
the constitute an assault. The state and cities retain power over health issues; this is a health issue. This is a
quantum leap above all the other towers which broadcast at about 0.9 GHz; these will broadcast at 27+
GHz. At that level, the power densities increase as the wavelength diminishes, making them hotter.
Worldwide the insect population has been in decline since the inception of the cell phone and insects are
one of the bases for all life. He encouraged the Council to defy any federal statutes that prohibit the City
from banning 5G because such a law is unconstitutional because 5G towers as well as the new 5G cell
phones will have beamforming which mean it can be directly aimed. He provided the website for his
organization, Coalition Against Smart Meters and 5G, JamesRobertDeal.org/smartmeters. He encouraged
the Council to stand up, be brave, and to protect the health of Edmonds residents. He summarized more
people need to stand up to PUD who is going down this boondoggle of smart meters; self -reporting is done
by ConEdison, people log into a website to report their meter readings, avoiding a $9M expenditure to
collect meter readings.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated her request to pull Items 7.1, 7.3, 7.12 and 7.13 from the Consent
Agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
4. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
5. 2020 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT
6. APPROVE 10-FT STREET DEDICATIONS ALONG PUGET DRIVE AND 9TH AVE N
ADJACENT TO 1414 9TH AVE N
7. REPORT ON BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2021
OVERLAY PROGRAM PHASE 2 PROJECT
8. APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BLUELINE, LLC FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 17
6.3.a
9. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND
ASSOCIATES (DEA) FOR THE ELM WAY WALKWAY PROJECT
10. APPROVE THE WHPACIFIC NO COST -SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE
84TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT
11. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KPG FOR THE 76TH AVE. W @ 220TH ST. SW
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
14. MARCH 2O21 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2021
Councilmember Buckshnis said she pulled the minutes to abstain from approval because she was absent
from the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE ITEM 7.1, COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2021. MOTION
CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
3. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she pulled this item to abstain from the vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO APPROVE ITEM 7.3, CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested Councilmember Buckshnis actually wanted to pull Item 7.4 and
suggested she clarify which appointment she wanted to abstain from. Councilmember Buckshnis said she
wanted to abstain from the appointment to Position 5.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
12. 2020 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT
Councilmember Buckshnis said this report was provided to the Finance Committee and recommended for
full Council. In reading RCW 36.73.160(2), some people interpret that as the TBD shall issue an annual
report and it should go to the public. The Finance Committee recommended the TBD report go to full
Council which Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed with and some people do not believe the law is
being followed by having it on the Consent Agenda where people have to go through the data to find the
report versus having a five minute presentation to full Council.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO MOVE A PRESENTATION ON THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
REPORT TO A DATE IN THE FUTURE.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there was a timeline for when the report needs to be approved.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he was not aware of a deadline and certainly not one that would require
action tonight.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 18
6.3.a
Council President Paine said she would argue against moving to a date certain and offered a counter motion
to have it approved tonight. The report has been reviewed by two committees and the committees' questions
were very limited. She would like to have the report approved tonight and then published.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating a Councilmember cannot make a counter
motion. The options are to make an amendment or to table the motion. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented the report was provided to two committees, recordings of the
committee meetings are available online for the public to watch, and there were minimal questions by the
committees. She did not support the motion, noting the Council has a packed agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented her motion would not impact tonight's agenda. During past reports,
Mr. Williams has always asked the Council about increasing the TBD fee but there was no discussion about
that at the Finance Committee. There was a swift presentation at the Finance Committee due to a packed
agenda and the committee recommended a presentation to full Council. In her opinion, according to law,
an annual review that the public can see is required and she would like to discuss increasing the TBD fee.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented the 2020 report is a look back which is different than looking
forward and considering an increase to the fees. He agreed the report was reviewed by two committees and
recordings of those meetings are available to the public. The PPW Committee had 10 items to get through
in an hour, the Council has a very long agenda tonight and likely will continue to have long agendas in the
future. This is an FYI report only that needs to be published to the public.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained the TBD was established about a decade ago; its sole purpose was
to provide funding for street projects within the City and as such it was a separate entity although the TBD
Board was composed of Councilmembers. After some years, it was recognized that the City Council and
TBD members were the same so a process was undertaken to integrate it into the City Council. She did not
see the report as an ordinary, look back report; it is an opportunity for staff to bring forward the entirety of
the TBD. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' motion, likely because they have been on the
Council for so many years and have seen the evolution. She did not want the report to be diminished due
to its importance to the City's function.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out another option is for Councilmembers to encourage fellow
Councilmembers to vote no on a motion. The report is an overview of what occurred over the past year. If
Councilmembers Buckshnis or K. Johnson want to make a proposal to increase the TBD fees, they could
do that as a separate issue and that would be appropriate for the Council to consider. The report was
presented to two committees and she did not see any point of spending time on a presentation to the full
Council. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Olson commented the Council has missed the boat by not having a Council retreat as
evidenced by the number of philosophical things that keep coming up. When she read the guidance from
the City Attorney, it seems clear that if the committee recommends something go to full Council, that is
what occurs. According to the City Attorney, items go to Consent with unanimous support of the committee
members or the Council President can choose to put it on the agenda for full Council. If there is not
unanimous support, one of those two things has to happen. Continually putting items on Consent when the
committee recommends full Council is contrary to good process and the Council continues to disagree
philosophically about what's appropriate instead of having the 5-10 minute presentation that would have
occurred. She did not see that changing unless the Council changes the guidance in the code; in her opinion,
the guidance in the code is clear, if the committee recommends full Council, then that is what happens.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 19
6.3.a
Council President Paine pointed out the home committee recommended Consent which is what she based
her decision on. She understood there was some discussion at the Finance Committee about the report going
to full Council but she gave more weight to the PPW Committee's recommendation. Mr. Taraday pointed
out since it was pulled from the Consent Agenda, it is now on the full Council agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it is up to the Council President to make that decision. She
experienced the same issue, one committee wants an item to go to full Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, referencing Mr. Taraday's comment that the item had
been pulled from Consent and was now on the full Council agenda. Mr. Taraday said Council still needs to
take action on this item, but once it is pulled from Consent, it becomes a regular agenda item. There is a
motion pending on a regular agenda item to move the report to a date in the future for presentation. The
Council is currently debating a regular agenda item.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who is the parliamentarian of this meeting. She commented
Councilmember Olson has a point about stuff going back and forth. As the senior Councilmember, she said
in 11 %2 years on the Council, she has never seen so many items pulled off the agenda as she has in the last
1 %2 years. That needs to be considered, why so many items are being pulled from the agenda because that
takes a lot of time. She recognized that also happened last year today and she found it very frustrating.
Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers keep their comments to the topic at hand, which is Agenda Item
7.12, and not discuss past issues.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
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.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE 2020 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he would be happy to have a presentation/discussion looking forward and
evaluating future options regarding the TBD. This report is a look back at 2020 and those two things do not
necessarily need to be done at the same time.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she thought by pulling this item, it automatically went on tonight's regular
agenda as Item 11.2. Mayor Nelson said the Council is discussing it right now.
Councilmember Olson asked if the presentation could be made now. By pulling it from the Consent Agenda,
that was the expectation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating her motion was to approve the report. Mr.
Taraday agreed the motion on the floor was to approve the report. He was unsure anyone was available to
make a presentation right now. The prior motion that was defeated was to have a presentation made so it
appeared a majority of the Council was not interested in a presentation.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will not create a memo for a look forward because she did not have
time. If this item had been placed on the full Council agenda as recommended by the Finance Committee,
a presentation would have been made.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 20
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
13. RENEWAL OF VERIZON CELL TOWER LEASE -FIVE CORNERS
Councilmember Buckshnis explained Item 7.14 was the March Quarterly Financial Report. The Finance
Committee vetted the report and recommended a presentation to full Council as has been done in the past
for quarterly financial reports. Instead, the report was placed on the Consent Agenda. Many citizens look
forward to the quarterly report and it is a matter of transparency.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
MOVE THE QUARTERLY BUDGET PRESENTATION TO A FUTURE DATE.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Finance Committee meeting was recorded. City Clerk Scott
Passey advised the meeting is recorded and the recording is posted online. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
pointed out citizens who want to see the report can find it on the City's website. Mr. Passey said citizens
can join the meeting live on Zoom and once the meeting concludes, he posts the video to the City's website.
Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out the item Councilmember Buckshnis pulled was 7.13, but she is
now discussing Item 7.14. The Council already passed Item 7.14.
Councilmember Buckshnis said her intent was to pull Item 7.14, and asked Mr. Taraday how she should
proceed. Mr. Taraday recommended she make a motion for reconsideration of Item 7.14.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM 7.14, MARCH 2O21 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL
REPORT.
Councilmember Olson said if a committee recommended an item be referred to full Council, it should be
on the agenda for full Council.
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the Finance Committee meeting minutes contain some bullets and
other information including a statement that the first three months have gone according to budget, nothing
negative to report, and the video is available. He asked if there was some specific, relevant vetting beyond
what was contained in that discussion and report.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the presentation historically provided by the Finance Director shows sales
tax, the investment portfolio and other information in a graphic format as well as a narrative which was not
part of the Finance Committee meeting. Citizens who watched the Finance Committee meeting will hear
the Council discussing various things but will not see a presentation regarding the quarterly financials.
There is a big difference between vetting the financial statements and quarterly financial presentation which
many citizens are interested in.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the issue seems to be the role of the committees. Committees review a
great deal of information and make decisions whether items go on Consent or to full Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order. Mayor Nelson said while that may be an issue for
fixture Council consideration, Councilmembers should keep their comments to the motion on the floor.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her comments are related to the motion and the role of the Council
President when a committee recommends an item come to the full Council.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 21
6.3.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented not every financial report came to the full Council last year.
People can watch the video, look at the graphs and if they have questions, call the Finance Director. She
encouraged the Council to move on as this discussion is getting bogged down.
Council President Paine said she made the decision to allow the Council to move forward with the work
that is before the Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating the comments were not germane to the question.
Council President Paine withdrew her comment.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO
APPROVE ITEM 7.13, RENEWAL OF VERIZON CELL TOWER LEASE - FIVE CORNERS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2022-2027 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, relaying that some people believed this public hearing
had not been noticed properly because it was scheduled before the TIP was presented to Council. She
suggested continuing the public hearing. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said there is no legal compliance issue;
to the extent the Council wants to have a public hearing a week after the presentation, the Council could
continue the public hearing to next week.
Mayor Nelson asked when that needed to be determined. Mr. Taraday said it could occur at any time during
this agenda item.
Traffic Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed:
Introduction
o Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP by July 1 st
o Document contains all significant transportation projects that a city possibly plans to undertake
in the next six years.
o City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first three years
o Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP
projects.
Construction Projects in 2021
• Annual Street Preservation Program (Project #1)
o Project Details
■ — (5) lane miles of variable depth overlay along local streets throughout the City
■ (11) curb ramps upgrades (completed by City crews)
■ Annual Funding Goal: $2 Million per year
o Schedule
■ Summer 2021
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 22
6.3.a
o Funding
■ Local funds $841,000
■ Utility Funds $310,000
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements (Project #24)
o Project Description
■ Complete citywide pedestrian crossing enhancements at (9) locations, with the following:
- Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) at (7) intersections
- HAWK signal (SR-524 @ 84th Ave. W)
- Fully actuated traffic signal (SR-104 @ 232nd St. SW)
o Schedule
■ Design April 2018 - November 2020
■ ROW April 2019 - April 2020
■ Construction March 2021 - Summer 2021
o Funding
■ Federal Grant (Safe Routes to School Program / TIB) $1,576,000
■ Local funds (125/126) $663,000
■ Utility funds $51,000
• Traffic Calming Program (Project #44)
o Project Description
■ Installation of traffic calming devices along certain stretches (based on results from
evaluation)
o Schedule
■ Construction Summer / Fall 2021
o Funding
■ Local Funds $33,000 (2021 Budget)
Scheduled Construction Projects (2022/2023)
• 76th Ave. W Overlay from 196th St. SW to OVD (Project #2)
o Project Description
■ 2" overlay with ADA curb ramps upgrades
■ Evaluate addition of mid -block crossing with RRFB's
■ Evaluate addition of northbound bike lane (currently sharrows)
■ City of Lynnwood funding east side of corridor
o Schedule
■ Design 2021
■ Construction Spring / Summer 2022
o Funding
■ Local Funds $429,000
■ Secured grant $645,000
■ City of Lynnwood $881,000
SR-99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 2 (Project # 8)
o Project Description
■ Installation of landscaped raised median along entire corridor from 244th St. SW to 210th
St. SW with (131) trees
■ HAWK signal - 400' north of 234th St. SW
■ Gateway signs on both ends of corridor
o Schedule
■ Design 2020-2021
■ Construction 2022
o Funding
■ Connection Washington $8,210,000
■ Local funds $290,000
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 23
6.3.a
Citywide Bicycle Improvements project (Project #43)
o Project Description
■ Install sharrows along 80th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to 220th St. SW
■ Install bike lanes along key corridors
- 100th Ave. W / 9th Ave. S from 238th St. SW to Walnut St.;
- Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. S to 84th Ave. W; and • 228th St. SW from 78th Ave. to
- 80th Ave. W.
o Schedule
■ Design 2020 / 2021
■ Construction 2022
o Funding
■ Sound Transit Access grant
■ $1.85 MILLION (100% funds)
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S (Project #27)
o Project Description
■ Identified as Short Walkway #6 in 2015 Transportation Plan
■ Complete missing sidewalk links (- 700' new sidewalk on south side of street)
■ ADA curb ramp upgrades
o Schedule
■ Design Spring 2021 - Spring 2022
■ Construction Summer 2022
o Funding
■ Local funds $716,000
■ Stormwater funds (Fund 422) $402,000
Other Projects in 2022-2027 TIP
a. Corridor Improvements
0 228th St. SW from Highway 99 to 95th Pl. W (Project #13) 2025-2027
o SR-99 Revitalization (Project #9) 2025-2027
o SR-99 Revitalization from 220th to 224th (Project #10) 2022-2027
o SR-99 Revitalization from 244th to 238th (Project #11) 2022-2027
b. Pavement Preservation
o Annual Street Preservation (Project #1) 2022-2027
o Main St. from 6th Ave. to 8th Ave. (Project #3) 2023-2024
c. Signal Upgrades
o Puget Dr. @ OVD (Project #5) 2025-2026
0 238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (Project #6) 2025-2026
o Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (Project # 7) 2026-2027
d. Intersection Improvements
0 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW (Project #12) 2021-2025
0 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W (Project #14) 2025-2027
o Main St. @ 9th Ave. (Project #15) 2025-2026
o SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W (Project #22) 2025-2026
o SR-104 @ 238th St. SW (Project #23) 2025-2026
e. Active transportation projects
0 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (Project #37) 2022-2026
o SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non -Motorized Transp. Impr. (Project #39) 2025-2026
o SR-104 / Pine St. Sidewalk (Project #42) 2025-2026
o Walkway projects within proximity to schools / parks
■ Maplewood Dr. Walkway (Project #26) 2025- 2027
■ 80th Ave. Walkway from 212nd St. SW to 206th St. SW (Proj. #28) 2025-2027
■ 80th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St to Olympic View Dr. (Proj. #29) 2025-2026
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 24
6.3.a
Summary of Secured Transportation Grants (between 2017 and 2021)
Project Name
Grant
Phase
Amount
Award Date
Program
Secured
Citywide Pedestrian
Safe Routes to
Design / ROW
$1,576,00
April'17
Crossing Enhancement
School
/Construction
Hwy 99 Revitalization -
Connecting
Design / ROW /
8,210,000
April'17
Stage 2
Washington
Construction
Citywide Bicycle
Sound Transit
Design
$1,850,000
'19
Improvements
/Construction
76th Ave. W Overlay from
STP Federal
Design
$645,000
November ` 19
196th to OVD
/Construction
Main St. Overlay from 6th
STP Federal
Design
$750,000
December'20
to 8th
/Construction
76th Ave. W @ 220th St.
CMAQ / STP
Design / ROW
$1,089,500
November `19 /
SW Intersection
Federal
December'20
Improvements
SR-104 ITS Adaptive
CMAQ Federal
Design
$287,000
December'20
System
Hwy 99 Revitalization from
STP Federal
Design
$1,500,000
April `21
220th St. SW to 224th St.
SW
Hwy 99 Revitalization from
State Funds
Design
$6,500,000
July'21
244th St. SW to 238th St.
Tentative
SW
Total Secured Transportation Grants Over Last 5 Years: $22,331,000
Possible Sound Transit Grants
Project Name
Grant Program
Phase
Amount
Sponsor
Requested
Res onse
Downtown Lighting
Sound Transit ST-3
Design /
$1,500,000
July'21
Construction
228th St. SW Corridor
Sound Transit ST-3
Design /
$14,700,000
July'21
from Hwy 99 to 95th PI W
Construction
Pine / SR-104 Walkway
Sound Transit ST-3
Design /
$3,000,000
July'21
Construction
Mr. Williams described transportation improvements that are funded with local funds such as six more
RRFBs on Dayton at 7t1i and 8th, raised pavement markers and a radar feedback sign westbound on Dayton
west of 8' to warn drivers about potential loading/unloading of cars at the Frances Anderson Center. The
deadline to approve the TIP is July Pt. The Council approved the design of Elm Way on tonight's Consent
Agenda. The project on the south end of Highway 99 from 2381h to 244t1i will coordinate with the developing
community renewal plan in that area. The City will want to provide input to the Sound Transit Board and
staff on projects; some of the leftover improvements that were expected in Mukilteo and Edmonds ($40M
was set aside for those purposes) will likely be on the chopping block. The City will need to evaluate that
list and what was expected and try to prioritize as much of it as possible and include it on the funded list.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the number of improvements specific to ADA
accessibility, walkability, and pedestrian and bike safety. She referred to Item 43, Citywide Bicycle
Improvements, recalling staff was comfortable with sharrows at the 80' Avenue intersection because under
1000 vehicle go through the intersection per day. For comparison, she asked how many cars go through the
intersection of SR 104/100t''. Mr. Hauss answered about 25,000 cars/day on SR 104 and 10,000 cars/day
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 25
6.3.a
on 100t' so about 35,000 total. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled the proposal was sharrows southbound
on 100t'', Avenue, yet the volume is significant higher than 80t' Avenue. Noticing the disparity, she
suggested that be considered more closely moving forward.
Mr. Williams recalled that came up before, and although he did not disagree, there was not sufficient right-
of-way for bike lanes in both directions at the intersection. The intent was to pick the direction that would
provide the greatest benefit, northbound, and southbound will have sharrows as well as offramps for bikes
onto the sidewalks to allow bicycles to cross the intersection in the crosswalk and reenter the bike lane.
That is an interim solution and staff will look for opportunities to potentially acquire additional property on
the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection or have it dedicated via redevelopment in order to
install a bike lane.
Council President Paine expressed support for continuing the public hearing to next week.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed interest in the 11 curb ramp upgrades that are planned this year as
well as the Elm Way missing link from 8th to 9th that is on the short sidewalk list. She asked if those would
both be done by the sidewalk crew. Mr. Williams answered although the Elm Way walkway is on the short
walkway list, that is a long sidewalk for the crews to do. A sizeable length of sidewalk was installed on 15t'
a few years ago. The City has two dedicated staff on the sidewalk crew, but a large project has to be
supplemented with other staff on the day of the pour. The Elm Way walkway is 700 feet plus the potential
for something behind the sidewalk in some places. The design for that walkway is being done by an outside
firm; the advantage and cost savings of the sidewalk crew is on projects where the City's inhouse
engineering department can do limited design and the crew does the installation. He noted 700 feet is a
pretty liberal definition of a short walkway and it is not planned to be done inhouse
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the 11 curb ramps would be done by the sidewalk crew. Mr. Williams
answered yes; the crew did curb ramps last year and the year prior. More curb ramps have been done, the
ones listed are only the ones done as part of the City's paving program where current law requires curb
ramp upgrades when the street is paved. Those are done very cost effectively with the concrete crew. In the
past, the City hired someone to design the ramps and hired Snohomish County or private contractors to
install the ramps. The concrete crew has gotten very good at installing the ramps.
Councilmember K. Johnson acknowledged the high expectations for upgrading ADA ramps. She recalled
then-Councilmember Tibbett and she worked with Mr. Williams to develop the concept of a sidewalk crew.
The Council recently had an annual budget retreat with Mike Bailey who said after the Council approves
the budget, they need to monitor it. With the Mayor's permission, she expressed interest in meeting with
Mr. Williams before the next public hearing to monitor the status of the sidewalk crew to ensure funds are
being spent on the intended purpose. ADA ramps were considered as something that could also be done,
but the primary purpose in her mind was to complete the sidewalk program. The TIP seems to have almost
the same number of long and short sidewalk projects every year.
Mr. Williams was agreeable to meeting with Councilmember K. Johnson. He pointed out the definition
between a long and short sidewalk project is a little fuzzy. In his opinion 100-200 feet could be done inhouse
but it depends on the complexity. A lot of sidewalks are missing because they are in areas where it is
difficult to build them. For example, the east end of Elm Way where it meets 9t' Avenue is steep and initially
required a large retaining wall which exceeds internal capabilities even for a shorter sidewalk. Although it
has been referred to as a sidewalk crew, the funding was for a concrete crew. Short sidewalk segments were
a big focus of the crew and still are, but they need to be ones that can be done without a great deal of design.
Councilmember Olson gave kudos to staff on the successful grant applications, commenting that was an
impressive amount and the quality of the City's infrastructure is largely due to those efforts. She referred
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 26
6.3.a
to the 76' Avenue Overlay and the possible conversation to sharrows to bike lanes and wanted to ensure
citizen input was a significant element in that project such as the loss of parking and impact on commute
time. She appreciated the added safety signage at pedestrian crossings on Dayton, recalling that more were
coming. She felt there was already visual clutter and asked whether it was intuitively obvious that a
crosswalk sign on the right meant the crosswalk went all the way across street and whether additional
signage was needed on the left side. She suggested having the back side of the signs on the other side black
or silver to not catch the eye.
Mr. Williams answered they will be. There will be west facing and east facing signs about the same distance
from the crosswalk notifying drivers within 150 feet of the marked crosswalk. Technically there are four
crosswalks at every intersection whether marked or not, and drivers are supposed to look for pedestrian
crossing from the four corners. Marked crosswalks also help point that out and signage at busy intersections
where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic as well as the new and relative inexpensive RRFB are very useful.
Working with the neighbors on Dayton, it was agreed to put in two additional RRFBs at 8' and one at 7t'
which service the Frances Anderson Center, the playfields, library, and other uses in that area. He agreed
if too many are installed, drivers feel unless there is a RRFB, they do not need to look for pedestrians which
is not the case. He assured there was a balance to be struck.
Councilmember Olson said for one of the new ones that was installed, there were four crosswalk signs
facing both directions which she felt was too much. She did not see why the signs on a driver's left in either
direction would be necessary and only the two in the driving lane would be necessary. Mr. Hauss said at
2' and Dayton the signs were dual faced so there were eight signs at the intersection, four facing one
direction and four facing the other direction. The intent is to increase drivers' awareness that there could be
pedestrian on either side of the crosswalk. Councilmember Olson suggested if it was not a legal requirement,
the team evaluate whether it is necessary because, as a driver, she is aware pedestrians could be coming
from either side. She viewed it as visual clutter and preferred not to have signs on the drivers' left. Mr.
Williams said staff will discuss it and return to Council if necessary.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Williams, Mr. Hauss and Mr. English for their work on this and
their presentation to the PPW Committees last week. He looked forward to the bicycle improvement
program returning to Council.
Mr. Williams said he was proud of the work done on grant acquisitions; Mr. Hauss and Mr. English are the
team that put that together. The success speaks for itself and he thanked them.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described the hearing procedures.
There was no public testimony.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Mayor Nelson relayed in consultation with Council President Paine,
it was agreed to reschedule Items 9.2 and 10.1 to a future meeting.
9. NEW BUSINESS
REORG OF CLERK'S OFFICE TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES -JOB DESCRIPTION
CHANGES
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson said this item is the job descriptions that need to be updated associated
with a reorganization of the Clerk's Office into what will be titled the Administrative Services Department,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 27
6.3.a
currently the Finance Department. There are some very similar administrative functions in the two
departments; the reorganization would create economies of scale by combining the functions, freeing up
the Clerk to focus on clerk functions rather than the administrative functions that over the years have been
moved to the Clerk's Office. It would also provide additional opportunity for staff currently in the Clerk's
office to learn additional functions in the Finance Department. The job descriptions will be updated such
as the Office Specialist Position, the City Clerk, the Deputy City Clerk positions. There is a proposal to
change the Records Support Specialist to the Public Records Officer and change the Business Licensing
Clerk to an Administrative Assistant. The Finance Director's title would be changed to Administrative
Services Director as well as indicate oversight of records in that department. The Deputy Director position
will be updated to address the reporting relationship of records and the Office Specialist and the
Administrative Assistant which will be under the Deputy Director position.
Ms. Neill Hoyson reviewed pay changes associated with the reorganization: The Administrative Assistant
position and the Public Records Officer would have pay upgrades of two ranges. These were both
outstanding compensation issues; the Records position had been accreted into the union and pay for the
position had not yet been established. The Business License Clerk position was being reviewed as the
position's functions were very similar to the Administration Assistant functions. There is also a change
proposed to the Deputy Director of Administrative Services; currently the position is paid a range below
the only other Deputy Direction position in the City, the Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation. The
proposal is to align those positions to the same pay range. The cost for the change to the Public Records
Officer and the Administrative Assistant will be approximately $6,000 this year. There would be no
associated costs with the change to the Deputy Director unless someone is hired at the top step. As that
position is vacant, there would be no reclassification for that position.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES, JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND CHANGES TO THE
ORG CHART FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
Councilmember Olson referred to the change in the Deputy Director position from a minimum of five years
supervisory responsibility to three years, noting the Director position only requires a minimum of four years
of supervisory responsibility. She felt that five years of supervisory responsibility was appropriate for the
Director. Ms. Neill Hoyson clarified the current supervisory experience for the Administrative Services
Director position is four years and Councilmember Olson's suggestion was that it should be five years.
Councilmember Olson said the Deputy Director position description originally included five years of
supervisory responsibility and was changed to three years which she felt was appropriate. She asked if it
would be appropriate to require five years of supervisory responsibility for the Director position. Ms. Neill
Hoyson answered she has seen both four and five years for that level and did not believe it would hamper
recruitment for the position. The difference between four and five years' experience is not significant
enough to show that someone has a greater level of supervisory experience. Councilmember Olson said she
would offer that as an amendment.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the City Clerk currently reports directly to the Mayor. Ms. Neill
Hoyson answered yes. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled it was difficult to hire a Deputy Administrative
Services Director and wondered if it would be problematic to put the Public Records Officer directly under
that position. Currently the Director is administering the nine Accountants and Information Services. She
anticipated it may be difficult to find someone for the Deputy Director position especially with such a broad
range of duties. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed it may not be possible to find someone with that specific skill set.
She referred to existing knowledge of records requests such as the City Clerk, Patricia Taraday who assist
with public records, and the current Public Records Clerk who manages the bulk of the records requests. It
may be necessary to provide some training to someone hired for the Deputy Director position to oversee
records which she did not see as an issue.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 28
6.3.a
Councilmember K. Johnson questioned the timing of this reorganization and asked if the Deputy Director
position should be filled before the change is initiated. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it was not necessary to
wait. She has discussed it with the current Director Dave Turley who feels capable of taking on these
positions. Once the Deputy Director job description is approved, it will be posted immediately and
hopefully will be filled fairly quickly.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how long she anticipated it would take to fill that position. Ms. Neill
Hoyson said she typically recommends a 2-3 week posting for the position, followed by reviewing the
applicants and depending on the amount of notice an applicant needs to give, it could be two months before
the position is filled. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled that position was posted several times in the past.
She agreed it would be no problem for Mr. Turley to continue to supervise the nine accountants but these
new positions will burden him and she felt it was best to hire the Deputy Administrative Services position
prior to the reorganization.
Council President Paine said in her work experience she had never seen a standalone Clerk position without
ancillary support via a higher structure. She felt this was a great alignment of the work being done in the
Clerk's Office and the work being done in Administrative Services. This will provide better opportunities
for the employees and help fill out the greater staffing needs for both areas.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested the legislative branch doing the duties of the
administrative branch; it is the Mayor's job to make that decision. Having worked for the State for 33 years,
four years was the requirement for a supervisor. She inquired about the supervisory requirement for the
other Deputy Director position. Ms. Neill Hoyson said if the amendment to the job description is approved,
she plans to review the supervisory requirements for other Director positions to ensure they are aligned.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with having the supervisory requirements the same.
Councilmember Olson said she would be comfortable if the Council offered the flexibility and proceeded
with an amendment for 4 or 5 years based on evaluating the consistency of positions. She preferred five
years of supervisory responsibility, but agreed it was not appropriate if that was not the requirement in other
director's positions.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO GIVE FLEXIBILITY TO ADMINISTRATION ON THE MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR TO EITHER HAVE
FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BASED ON WHAT THE OTHER DIRECTORS' JOB
DESCRIPTIONS REQUIRE. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON
ABSTAINING.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the Records Officer job description, noting under required skills,
everything was deleted and nothing added. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised that was deleted in error and could
be corrected.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented a lot of citizens are concerned about the Clerk moving to a position
where transparency may become an issue. She will forward information that Mr. Passey sent her in response
to her questions. She questioned Ms. Neill Hoyson's indication that the financial implications are only
$6000 and said she would have liked a presentation from a financial standpoint because that is her
legislative oversight role. As Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out, there is a different skill set and
usually financial people think differently than records people. She has a lot of faith in Mr. Turley. She
requested a break out regarding the numbers rather than just providing the total of $6,000. She asked why
the Public Records Officer was moved away from the Clerk, anticipating that position would have kept his
department. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered since the majority of the function of public records had already
moved to that position, it made sense to recognize that position was doing the majority of the function. The
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 29
6.3.a
Clerk has general oversight over the position and in discussions with him, the Clerk was very comfortable
not overseeing that function anymore and agreed the employee could handle it since they were already
doing it. The packet includes a breakdown of the cost for each position.
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the financial breakdown is on packet page 360.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
2. STAGE 2 TREE ISSUES
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
3. MASTER PERMIT AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS (SMALL
CELL) FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S RIGHTS -OF -WAY
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:35 PM.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council finished earlier than 10:35 p.m., did the Council need
to wait until 10:35 p.m. to adjourn. Mr. Taraday said no.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON OPPOSED.
City Attorney Taraday introduced Angela Tinker who, along with Jeanie McConnell, has been working on
the small cell master permit.
Ms. Tinker explained tonight is a short introduction to the Master Permit and the City's ability to regulate
in the area of telecommunications. Next week will be a longer discussion about the Master Permit. Tonight's
presentation is an introduction to what will ultimately be the City Attorney Office and Staff s
recommendation to the City Council to approve a Master Permit which would authorize New Cingular
Wireless to place small wireless facilities in the City's rights -of -way. She reviewed:
• Reason this is in front of Council
o New Cingular Wireless seeks permission to place small wireless facilities in Edmonds
0 3 permits are needed
■ Master Permit — City Council approval
■ Wireless facilities permit (building permit) — administrative staff approval
■ Right-of-way construction permit — administrative staff approval
• What is a Master Permit?
o A Master Permit (aka a franchise) provides general authority, in this case to a
telecommunications provider, to place its facilities in the City's right-of-way.
o Issued under authority of RCW 35.99
o General authority applies to all site specific locations in the ROW
• Wireless Facility & ROW Permits
o Wireless Facility and ROW Permits provide site specific approval
o Administrative staff review in accordance with ECDC 20.50
o Aesthetic review occurs with these permit reviews
o There is no aesthetic review as part of the master permit process
• The Legal Framework
o A combination of State and Federal Laws
■ RCW 35.99
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 30
- The state statute applicable to telecommunications, establishing a system whereby
cities grant "master permits" (also known as franchises) for use of the city's rights -of -
way for placement of facilities for communications service.
■ The Telecommunications Act of 1996
- The federal law that LIMITS state and LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' ABILITY TO
REGULATE telecommunications.
- 47 U.S.C. 253 (a) and 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) reflect Congressional intent to expand
deployment of wireless services and authorize the FCC to preempt any state and local
requirements that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" any entity from providing
telecommunications services.
■ FCC Orders
- Orders promulgated under the authority of congressional statute and governing the
installation and management of small wireless facilities, including the manner in which
local governments can regulate, SPELLING OUT LIMITS ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO REGULATE telecommunications providers.
- FCC is tasked with accommodating competing objectives: protecting the public health
and safety while ensuring the rapid development of an efficient and uniform telecom
network providing effective and widely accessible service at a reasonable cost
■ FCC Orders Withstand Recent Challenge in the Ninth Circuit
- "We conclude that, given the deference owed to the agency in interpreting and
enforcing this important legislation, the [orders] are, with the exception of one
provision, in accord with the congressional directive in the Act, and not otherwise
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law." City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d
1020, 1032 (2020).
What can local governments do?
o Manage the ROW, not the providers
■ "Local governments must be allowed to perform the range of vital tasks necessary to
preserve the physical integrity of the streets, control the orderly flow of vehicle and
pedestrian traffic, and manage the gas, water, cable, electric, and telephone facilities that
crisscross the city streets and right of way."
o Examples of ROW Management
■ Coordination of construction schedules
■ Determination of insurance, bonding, and indemnity requirements
■ Regulate time or location of excavation, preserving traffic flow
■ Keeping track of the various systems using the ROW
Master Permit Highlights
o General permission given to place small wireless facilities and associated equipment located
within ten feet of a support structure in the City's rights -of -way, subject to other required
permits and the terms of the Master Permit.
o Prior to placement provider needs a wireless facilities permit and a right-of-way construction
permit, considered in accordance with chapter 20.50 ECDC.
o Five-year term, subject to renewal by the city council, and requires any defaults be cured before
any renewal will be granted.
o Other providers may obtain master permits or franchises as well.
o City can require relocation of the facilities at New Cingular's expense in accordance with RCW
35.99, e.g., to accommodate a public improvement project, and sets agreed procedures.
o New Cingular shall reimburse the City for its actual administrative costs incurred. No franchise
fee is charged as dictated by RCW 35.21.860.
o New Cingular will indemnify the city, maintain specified insurance, and assume risk of damage
to its facilities.
o Inventory of facilities to be maintained with a copy to the City and provide updates.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 31
6.3.a
o New Cingular agrees to comply with all applicable laws, standards, and regulations relating to
its facilities and at all times will maintain them in a safe condition in good order and repair.
o Procedures are specified in the event of a breach, including notice and an opportunity to
respond and request public hearing before Council. In addition to termination, the City may
impose lesser sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary penalties, for violation of this
Master Permit.
o New Cingular will establish a permanent security fund in the amount of $50,000 to guarantee
the performance of its requirements under the Master Permit and payment of sums due the City.
o Certain provisions survive expiration or termination of the Master Permit for the protection of
the City, e.g., the indemnity and insurance provisions.
Indemnity
o What it is. An indemnity is a promise to protect the City. A commitment to take financial
responsibility for compensating someone if someone gets injured as a result of the provider
conducting its business in our streets.
o The disagreement: The City Attorney's Office and staff are recommending very broad
indemnity that specifically addresses RF emissions, whereas New Cingular wants an indemnity
that does not specifically address RF emissions.
o Why do we care? It could be expensive for the City to defend such a suit, even a meritless one.
Expert witness fees alone could be expensive, for example. Defending and satisfying any
lawsuits resulting from their operations should be their responsibility, not paid by the public
purse. This is a cost of running their business.
Council Discretion is Limited
o The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY
PROHIBIT OR EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT the provision of telecommunications service.
o CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS from
enacting laws or ordinances that conflict with this mandate.
Is this Master Permit for 5G?
o The Master Permit authorizes the provision of telecommunication services and does not specify
any particular generation of wireless services or broadband technology.
o The City would be preempted from dictating the type of service allowed.
Regulation of RF Emissions
o The federal government, NOT THE CITY, has authority to regulate RF Emissions
o City cannot deny permits based on health concerns, such as those expressed by some about
radio frequency emissions. The City cannot condition small cell placement based on RF
emissions. Congress has granted authority to establish RF emissions standards only to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and preempted all municipal regulation of
radiofrequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with federal emissions
standards. Therefore, local officials' hands are largely tied in this area.
The Federal Government is Regulating RF Emissions
o The FCC is obligated to evaluate the potential impacts of human exposure to radiofrequency
emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
o Over the years the FCC has adopted radiofrequency standards which limit the amount of
radiation that can be emitted from wireless transmitters and has created a framework to ensure
compliance with those limits.
o In December 2019, the FCC issued an order finding its existing RF exposure limits should
remain unchanged.
RF Emissions
o What can I do if I still have concerns about RF emissions?
■ Compliance and Information Bureau (888) CALL -FCC
■ Concerns about RF emissions exposure at a particular site: Office of Engineering and
Technology, RF Safety Program, phone (202) 418-2464; rfsafety@fcc.gov
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 32
■ Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services,
Wireless Communications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division (202) 418-0620
■ You can also contact your federal elected officials.
• Design Standards — Site Specific Review
1. Hollow Utility Pole
2. Freestanding small wireless facility / streetlight
3. Existing wood pole (above power)
4. Existing wood pole (in communications space)
5. Strand -mounted (on wires)
o Application requirement for infeasibility must be met before moving down the list
• Small Cell Facility Location Preferences
1. Hollow Power Pole - Full/Partial Concealment
2. Freestanding Small Cell - Full Concealment
3. Wood Power Pole - Installation on Top of Pole
4. Wood Power Pole — Installation in Communication Space
5. Strand Mount — Attachment to Wires
• New Cingular Wireless Proposal
o Existing Condition
o Proposed Conditions
• Master Permit
o Chapter 20.50 ECDC regulates small wireless facilities
o City Council passed amendments to Chapter 20.50 ECDC in April 2019
o Chapter 20.50 requires a Master Permit as a condition in addition to the other permits
• In Closing
o May 18th — Introduction
o May 25th — Q & A and Presentations from City and New Cingular
o June 8th — Public Hearing
o June 15th — Final Action
o Please let us know what information you would like to see next week so we are sure to address
it.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested the minutes of past meetings regarding this topic and the public
hearing. She relayed her and citizens' concern about spacing and asked if spacing of poles was an issue
with 5G. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember Buckshnis wanted the minutes from the meeting when the
Council was considering amendments to Chapter 20.50. Councilmember Buckshnis answered yes, recalling
there were issues regarding spacing and aesthetics. She relayed a citizen's question regarding whether the
City can require rent for use of the City's rights -of -way. Ms. Tinker answered state law generally prohibits
cities from charging a franchise fee for use of the right-of-way by telecommunication providers and a few
other types of providers. The statute does allow rents for wireless providers in three limited circumstances,
a new structure in the ROW or certain types of replacement structures in the ROW. The amount the City
can charge is limited by the FCC which has enacted de facto caps on the amount that could be charged. The
application by New Cingular is not to place a new facility in the right-of-way.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled another issue whether a citizen or business could charge rent if they
allowed one of these facilities to be placed on their building. Ms. Tinker offered to research and provide a
response next week. Mr. Williams recalled that option was discussed but none of 5G carriers liked the
option of putting their equipment on private property. They preferred to remain in the right-of-way due to
federal rules. That is not to say a facility couldn't be located on private property if they found that
advantageous, but there would need to an be agreement between them and the private property owner. There
is always that option; placement in the ROW is what the City is concerned with. He referred to the
photograph of New Cingular Wireless' proposal which does change the look of the pole. Consideration has
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 33
6.3.a
been given to how that fits with Chapter 20.50 and staff believes there may be another option, to locate a
standalone pole. There is approximately a 150 foot radius around this pole, but to stay in the ROW it is 150
feet in either direction or the other side of the street. Staff believes there is an option higher on the City's
priority list that New Cingular could avail themselves of and that has been the City's response to the initial
application.
Ms. McConnell said that information has been sent to New Cingular and staff has communicated to them
the need for further analysis. Mr. Williams said Ms. Tinker did a great job outlying the City's limited ability
to regulate this activity. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled during previous discussions that it was very
narrow and limited to aesthetics.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is only one master permit and asked if future master permits
would have their own pole or would they collocate. Mr. Williams answered this is one permit application
for one carrier; there will be multiple locations for each carrier. There are some limits in Chapter 20.50
regarding how many can be located in one area and there are also technical limitations on the spacing. The
carriers are opposed to working together due to different protocols and technical abilities and potential
interference. Although the City tried to create an expectation that the carriers would work together, there is
not much evidence that they are interested in doing that. He expected to see a lot of these facilities, including
multiple ones on a given block depending on the location. Carriers try to put them in areas where there are
a lot of immediate customers first. Staff responds to applications received and he assumed more would be
submitted with multiple locations which will require review of each one.
Council President Paine expressed appreciation for the information provided to the Council office so the
community could be alerted. She will submit her questions to staff and she looked forward to next week's
presentation that will include industry representatives.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he will also email his questions to staff. He thanked staff for their advocacy
for the broad indemnification clause, both for the residents and the City, finding that a wise policy approach
to take.
Councilmember Olson said the conversation has been about what happened at the end of 2109, but the
City's current administration is more focused on environmental protections. She requested information
from the EPA or CDC regarding impacts on insect from 5G, public health and other information since 2019.
She was interested in 5G, noting during the pandemic people experienced the demands on the internet that
will only increase, but due to potential health concerns, she was not keen on being on the leading edge if
there were any options for slowing down the process while the City vets the issue.
10.
1. PROCESS FOR REVIEWING HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Distelhorst commented he was very excited to have his younger daughter get her first
COVID shot today and to see a steady stream of other young adults getting their shots. The kids seem to be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 34
6.3.a
excited to get back to social life, sports activities and educational activities. There are many options for
walkup or appointments and he encouraged everyone who is eligible to get vaccinated. He relayed
comments he received last week about how nice it was to finish the Council meeting before 10 p.m. and
hoped the Council to do that in the future.
Council President Paine thanked the Jenness family for advocating for victim rights. It is a big issue and
clearly there are gaps in the system that have existed for years. If there were ways to make it better, she was
certain the Edmonds Municipal Court would work toward that.
Councilmember Olson was inspired by the appointment of the new Planning Board members Judi
Gladstone and Richard Kuehn and the recognition of Natalie Shippen for her outstanding service to the
community, both as a volunteer and an Edmonds City Councilmember. She encouraged residents to find a
way to make a difference in Edmonds to make it a better place for everyone. She gave a shoutout to Roger
Barnstead who has posted pictures on Next Door of sunsets during the pandemic, bringing cheer to a lot of
people. Mr. Barnstead has encouraged people who enjoy his photographs to donate to the Edmonds Food
Bank. She expressed her appreciation to him and all the citizens who contribute so much to the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens who gave her a break while she was on vacation. She had
a wonderful time, Oregon was great and family and friends are important. She commented on the number
of people getting vaccinated. She will continue to fight for transparency; there is a difference between
reading minutes and seeing a presentation. She assured citizens that she hears them and understands what
they are trying to say.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented everyone has heard the new guidelines from the CDC regarding
mask wearing by those who are fully vaccinated, but left behind are kids between 12 and 15 who are just
now eligible to receive the vaccination. It will be at least five weeks until some of them are fully vaccinated
and kids under 12 haven't yet been approved to receive the vaccination, making it more challenging to go
out in public when children are not vaccinated or for a person who is immunocompromised and it is causing
anxiety for many. Children have been through so much and have already lost out on so much and she
implored everyone to keep kids and those who are immunocompromised in mind as they make individual
decisions on whether to wear a mask or not.
Student Representative Roberts urged the public to take care of themselves and get vaccinated and to
continue wearing a mask if they have not passed two weeks since their second vaccination or haven't gotten
their second dose yet.
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson said it is wonderful to see a decrease in the number of COVID-19 cases in the fourth wave,
now down to 193/100,000, the highest decrease since mid -March. To put that in context, it is still higher
than the first wave so the number of people contracting COVID is still high. In Snohomish County, 59%
have initiated their vaccination; if those numbers continue, Snohomish County is on the way to much higher
chances of herd immunity at least locally.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 35
6.3.a
Public Comment for 5/18/21Council Meeting:
From: Clayton Moss
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:26 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor - I support this important pedestrian connection between
Downtown Edmonds
Main Street and the ECA. We need to make 4th Avenue a safer, more welcoming, and more
inviting pedestrian experience. Please move forward with the next phase!
Clayton Moss
From: Jerry Capretta
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 3:46 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Intruder on City Parks with metal detectors
A recent article in the Beacon about a gentleman who had "mapped" the remnants of a railroad
track in the large wilderness park north of Olympic View Drive using metal detectors was
distressing to me. Did he have permission to use a metal detector on Park
grounds? The gentleman suggested that the wilderness might now be made available for
hikers due to his exploring. Did he have permission to disturb natural wilderness in search of
his own private interests? What license does he have to suggest park policies?
Might he have been in violation of a number of laws and restrictions?
He has lived here 4 years. Somewhere there are people feeling quite relieved of this.
Is there a history of any old dumps or garbage fill areas within this park? Often old garbage
dumps yield valuable bottles and similar antique items that attract such metal detector
explorers.
The planning board looked at this park 25 years ago and local neighbors were overwhelmingly
against clearing and opening this undeveloped side of the park up to hiking. It was decided at
that time to keep most of the park natural wildlife. Please consider citing this individual for any
violations which may have occurred.
Jerry Capretta
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 36
6.3.a
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 1:23 PM
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>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge,
Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the May 18, 2021 Council Meeting - MASTER PERMIT
Edmonds City Code does not define "Right -of -Way". Our Code fails to discuss the dramatic
differences between Opened and Unopened Rights -of -Way. Our Code does not include the
word "servient". Our Code's definition of easement is wrong.
On May 18, 2021, City Staff will advise City Council about something known as a Master Permit
Final action is proposed on June 15, 2021.
This legislative process will afford another opportunity for Edmonds City Government to
increase its knowledge about Rights -of -Way.
The majority of Rights -of -Way in Edmonds involve a dominant estate owner (the City) and a
servient estate owner (the fee title property owner). Our Code fails to make it clear that the
rights of both dominant and servient estate owners are not absolute and must be construed
to permit a due and reasonable enjoyment of both interests so long as that is possible.
Third parties such as utility companies and wireless communication companies can apply for
permits to use the area subject to the City's Right -of -Way easement. Utility companies and
wireless communication companies can also attempt to execute contracts with the City for use
of the rights -of -way (RCW 35A.47.040). These contracts are known as nonexclusive franchises,
also known as Master Permits. These contracts can expire so the related terms must be
tracked.
One thing especially important to understand is that the servient estate owner is not a party to
the "franchise" and/or "Master Permit" contract.
The servient estate owner owes nothing to the utility company and/or wireless communication
company should the City of Edmonds decide to vacate its easement rights.
In a street vacation, the City of Edmonds can certainly retain an easement or the right to
exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair, and
maintenance of public utilities and services (RCW 35.79.030). If the City does so, the franchisee
can continue to use the utility easement area. When the City retains such an easement, the
City cannot also charge compensation for the street vacation. The law is clearly Either:OR.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 37
6.3.a
The City cannot require the fee title property owner (servient estate) to grant easements to
third parties. The City cannot retain a Temporary Construction Easement when the City has
never constructed anything on the related property and has no plans to ever construct
anything.
Despite the City having no such legal rights, all know the City has done both, harming servient
estate owners as if the City can do whatever it wants and it is the servient estate owner's
burden to take the City to Court if they oppose what the City is doing. Total rubbish.
Please address the City's previous conduct at once. I will forward related information in
separate emails.
From: Thomas Copley
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 4:31 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
I'm reading in the Beacon that you are changing the city codes by allowing more duplexes,
multiple townhouses, triplexes. Why? I'd sure like to know precisely your motive.The majority
of the citizens of Edmonds don't want those types of housing in their neighborhood. Also when
are you going to open up and be transparent, by having in person meetings ? On May 13th the
President of the USA said no more masks, for those who have had their shots, and we can
almost go back to normal.
THOMAS W COPLEY
EDMONDS,WA 98026
From: Patrick Coleman
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 2:27 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Duane Hoekstra
Subject: URBAN UPZONING of ALL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS in EDMONDS
As a resident of Edmonds for nearly 35 years, I am not in favor of changing the zoning and tax
laws in Edmonds. I moved here because of the charm and community feel. I don't want this to
change in ways that the upzoning would allow. Please register my voice as a STRONG NO!
Thank you,
Patrick Coleman
Edmonds WA 98026
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 18, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 38
6.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #247366 through #247468 dated May 20, 2021 for $910,579.48 (re -issued
checks #247404 $220.17 & #247418 $141.00).
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64674 through #64678 for $596,286.10, benefit checks
#64679 through #64684 and wire payments of $600,316.48 for the pay period May 1, 2021 through May
15, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claims 05-20-21
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 05-20-21
payroll summary 05-11-21
payroll summary 05-20-21
payroll benefits 05-20-21
Packet Pg. 39
6.4.a
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247366 5/20/2021 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC
247367 5/20/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
247368 5/20/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
247369 5/20/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
305008
DRUG TESTS
DRUG TESTS - DUNN/JOHNSON (\A
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Total
15-88998
INTERPRETER - 1 A01 34716
INTERPRETER - lAO134716
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-89182
INTERPRETER - 8Z1184352
INTERPRETER - 8Z1184352
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-89190
INTERPRETER - lA0350272
INTERPRETER - lA0350272
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total
44858 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
139789354 PUBLIC SAFETY - ADDITIONAL EQ(
PUBLIC SAFETY - ADDITIONAL EQ(
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
139985923 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Page: 1
a�
L
3
c
.y
Amoun 0
a
m
U
m
110.0(
110.0( ui
m
160.0(
m
c
a�
170.0( c
�a
0
170.0(
500.0( a
E
U
90.0( c
�a
9.3( 0
99.3E a
a
Q
N
450.7' o
N
46.8 1 N
E
M
24.9E
c
24.9E E
t
U
2.6(
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247369 5/20/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL (Continued)
139985924
139985926
139985927
139985928
139985929
247370 5/20/2021 077469 ALLEN, ROBERT FIREARMS TRNG WK 1
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
ALARM MONITORING - FIRE STATIC
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
ALARM MONITORING - FIRE STATIC
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
ALARM MONITORING - CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING FOR City Hall
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT
ALARM MONITORING FOR Wastew,
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
ALARM MONITORING - PUBLIC SAF
ALARM MONITORING FOR Public &
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
FIRE INSPECTION - F.S.#17, MUSEI
Fire Inspection - Fire Station #17, 27E
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Fire Inspection, Museum
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Fire Inspection - Public Safety 250
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total
BOB ALLEN - FIREARMS TRAINING
PER DIEM 5/2-5/7/21 OAK HARBOR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
6.4.a
Page: 2
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
2.6( u
30.9E
m
3.2,
m
c
70.9E
c
7.3£
0
L
129.0E a
E
45.9E u
4-
0
4.7£ >
0
L
Q
a
112.5( Q
N
0
55.4, N
LO
0
35.0, E
2
153.3z U
1,201.3E
W
E
z
282.2E
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247370 5/20/2021 077469 ALLEN, ROBERT
247371 5/20/2021 071634 ALLSTREAM
247372 5/20/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
FERRY FROM COUPEVILLE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLE - TRAININ
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FIREARMS TRNG WK 2 BOB ALLEN EXP CLAIM FIREARMS
PER DIEM 5/9-5/14 OAK HARBOR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FERRY TICKET TO COUPEVILLE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FERRY TICKET TO PT TOW NSEND
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLE - TRAININ
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
EDMONDS FERRY-RET. CITY VEHIi
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Total:
17505851 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
Total
051121002 FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
051121004 WWTP: ACCT: COEWASTE: 5/1/21
Acct COEWaste:-
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
6.4.a
Page: 3
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
15.8( u
L
30.7E
N
m
z
265.0( u
15.8( c
15.8(
�a
13.0( o
L
�a
20.4(
658X
U
4-
0
1,344.4E
0
L
11.1- a
Q
11.1�
1,366.6, c
N
LO
0
V)
44.2E E
U
4.6(
c
a�
E
52.5( U
co
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247372 5/20/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC (Continued)
247373 5/20/2021 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC 22066
247374 5/20/2021 001528 AM TEST INC 121194
121195
121233
121418
121422
247375 5/20/2021 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 18638
247376 5/20/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 6560000039079
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total :
WWTP: 4/5, 4/12, 4/19 & 4/26/21 CC
4/5, 4/12, 4/19 & 4/26/21 COURIER
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A004441-4442
SAMPLE #21-A004441-4442
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A004353-435E
SAMPLE #21-A004353-4358
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A004698-4702
SAMPLE #21-A004698-4702
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLE #S 21-A005731-57
SAMPLE #S 21-A005731-5735
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A004359
SAMPLE #21-A004359
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
SPRAY PARK MAINTENANCE SERV
SPRAY PARK MAINTENANCE SERV
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
WWTP:5/5/21 UNIFORMS,TOWELS
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
6.4.a
Page: 4
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
5.4E -0
106.81
L_
N
220.9(
220.9(
m
c
80.0( -a
c
�a
470.0( o
�a
a
355.0( .
�a
v
0
355.0(
0
a
110.0( Q
1,370.0( "
N
0
N
LO
2,723.3E c
E
3,006.55
c
a�
E
t
51.4E
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247376 5/20/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each =
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
6560000042726
WWTP: UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MAT;
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each =
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
656000042727
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
656000042729
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
656000044285
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.4.a
Page: 5
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
0.5- u
L
5.3E
N
0.0E
v
51.4E c
aD
M
0.5-
�a
5.3E o
L
�a
0.0E a
E
61.7( u
0
6.4'
0
a
a
29.5E Q
3.0, c
N
LA
0
1.6" E
M
6.1- Z
c
6.1- E
t
6.1-
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.4.a
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
247376
5/20/2021
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1- u
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
L
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.Of
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1;
10.4% Sales Tax
U
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
c
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z m
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z f°
10.4% Sales Tax
o
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
L
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6" E
656000044286
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
-
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� 0
FLEET DIVISION MATS
>
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1( o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9 - Q
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
N
1.9� c
Total:
282.3f N
LO
0
247377
5/20/2021
078097 ARMSTEAD CONSULTING INC
7
EQUITY & SOCIAL JUSTICE TASK F
CONSULTING
E
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
1,500.0( U
Total :
1,500.0(
aD
247378
5/20/2021
071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
0330414-IN
WWTP: 5/4/21 DIESEL FUEL
E
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
U
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
4,305.9,
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247378 5/20/2021 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued)
247379 5/20/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 120891
120949
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
Total
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1771
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1771
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1771
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 1771
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 1771
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
10.25% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
10.25% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 2456
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 2456
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 2456
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 2456
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 2456
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
10.25% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
6.4.a
Page: 7
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
447.8< u
4,753.7E
N
m
123.9(
123.9(
d
127.6E
�a
352.6, o
L
352.6, a
E
12.7(
12.7( 0
Ta
13.0E o
a
a
Q
171.8,
N
171.8, N
LO
0
177.0< E
489.2' 2
489.2( W
E
t
17.6" um
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247379 5/20/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
10.25% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
120975
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1748
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1748
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1748
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage #
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage #
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
10.25% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
10.25% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
121008
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 446
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 446
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 446
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 446
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 446
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
10.25% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
6.4.a
Page: 8
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
17.6" u
L
18.1E
N
m
z
122.2� v
122.2� c
a�
126.0(
�a
346.9( o
L
�a
346.9(
E
12.5,
12.5, 0
Ta
12.9( o
a
a
Q
31.2( N
0
31.2( N
LO
0
32.1E E
113.7;
c
113.7'
t
3.2(
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.4.a
Page: 9
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
247379
5/20/2021
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
3.2(
10.25% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
3.2�
Tota I :
4,105.61
247380
5/20/2021
078358 AUTOZONE STORES LLC
4107752078
UNIT 286 - PARTS
UNIT 286 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
251.9�
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
26.4E
Total:
278.4°
247381
5/20/2021
002170 BARTON, RONALD
34
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
2,186.3,
Total :
2,186.3:
247382
5/20/2021
075217 BASLER, ANTHONY
58448
INTERPRETER - XZ0635360
INTERPRETER - XZ0635360
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
59119
INTERPRETER - XZ0540779
INTERPRETER - XZ0540779
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
150.0(
60420
INTERPRETER - XZ0546886
INTERPRETER - XZ0546886
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
60423
INTERPRETER - lA0288261
INTERPRETER - lA0288261
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
60886
INTERPRETER - lA0304049
INTERPRETER - lA0304049
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
61273
INTERPRETER - XZ0242588
INTERPRETER - XZ0242588
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247382 5/20/2021 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY
247383 5/20/2021 075342 BORUCHOW ITZ, ROBERT
247384 5/20/2021 077243 BPAS
247385 5/20/2021 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
247386 5/20/2021 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Tota I :
05012021 PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES - APF
APRIL PUBLIC DEFENSE FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total
1000775699 PARTICIPANT FEES - APRIL
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
001.000.39.518.61.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
111.000.68.542.61.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
APRIL PARTICIPANT FEES
001.000.41.521.22.23.00
Total
9627 YOGA 9627 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION
9627 YOGA ONLINE INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
1068937 INVITATION TO BID
E7DC Invitation to bid
112.000.68.595.61.41.00
6.4.a
Page: 10
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
100.0( -0
650.0( m
L_
T3
N
1,062.5(
1,062.5(
m
c
324.0( -a
c
�a
139.5( —
0
27.0( a
31.5( •�
U
27.0( 0
1i
58.5( c
L
a
31.5( Q
216.0( N
855.0( N
LO
0
V)
E
780.0( .M
780.0(
c
a�
E
t
16.6'
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247386 5/20/2021 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
E7DC Invitation to bid
125.000.68.595.61.41.00
E7DC Invitation to bid
126.000.68.595.61.41.00
E7DC Invitation to bid
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
EOMA Invitation to bid
332.100.64.594.76.41.00
EOGA Invitation to bid
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
Total ;
247387 5/20/2021 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 12375 WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 1
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 1
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 1
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 1
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total
247388 5/20/2021 077166 CADENA, MICHAEL 04192021 INTERPRETER - lA0168406
INTERPRETER - 1 A01 68406
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
6.4.a
Page: 11
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
2.0f u
L
5.5E 13
N
0.7z z
U
2.2E 4-
m
c
1.5(
28.7;
�a
0
L
1,095.1 , a
E
1,095.1 ,
1,095.1 , 0
0
1,095.1 , o
a
a
113.8� Q
113.8� N
0
N
113.8� c
113.9( •�
4,836.0° U
c
a�
E
100.0( U
�a
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247388 5/20/2021 077166 077166 CADENA, MICHAEL (Continued)
247389 5/20/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5758758
5759014
247390 5/20/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 95022224
95029464
247391 5/20/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 26705175
26705176
PO # Description/Account
Total ;
ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT I
ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT I
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT E
ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT E
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
Total
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
8.4% Sales Tax
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
Total
ENG COPIER LEASE MAY 2021
ENG COPIER LEASE MAY 2021
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
DSD LARGE COPIER CONTACT/LE)
DSD Large copier Contact/Lease
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
6.4.a
Page: 12
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
100.0( as
U
d
L
169.8E
N
17.1E y
v
254.3E c
25.6E
467.0'
�a
0
�a
a
423.6' E
35.6( U
0
�a
418.9E c
L
a
42.3, Q
N
0
N
253.4E
E
26.3E 'M
c
217.4;
t
22.6,
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
247391 5/20/2021 073029 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
247392 5/20/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN04210977
247393 5/20/2021 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
247394 5/20/2021 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
Description/Account
Total ;
WWTP: 4/2021 CYLINDER RENTAL-
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
BLD2019-1590 B PERMIT FEES - CIVIC PARK
PERMIT FEES - CIVIC PARK
125.000.64.594.76.65.00
Total
9056920000 WWTP: 3/15-5/12/21 FLOWMETER !
3/15-5/12/21 FLOW METER #87902'
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
Tota I :
247395 5/20/2021 078329 COMPENSATION CONNECTIONS LLC 1590
247396 5/20/2021 074444 DATAQUEST LLC
247397 5/20/2021 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WWTP CONSULTING
CONSULTING
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
14724 BACKGROUND CHECKS - APRIL
APRIL BACKGROUND CHECKS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total
PWTF-253990 LOAN #PW-02-691-019
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.000.75.591.35.78.61
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.000.75.592.35.83.61
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
423.100.76.591.39.78.61
Pr & Int Pmt CTED 2002 Sanitary Se%
6.4.a
Page: 13
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
519.9( 0
U
d
L
14.8E
N
142.7E y
157.6(
m
c
d
36,083.7( M
36,083.7(
0
L
�a
23.2( a
23.2( E
U
4-
0
4,510.0( >
4,510.0( o
a
a
Q
250.0( N
250.0( N
0
E
36,450.0( 2
364.5( y
E
34,875.0( U
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 52
6.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
247397 5/20/2021 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
(Continued)
0
423.100.76.592.39.83.61
as
348.7,'
PWTF-255417
LOAN #PW-04-691-030
Pr Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp
L
422.000.72.591.31.78.64
32,062.5(
Int Pmt CTED Stormwater Outfall Imp
422.000.72.592.31.83.64
641.2E
PWTF-257656
LOAN #PW-04-691-029
Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improver
112.506.68.591.95.78.63
21,176.41
Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improvers
112.506.68.592.95.83.63
423.5(
PWTF-258220
LOAN #PW-04-691-031
sa
Pr Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station
o
421.000.74.591.34.78.65
25,838.9,
Int Pmt CTED 5 Corner Pump Station
a
421.000.74.592.34.83.65
516.7E
PWTF-259345
LOAN #PW-02-691 -PRE-1 23
Pr Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improver
U
112.506.68.591.95.78.62
18,143.2E 0
Int Pmt CTED 220th St SW Improvers
112.506.68.592.95.83.62
181.4' o
PWTF-266236
LOAN #PW-06-962-012
a
Int Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilizat
Q
112.000.68.592.95.83.67
986.4E
Pr Pmt CTED 100th Ave W Stabilizati
N
112.000.68.591.95.78.67
0
32,881.5E N
PWTF-266248
LOAN #PW-05-691-015
c
Pr Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Station
423.000.75.591.35.78.66
72,295.2' .�
Int Pmt CTED 2005 Sewer Lift Statior
423.000.75.592.35.83.66
1,807.3E +:
Total:
278,993.OS E
247398 5/20/2021 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
21-WAR310149-1
EOMA WATER QUALITY FEE 7/20-6/
U
EOMA WATER QUALITY FEE 7/20-6/
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247398 5/20/2021 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
247399 5/20/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
247400 5/20/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
332.100.64.594.76.41.00
Tota I :
21-4083
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
city council minutes 5/4
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
21-4085
CITY COUNCIL, PPW, PSPP, FINAN
city council, ppw, pspp, finance
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Tota I :
1976
FIRE STATION 20 - CAULK
FIRE STATION 20 - CAULK
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2111
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES/ TEXTURE
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES/ TEXTURE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2187
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2245
WWTP: PO 481 WASHERS
PO 481 WASHERS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
2288
WWTP: PO 481 NUTS, BOLTS, SCR
PO 481 NUTS, BOLTS, SCREWS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
6.4.a
Page: 15
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
257.91 -0
257.9 m
L_
T3
N
378.0(
518.4( c
896.4(
c
�a
6.9� o
�a
a
0.7' E
a
U
31.9£ o
1i
3.3< o
L
a
a
Q
8.91
N
0.91 N
0
1.5£ E
2
0.1 E U
c
a�
E
25.9� U
�a
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247400 5/20/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued)
2289
2290
2291
2292
2294
W1
247401 5/20/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-00080
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: MASKING PAPER, P
PM SUPPLIES: MASKING PAPER, P
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT
PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: MARKERS, NUTS, B
PM SUPPLIES: MARKERS, NUTS, B
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE
IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE
6.4.a
Page: 16
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
2.7( 'D
U
d
L
13.9,
N
1.4E
v
9.5f c
aD
M
1.0(
�a
0
17.1, `>,
M
a
1.7E E
U
45 15.9� 0
�a
1.6E o
a
Q
35.8,
N
0
3.7< N
m
0
15.8( .
R
1.6z
202.9: (D
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
247401 5/20/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
5-10351 INTERURBAN TRAIL
INTERURBAN TRAIL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
247402 5/20/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR191002
AR192251
AR192364
Total :
CUST# MK5533 C57501 3AP07496 C
Meter charges 03/16/21 - 4/15/21 B&'
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
Meter charges 03/16/21 - 4/15/21 Col
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
Maintenance 05/21/21 - 06/20/21 Car
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
METER OVERAGE CANON PRINTEI
bw 4/16 - 5/15/2021
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
bw 4/16 - 5/15/2021
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
bw 4/16 - 5/15/2021
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
clr 4/16 - 5/15/2021
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr 4/16 - 5/15/2021
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
clr 4/16 - 5/15/2021
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
6.4.a
Page: 17
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
53.9z 'D
r
U
d
53.9z
107.8f
m
7.1- c
13.2E
c
�a
2.1, o
�a
a
307.2(
31.9E U
4-
0
7a
1.1 0
L
a
a
0
N
9.0E LO
O
V)
9.0E .
�a
9.0E
c
aD
1.0( E
U
1.0E Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247402 5/20/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
247403 5/20/2021 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 163015
247404 5/20/2021 078357 ESTATE OF CAROL BURK
247405 5/20/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
247406 5/20/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
1-07260
EDH926040
EDH926661
EDH926709
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
Total :
E21 FC SERVICES THRU 4/2/21
E21 FC SERVICES THRU 4/2/21
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
Total
#611275187-AJ UTILITY REFUND
#611275187-AJ Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
ORDINANCES 4221 AND 4222
ordinances 4221, 4222
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
2022-2027 TIP
2022-2027 tip
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
LEGAL DESCRIP. CITYAPPS: PLN,
Legal Descrip. City Apps: PLN2021
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Total
0983444 WATER INVENTORY
WATER INVENTORY
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
247407 5/20/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 163162
Total
MAY-2021 SUPPORT SERVICES
May-2021 Support Services
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
6.4.a
Page: 18
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247407 5/20/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC (Continued)
247408 5/20/2021 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC
40715
247409 5/20/2021 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC BINV0008892
247410 5/20/2021 012199 GRAINGER
9896659506
247411 5/20/2021 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 1128062
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total :
WATER - PARTS/ REPAIR KITS
WATER - PARTS/ REPAIR KITS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
WWTP: PO 546 WATM 0, 02, 03
PO 546 WATM 0, 02, 03
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
WWTP: PO 567 LINE STRAINGER
PO 567 LINE STRAINGER
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
OLD PW - SECURITY
OLD PW - SECURITY
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
6.4.a
Page: 19
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
247411 5/20/2021 074722 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS (Continued)
247412 5/20/2021 064357 HARTMAN, EDMUND EAC CONTRACT
247413 5/20/2021 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN
247414 5/20/2021 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT
247415 5/20/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Description/Account
Total ;
SILENT FILM: EAC CONTRACT FOF
SILENT FILM: EAC CONTRACT FOF
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Total
35
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Total
36
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
Total
1021026
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2011294
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2020930
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3011174
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
6.4.a
Page: 20
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
60.7; m
U
d
L_
300.0(
300.0(
m
119.5E m
119.5E a0i
c
�a
20.5, o
�a
2,850.0(
2,870.5, E
U
4-
0
49.2- >
0
L
5.01 a
Q
78.6, c
N
8.1( o
E
M
30.8� Z
c
3.1 £ E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.4.a
Page: 21
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
247415 5/20/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
0
m
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
8.2( -0
10.3% Sales Tax
U
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
m
0.8z .L
3011237
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.2,
10.3% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
0.9E
3014124
FIRE STATION #20 - DECK SUPPLIE
FIRE STATION #20 - DECK SUPPLIE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
89.9( c
10.3% Sales Tax
sa
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.2E 0
3512782
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
a
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
100.3,
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.3z u
4012444
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
0
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
62.7( o
10.3% Sales Tax
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.4E Q
5012261
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
N
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
0
395.5E N
10.3% Sales Tax
c
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
40.7z
5015199
YOST PARK - SUPPLIES
YOST PARK - SUPPLIES
2
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
13.1 z +:
10.3% Sales Tax
(D
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.3E E
5070741
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
U
�a
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247415 5/20/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
513309
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
6012180
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6022904
FAC MAINT - UNIT 42 SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - UNIT 42 SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6024203
F.AC. & CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
F.AC. & CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6052836
STREET - SUPPLIES
STREET - SUPPLIES
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
10.3% Sales Tax
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
618239
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.4.a
Page: 22
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
17.6( u
L
1.8-
N
m
36.7;
3.7f c
a�
c
15.6z
0
1.6" >+
M
a
E
57.3E .i
5.9• 0
0
0
L
49.0- a
Q
5.0E
N
0
N
47.2E c
4.81 E
c
20.3E E
t
2.0E
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247415 5/20/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
247416 5/20/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
8022581
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
84793
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9013135
STREET - SUPPLIES
STREET - SUPPLIES
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
9013197
FAC MAINT - UNIT 5 SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - UNIT 5 SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
95891
SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total ;
3466712 COURT SUPPLIES - APRIL 2020
COURT SUPPLIES - APRIL 2020
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
3469154 WWTP: PO 559 TOILET PAPER ROL
PO 559 TOILET PAPER ROLLS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
6.4.a
Page: 23
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
r
U
d
10.9E
m
106.3E
m
c
10.9E M
c
�a
50.3, 0
L
5.1E a
E
10.2, u
4-
0
1.0E >
0
L
Q
a
51.4E Q
5.2f o
1,446.1f N
0
E
257.9,
26.& y
E
t
U
44.3,
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247416 5/20/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
247417 5/20/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
247418 5/20/2021 078356 JANET ELENE
247419 5/20/2021 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
247420 5/20/2021 073780 KAMINS CONSTRUCTION INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total :
300-10086750 FLEET - WIPER BLADES
FLEET - WIPER BLADES
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Total
4-20500 #0206166-OC UTILITY REFUND
#0206166-OC Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
852382 WWTP: PO 179 4/27/21 ODIUM HYI
PO 179 4/27/21 ODIUM HYPOCHLC
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
WA Hazadous Substance Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
Total
E7DC. Pmt 1 E7DC. PMT 1 THRU 4/30/21
E7DC. PMT 1 THRU 4/30/21
112.000.68.595.61.65.00
E7DC. PMT 1 THRU 4/30/21
125.000.68.595.61.65.00
E7DC. PMT 1 THRU 4/30/21
126.000.68.595.61.65.00
E7DC. PMT 1 THRU 4/30/21
422.000.72.594.31.65.20
6.4.a
Page: 24
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
4.6" u
333.7(
N
m
53.7(
5.5E
59.2F
c
�a
141.0(
141.0( a
E
U
3,657.5( o
Ta
25.6( o
a
380.3E Q
4,063.4F "
N
0
N
208,343.2E c
V)
E
5,411.5" 'M
56,820.8E
a�
18,461.0(
�a
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
247420
5/20/2021
073780
073780 KAMINS CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued)
Total
247421
5/20/2021
066522
LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC
155747
WATER - EZ STREET ASPHALT
WATER - EZ STREET ASPHALT
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
247422
5/20/2021
074417
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH
05142021
CONFLICT COUNCIL - 1 A0369366
CONFLICT COUNSEL - 1A0369366
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Tota I :
247423
5/20/2021
078362
LEWIS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE
3-4-21
COVANTA REIMBURSEMENT - EDM
DRUG & GUN DISPOSAL - 92LBS
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
Tota I :
247424
5/20/2021
073603
LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
May-2021
05-2021 LEGALS FEES
05-2021 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00
Total
247425
5/20/2021
076001
LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW
576
CONFLICT COUNSEL- 1A0450859
CONFLICT COUNSEL - 1A0450859
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total
247426
5/20/2021
068489
MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC
0256030
E186TP - PARTS
E186TP - PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
6.4.a
Page: 25
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
289,036.6' 0
U
d
L_
1,563.4E
N
160.2E y
1,723.7( v
m
c
d
1,250.0( -a
1,250.0(
0
L
�a
32.6< a
32.6: E
U
4-
0
51,878.0( >
51,878.0( o
a
a
Q
450.0( N
0
N
40.2- c
490.21 E
458.5< a0i
E
47.6E U
�a
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
247426 5/20/2021 068489 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP I (Continued)
247427 5/20/2021 078342 MICHEL, ROBIN BLD2021-0589
247428 5/20/2021 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
ES130721
ME 172045
247429 5/20/2021 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 6121849
247430 5/20/2021 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 10348163
10348164
247431 5/20/2021 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS N031803
Description/Account
PERMIT FEE REFUND
BLD2021-0589-
001.000.257.620
Total
Total
UNIT 14 - SERVICE
UNIT 14 - SERVICE
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
UNIT 11 ABS TRANSMITTER
UNIT 11 ABS TRANSMITTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total
FSA - GO COMMUTER - APRIL
GO COMMUTER
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
FSA - APRIL
APRIL FSA FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total
WWTP: PO #566 3/4" CONTITECH
PO #566 3/4" CONTITECH
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
6.4.a
Page: 26
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
506.21 m
U
d
L_
186.3,
186.3:
m
2,872.3E c
d
281.4� -a
c
�a
131.1E o
�a
a
13.6z
3,298.61, .�
0
500.0( >
0
a
52.0( Q-
552.0( Q
N
0
N
25.0( o
E
M
166.0( Z
191.0(
W
E
t
U
sa
330.0( Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
247431 5/20/2021 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS (Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
247432 5/20/2021 077436 NUVODA LLC 5166 WWTP: KENAF
KENAF
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
247433 5/20/2021 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 71106124
247434 5/20/2021 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER April, 2021
Total :
Total
DOT RECERTIFICATION
DOT RE-CERT - WARD (STORM)
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
Total
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANS
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.237.120
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340
6.4.a
Page: 27
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.4.a
Page: 28
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
247434
5/20/2021
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
(Continued)
Vehicle License Fraud Acct
001.000.237.390
25.3
Total:
26,309.5:
247435
5/20/2021
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
44980
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CHEMICAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
204.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
21.2,
44981
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CHEMICAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,080.2-
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
112.31
Tota I :
1,417.7 ,
247436
5/20/2021
075735 PACIFIC SECURITY
36012
APRIL 2020 SECURITY
APRIL 2020 SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
4,125.1(
Tota I :
4,125.1(
247437
5/20/2021
027450 PAWS
APRIL 2021
APIRL 2021 - EDMONDS PD
7 ANIMALS@ $207. - 3 $35 RECLM 1
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
1,344.0(
MARCH 2O21
MARCH 2O21 - EDMONDS PD
5 ANIMLS @ $207 EA - 1 $35 RCLM
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
930.0(
Total:
2,274.0(
247438
5/20/2021
078350 PB ELECTRONICS
140600
INV 140600 - EDMONDS PD
1.5 HRS LABOR - SHD-01690
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
71.2E
CERTIFY & TEST RADAR- SHD-016!
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
185.0(
Freight
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.4.a
Page: 29
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
247438
5/20/2021
078350
PB ELECTRONICS
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
15.0(
Total:
271.2°
247439
5/20/2021
073253
PENN VALLEY PUMP CO. INC
15953
WWTP: PO 550 DUROMETER
PO 550 DUROMETER
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
1,818.0(
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
29.5(
Total :
1,847.5(
247440
5/20/2021
071811
PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
1118809
SEWER - SHIPPING
SEWER - SHIPPING
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
178.5,
Total :
178.5:
247441
5/20/2021
078359
PROPLUMB LLC
BLD2021-0639
REFUND - PERMIT FEES
BLD2021-0639 Conroy-
001.000.257.620
124.0(
Tota I :
124.0(
247442
5/20/2021
068697
PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC
PSTAC21-20
ASST CHIEF TESTING
AC COMMAND SKILLS AND ABILITII
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
1,975.0(
Tota I :
1,975.0(
247443
5/20/2021
030780
QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
31926
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ESHLEMAN
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ESHLEMAN
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
4,000.0(
Total :
4,000.0(
247444
5/20/2021
064769
ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-031767
UNIT 98 - BATTERY
UNIT 98 - BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
158.7-
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
16.5"
5-031772
UNIT 90 - BATTERY
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247444 5/20/2021 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC (Continued)
247445 5/20/2021 075742 ROSE, LAURIE 05/11/2021
247446 5/20/2021 074431 SEATTLE ASBESTOS TEST LLC 202110128
247447 5/20/2021 078315 SIMPSON STRONG -TIE CO INC 92095630
0II[iI1 . • ^.
92202789
92238348
PO # Description/Account
UNIT 90 - BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total :
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
Total
LIBRARY - ASBESTOS TESTING
LIBRARY - ASBESTOS TESTING
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.4% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.4% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.4% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
6.4.a
Page: 30
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
105.2,' u
L
10.9E
291.4,
m
v
29.8 -
29.81 ID
c
�a
150.0(
150.0( a
E
U
5,449.3-, o
Ta
994.0E a
a
103.3E Q
N
0
200.0(
LO
20.8( E
M
v
1,456.6' c
a�
E
151.4�
co
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247447 5/20/2021 078315 SIMPSON STRONG -TIE CO INC
247448
247449
247450
5/20/2021 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1000555674
5/20/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3370
5/20/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200496834
200650851
200651644
201383270
201431236
201790003
202114484
PO # Description/Account
E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
Total
01-2021 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
Quarterly Liquor Board Profits
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
Total
APRIL PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRAC
APRIL CONTRACT
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CITY PARK GAZEBO
CITY PARK GAZEBO
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OILY
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OILY
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
6.4.a
Page: 31
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
707.7, u
9,083.41
N
m
1,678.11 v
1,563.4'
3,241.6E
c
�a
31,764.5(
31,764.5E a
E
U
66.9E o
�a
0
17.7z a
a
Q
540.7� N
0
N
LO
17.7z o
E
M
16.0'
c
a�
E
19.5 -
�a
Q
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247450 5/20/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
247451
247452
247453
5/20/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
5/20/2021 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
205184385
221732084
222704272
2021-6777
2021-6777
79123
5/20/2021 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER April 2021
PO # Description/Account
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597
VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
WWTP: 4/13-5/8/21 FLOWMETER 11
4/13-5/8/21 FLOW METER 2400 HIC
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
Total
INV 2021-6777 - APRIL 2021 - EDMC
95 BASE RATE @ $142.63EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
31 BOOKINGS @ $128.88EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
10.5 VIDEO CT HRS @ $207.96EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
MARCH 2O21 CORRECTION
BOOKING FEE
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
SS 3 HOUSING DAYS @ 142.63 EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
Total
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Total
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140
6.4.a
Page: 32
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
126.1E u
23.7, 19
m
105.4E
m
c
(D
M
14.8E
949.OS sa
0
�a
a
13,549.8E
3,995.2E U
0
2,183.5E
0
L
a
a
-128.8E Q
-427.8c cv
19,171.9i N
LO
0
V)
E
1,031.0( R
1,031.0( U
c
aD
E
t
U
367.6( m
Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
247453 5/20/2021 070167 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER (Continued)
247454 5/20/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757
247455 5/20/2021 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 4309380
247456 5/20/2021 071666 TETRATECH INC
247457 5/20/2021 077659 TPC TRAINING
Description/Account
Total ;
WWTP: 3/30, 4/9 & 4/26/21 ROLLOF
3/30, 4/9 & 4/26/21 ROLLOFF ASH
423.000.76.535.80.47.65
Total
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
51735940 EOFA SERVICES THRU 4/30/2021
EOFA SERVICES THRU 4/30/2021
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
Total
218345 WWTP: TBERNSTEIN - PUMP REPP
TOLLIE BERNSTEIN - PUMP
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
Total
247458 5/20/2021 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 132150
247459 5/20/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC
STORM - DUMP FEES
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
Total
49121294 WWTP: 4/29/21 CAUSTIC SODA
4/29/21 CAUSTIC SODA
423.000.76.535.80.31.52
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.52
49121295 WWTP: 4/29/21 SOD. BISULFITE
4/29/21 SOD. BISULFITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
6.4.a
Page: 33
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
367.6( 0
U
d
L_
2,844.2E
2,844.21
m
z
114.0� m
c
d
125.9E
0
L
�a
15,350.7E a
15,350.7° E
U
4-
0
1,195.0( >
1,195.0( o
a
a
Q
678.5( N
678.5( N
0
E
5,400.6�
561.6, y
E
z
U
1,910.01
Q
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247459 5/20/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC (Continued)
247460 5/20/2021 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 592400
247461 5/20/2021 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1040143
247462 5/20/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
247463 5/20/2021 075550 VERIZON WIRELESS
9878791861
21274113-92170540
247464 5/20/2021 064972 VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER 75084682C2
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
Total :
WWTP: PO 502 PH 7 & 4 BUFFERS
PO 502 PH 7 & 4 BUFFERS & CUB
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
Total
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
Total
C/A 442201730-00001
iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
Dayton St Stormwater Pump Station
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
Total
INV 21274113-92170540 EDMONDS
LOCATION UPDATES
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
Total
PRE -EMPLOYMENT LAB WORK
6.4.a
Page: 34
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
198.6z u
8,071.W ia
N
m
137.8E r
29.0� c
aD
17.3E
184.3(
0
�a
a
159.6z E
159.6� U
4-
0
164.4 , Ta
483.7° c
L
Q
a
Q
35.1 , N
0
N
27.0E LO
62.1 f o
E
60.0(
60.0( E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
247464 5/20/2021 064972 VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER (Continued)
DUNHAM LABWORK
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
75089014C PRE -EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
DUNHAM PHSYCIAL
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
247465 5/20/2021 075155 WALKER MACY LLC
247466 5/20/2021 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
247467 5/20/2021 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
247468 5/20/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
P3282.04-36
121-321
253-011-1177
Total :
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
126.000.64.594.76.41.00
Total
PM: TREE SERVICE: ANWAY PARK
PM: TREE SERVICE: ANWAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
ENVELOPE ORDER - MAY 2020
ENVELOPE ORDER - MAY 2020
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
Total
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
6.4.a
Page: 35
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
91.0(
L_
345.0(
436.0(
m
c
21,227.7z
21,227.71
c
�a
0
5,200.0( a
540.8( •E
5,740m8( U
4-
0
�a
658.2( a
a
68.4E Q
726.6E j
O
N
LO
0
6.4< E
24.4' U
c
24.4' E
t
24.4'
Q
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247468 5/20/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
425-697-6502
MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH P
Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-712-0417
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI
6.4.a
Page: 36
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
24.4' u
L
24.4<
N
m
110.6< v
m
c
36.6' M
c
36.6,
0
L
17.3E a
E
86.7E .i
72.81 0
�a
72.8 0
a
a
97.1 Q
N
0
141.5" N
LO
0
76.3E •g
c
68.7' E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
05/20/2021 1:48:12PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247468 5/20/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
103 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
103 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
6.4.a
Page: 37
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
73M -0
1,019.1E m
L_
910,940.6: T3
N
910,940.6!
m
c
a�
c
�a
0
L
Q
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
Q
Q
r
N
O
N
LO
O
N
E
2
V
C
E
t
V
f6
Q
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 76
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Protect
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Stud
s018
W8FA
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
�019
Traffic Calming
am
611sw
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
[UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
�2019
Waterline Replacement
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
erlay Program
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
020 Pedestrian Task Force
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STIR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21CA
1h STIR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21CC
LSTM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
�021
Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21CB
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
Moor
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
VE73DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OV
i052
E20CB
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improveme
V c368
E1 CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining W-
i025
E7CD
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
IFSTIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing � i040 E9D�
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
LSTM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
SWR
Citywide CI PIP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement
i026
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
1015
E6AB
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
EOMA
Revised 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 77
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Protect
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Reh
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
LWTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
ville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
_
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
evitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
torm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements ammlbL
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
,ni..i.,..+ e+ �..u,.. av (3rd 4th
i044
E9DC
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design"
c496
E7MA J
§§MLRK
PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103 E7MA
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481 ESHA
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556 E21 FA
Revised 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 78
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
EOAA
i046 11111PFZ020
Guardrail Installations
STR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
STR
EOCC
_ i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
2020 Pedestrian Safety Progra
STR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
c546_1
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c54;K
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c536
layfield (Design)
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
c368
th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
E20CB
i052
76th Ave"veT (196th St. to OVD)
STR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvemen
STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming
2021 Guardrail Installations
STR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
56
ilization
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
559
nnual Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E21GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
Wr
E�A
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Proj
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
4Mdmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
Revised 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 79
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
-
E5FD
c479
reaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
qWP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
E6AA
d�
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
r"DA
;�
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
Stormwater Comp Plan Update AL
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
7A
=
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
E7CD
j025
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
E7FA
m10
ope Repair & Stabilizatio
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)
E7MA
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
i
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i033V
ADA Curb Ramps
STR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
s018
2018 Lorian Woods
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project liv
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c523
019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
UTILITIES
E8J13
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STR
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STM
E9FA
s022r
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 80
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineerinq
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
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
E8FC
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 FIB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
SWR
E21GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
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 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 81
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project 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
E21AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STR
E21AB
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
i06o
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E21 DB
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Revised 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 82
6.4.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
s
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA ,
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA t
s
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA L
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA '!t
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA z
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
S
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD 1
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA 't
s
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD i
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 s
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
T
E6FD C,
c
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
u
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
t
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
s
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA e
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA i
c
!
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC '
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB s
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
!
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA i
u
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC 1
c
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
Revised 5/20/2021
Packet Pg. 83
6.4.b
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
031
EBCC
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
017
E6DD
STR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
055
E20CE
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
061
E21 DB
STR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STR
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
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
E21GB
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02O
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
E21CB
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
ESKA
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 5/20/2021 Packet Pg. 84
6.4.c
Hour Type
903
Hour Class
MISCELLANEOUS
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,038 (05/11 /2021 to 05/11 /2021)
Description
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
Hours Amount
0.00 900.00
0.00 $900.00
Total Net Pay: $796.52
05/20/2021
Packet Pg. 85
6.4.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,006 (05/01/2021 to 05/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
112
ABSENT
NO PAY NON HIRED
40.00
0.00
119
SICK
Donated Sick Leave -used
80.00
4,089.50
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
633.50
28,812.12
122
VACATION
VACATION
933.75
41,066.17
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
27.50
1,202.01
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
52.00
1,961.15
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
144.25
5,829.23
130
COMP HOURS
Holidav Compensation Used
9.00
358.38
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
48.00
1,800.27
135
SICK
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEA
7.00
210.00
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
43.00
1,535.75
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Dav Used
60.00
2,505.30
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
176.40
8,811.06
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
1.00
59.06
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
15,857.50
712,200.32
194
SICK
Emerqencv Sick Leave
227.00
8,973.39
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
55.00
2,957.12
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
134.50
2,484.59
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
4.00
133.37
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
36.00
2,035.31
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
14.00
1,520.44
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
212.50
15,480.13
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
6.75
446.67
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
832.95
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
349.01
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,010.46
601
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP .5
15.00
0.00
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
20.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
205.75
0.00
901
SICK
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE
76.35
0.00
902
MISCELLANEOUS
BOOT ALLOWANCE
0.00
150.00
903
MISCELLANEOUS
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
0.00
-37.50
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
75.19
05/20/2021
Packet Pg. 86
6.4.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,006 (05/01/2021 to 05/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
198.23
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
410.04
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
151.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI
0.00
89.56
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
122.69
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
1,084.60
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
694.41
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
552.86
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
6,482.82
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
483.61
fmis
SICK
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
147.50
6,532.98
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
1,099.07
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
599.74
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,451.51
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
1,050.71
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
1,298.43
Ig2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
251.44
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
299.33
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,256.34
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
377.37
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
307.02
I0
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 8%
0.00
710.88
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
122.69
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
507.30
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
116.54
pfmp
ABSENT
Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup
52.40
0.00
pfms
SICK
Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
27.60
1,280.47
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,530.23
05/20/2021
Packet Pg. 87
6.4.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,006 (05/01/2021 to 05/15/2021)
Hour Type
Hour Class
Description
Hours
Amount
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ;
0.00
194.64
pto
MISCELLANEOUS
Traininq Officer
0.00
155.72
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
19,347.25 $882,252.56
Total Net Pay: $595,489.58
05/20/2021
I Packet Pg. 88
6.4.e
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,006 - 05/01/2021 to 05/15/2021
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit
64679
05/20/2021
bpas
BPAS
4,853.73
0.00
64680
05/20/2021
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
6,027.00
0.00
64681
05/20/2021
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
631.76
0.00
64682
05/20/2021
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,368.44
0.00
64683
05/20/2021
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
4,937.00
0.00
64684
05/20/2021
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
3,918.39
0.00
23,736.32
0.00
Bank: wire -
US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
3204
05/20/2021
awc
AWC
329,304.11
0.00
3207
05/20/2021
us
US BANK
109,662.02
0.00
3208
05/20/2021
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
105,373.97
0.00
3209
05/20/2021
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
25,869.37
0.00
3211
05/20/2021
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,486.19
0.00
3213
05/20/2021
edm
CITY OF EDMONDS
120.00
0.00
3214
05/20/2021
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
764.50
0.00
0.00
576,580.16
Grand Totals:
600,316.48
0.00
5/20/2021
Packet Pg. 89
6.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Nancy Poznoff and Adrian Marchis
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Nancy Poznoff and Adrian Marchis by minute entry.
Narrative
Nancy Poznoff
9205 Park Rd
($2,031.00)
Adrian Marchis
7311 Soundview Drive
($160,000.00)
Attachments:
Marchis-McKenzie Claim for Damages - for council
CFD Poznoff Nancy - for council
Packet Pg. 90
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
RE, ]Z d
6.5.a
MAY 18 2021
Date Claim Form
Received by City
Please take note that L OA MUC -5 � O CJ t who currently resides at
J�j� 3r
, mailing address c/o Aftirew X �� mz e, Ber4oli;fi
home phone #I work phone # and who resiided at SIMe-
r at the time of theoccurrenceand whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against T Ad 5 in the sum of $ I k�O. Q�p � arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
+
as
UGf �`ps�CDATE OF OCCURRENCE: MT41Sc M11,r TIME: a�
1°
E
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Q' C r Ile Ummbe-VA I sn 6 �
L
0
4-
DESCRIPTION: E
1. Dewril the conduct and circumstanc th it brought about the injury or dams e. Also de cribe the injury or damn e. U
ee 4 ikPrl S� A e ti C QI IA QA4 M r� P N oq s` f0 Cr —
a c
0
U
L
0
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 0
a�
2. Provide a list of itne es, if pplicable, to the occurroprice including names, addr saes, and phone nufnb rs. E
rr 'S Rf C4 Sr a i?A4ti p
0 b10 s $ 0
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
License Plate #
Type Auto:
Yes Z— No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Ad d ress:
4
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page t of
Packet Pg. 91
6.5.a
This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the
attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a
court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature of Claimant
Or
ignature a Repre ntative
4114flw A-ACKCRZrc
Print Name of Representative
Date and place (residential address, city and county)
1 as
3rd�Ue. S., dAgn ,� SnQRa►�tsf �i C9(4A E
Date and place (residential address, city and county) p
L
O
Bar Number (if applicable) v
Please present the completed claim form to
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Form Revised 04/09/2021
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 92
r r l t{a VE
6.5.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Form
Received by City
Please take note that N Q� `T who currently resides at
mailing address
home phone # nrork phone # T61.tW and who resided at
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against % m��{ 1 Y�CV� S in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: TIME: LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: _._wA,+eA' rne4er ail" 7 }y � zlv q,-1-09- Fa e_ 9
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
0A l (C d u s (wQ Wtre- u t o fyj n) 4-o r norm u_ � or a
.rvv vy, bt&v b" . 7"k" ttJ ryiM 46 p wdW of*, C, h u-z we re- rvc,G
• • • • I
Imo' i e" � ! ter► /. a"� YMMM!
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
�?Gt4ty 19)`1t wi I ( 6e- ie-i— 6K4-- s (w►�d�lor.�sres+l_
2. Provide a list of witnesses. if applicable, to the occurrence includinq names, addresses, and phone numbers.
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
License Plate #
Type Auto:
(year) (make) (model)
OWNER:
Address:
Phone#:
Name:
Address:
DRIVER:
Address:
Phone#:
Passengers:
Name:
Address:
Yes 1// No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
U
z
O
_
N
O
IL
0
u_
U
r
c
m
E
t
r
Q
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page % of 2
Packet Pg. 93
6.5.b
This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the
attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a
court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
zk���
SignatuW of Claimant
Or
5115 / 21 aM Of\&
Date and place (residential address, city
onoyo
county)
Signature of Representative Date and place (residential address, city and county)
Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable)
Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
E
.2
V
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 94
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Public Hearing for the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Sydney Hall
Background/History
Item discussed at the Parks and Public Works Committee Meeting on 5/11/2021.
On May 18, 2021, staff presented this item to the City Council and a public hearing was held to receive
public comment on the proposed 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. The City
Council voted to continue the public hearing at the May 25, 2021 City Council meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Consider public comment and discuss possible changes and/or approve the 2022-2027 Six- Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
Narrative
The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that
identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six
calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues
for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to
keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2022-2024), but not the last 3 years (2025-2027).
RCW 35.77.010 requires each city to update and adopt their TIP prior to July 1st. A copy of the adopted
TIP will be submitted to Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation,
and adjacent jurisdictions after City Council approval.
Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State
grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of
unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in
2025. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in
the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not
identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- 2022-2027 TIP_ Presentation
Exhibit 2 - 2022-2027 TIP
Packet Pg. 95
--d" Public Hearing
7.1.a
6-vear Transportation Improvement Program
(2022-2027 TIP)
May 18, 2021
Bertrand Hauss, PE
Transportatio Packet Pg. 96
L
d
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
•
Outline
Introduction
I. Construction projects in zoz1
II. Scheduled Construction projects (zozz / zoz3)
Ill., Other projects identified in TIP
IV. Recently secured grants
Public Hearing /QuestionsM
}
VA
Washington State Puget Sound Regional Council
Department of Transportation won, M. w
pstc,or
L
X_
N
ntroduIcti on N
N
O
N
C
O
.N
d
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city o
update their TIP by July istCU
L
Document contains all significant transportation projects that a
City possibly plans to undertake in the next six years. N
N
O
N
City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first (3) years
x
W
Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed
as revenue source for TIP projects.
Packet Pg. 98
7.1.a
I. Construction Proiects in 2021
Y
Annual Street Preservation Program (Project #1)04
NCD
Project Details
(5) lane miles of variable depth overlay along local streets throughc2 t
the City
0
* (11) curb ramps upgrades (completed by City crews) N
* Annual Funding Goal: $Z Million per year
N
O
N
Schedule
► '° N
�-r N
Construction: Summer 2021
x
W
Funding4.
t
L
Local funds $841,000
Utility Funds $310,000
;xM Packet Pg. 99
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements (Project #24
- Project Description
Complete Citywide pedestrian crossing enhancements at (9) locations, with
the following:
* Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) at (7) intersections
* HAWK signal (SR-524 @ 84t" Ave. W)
* Fully actuated traffic signal (SR-104 @a 232nd St. SW)
- Schedule
Design April 2018 — November 2020
ROW April 2019 —April zozo
Construction March 2021 — Summer 2021
- Funding
Federal Grant (Safe Routes to School Program / TIB)
Local funds (125/126)
Utility funds
$1,576,000
$663,000
$51,000
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
0
MA
o
CU
-
d
i dI
t a
N
04
;€ N
O
N
w
x
W
a L:
4.
Packet Pg. 100
Traffic Calming Program
(Project #44)
- Project Description
• Installation of traffic calming devices along certain stretches (based on
evaluation results)
- Schedule
- Construction
- Funding
- Local Funds
Summer / Fall 2021
$33,000 (zoz1 Budget)
LIMIT
l� L
L
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
0
0
0
L
a.
:
L
r
I-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
L
K
W
C
N
t
U
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 101
II. Scheduled Construction
roiects (2022 / 2021—
76t" Ave. W Overlay from 196t" St. SW to OVD
(Project #2)
- Project Description
211 overlay with ADA curb ramps upgrades
Evaluate addition of mid -block crossing with RRFB's
Evaluate addition of northbound bike lane (currently sharrows)
City of Lynnwood funding east side of corridor
- Schedule
- Design
- Construction
- Funding
- Local Funds
- Secured grant
- City of Lynnwood
2021
Spring / Summer 2022
$429,000
$645,000
$881,000
R-99 Revitalization &Gateway Project -
(Project # 8)
Project Description
* Installation of landscaped raised median along entire corridor from 2441" St.
SW to 2101" St. SW with (136) trees
* HAWK signal 400' north of 2341" St. SW
* Gateway signs on both ends of corridor
Schedule
* Design 2020-2021
* Construction 2022
* Funding
* Connection Washington $8,21o,000
* Local funds $290,000
Before After
z
co
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
.N
0
L
r
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
t
x
w
c
m
E
z
U
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 103
7.1.a
Citywide Bicycle
Improvements project
(Project #43)
Project Description
• Install sharrows along 80th Ave. W from
228th St. SW to 220th St. SW
• Install bike lanes along key corridors
• 100th Ave. W / 9th Ave. S from
238th St. SW to Walnut St.;
• Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. S to
84th Ave . W; a n d
• 228th St. SW from 78th Ave. to
80th Ave. W.
Schedule
• Design 2020 / 2021
• Construction 2022
Funding
• Sound Transit Access grant
• $1.85 MILLION (100% funds)
1!2 mile
1 4 mile
Edmonds
Transit
Downtown
Center Edmonds
N
O
N
N
N
O ,.
-
:::r• srsn
T
O
s Pnofbkjo
Prk
-
i1
C
Tot Pork,
-dP
CD
W, r
y 6p L-k CM
P# CM
ME N
r
Odra N
shor-floe = �+k esf ote I E ....A O
em7 Ror N
ixed Use
za,. . en X
W
Firdale Villages=
Mixed Use..,
Irlr..... r...... -
Q
Packet Pg. 104
7.1.a
E I m Way Walkway from 81" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S
P t # 27
( ro�ec ) L
N
- Project Description N
• Identified as Short Walkway #6 in 2015 Transportation Plan N
• Complete missing sidewalk links (N 700" new sidewalk on south side of street)
ADA curb ramp upgrades o
• - Schedule
- Design Spring 2021 — Spring 2022
- Construction Summer 2022
........ .......
N
......... .......
a. L
- Funding
- Local funds $716,000
- Stormwater funds (Fund 422) $402,000 N
N
N
O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t, ..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — t
. . . . . K
LLI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.:. �.+
�bi+� .'.'. Q
1L. Other projects in 2022-2027 TIP
a. Corridor Improvements
228th St. SW from Highway 99 to 951h Pl. W (Project #13)
SR-99 Revitalization (Project #9)
SR-99 Revitalization from 220th to 224th (Project #10)
SR-99 Revitalization from 244th to 238th (Project #11)
b. Pavement Preservation
Annual Street Preservation (Project #1)
Main St. from 6th Ave. to 8th Ave. (Project #3)
c. Signal Upgrades
Puget Dr. @ OVD (Project #5)
238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (Project #6)
Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (Project # 7)
7.1.a
2025-2027
2025-2027 0
2022-2027 N
0
2022-2027 N
2022-2027
2023-2024
2025-2026
2025-2026
2026-2027
Packet Pg. 106
d. Intersection Improvements
76th Ave. W @ 2201h St. SW (Project #12)
2021-2025
196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W (Project #14) 2025-2027
Main St. @ 9th Ave. (Project #15) 2025-2026
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W (Project #22) 2025-2026
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW (Project #23) 2025-2026
000*1,
Packet Pg. 107
e. Active transportation projects
* 4t" Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (Project #37) 2022-2026
* SR-104 @a 76t" Ave. W Non -Motorized Transp. Impr. (Project #39) 2025-2026
* SR-104 / Pine St. Sidewalk (Project #42) 2025-2026
Walkway projects within proximity to schools / parks
Maplewood Dr. Walkway (Project #26) 2025- 2027
Sot" Ave. Walkway from 212nd St. SW to 2o6t" St. SW (Prof. #28) 2025-2027
Sot" Ave. W Walkway from 1881" St to Olympic View Dr. (Prof. #z9) 2025-2026
w
N
N
O
0
N
0
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 108
7.1.a
III. Summary of secured
transportation grants
(between 2017 and 2021)
Project Name Grant Program
Citywide Pedestrian Safe Routes to
Crossing Enhancement School
Hwy 99 Revitalization -
Stage z
Citywide Bicycle
Improvements
76t" Ave. W Overlay
from
1961" to OVD
Main St. Overlay from
6th to 8th
Connecting
Washington
Sound Transit
STP Federal
STP Federal
Phase
Design / ROW /
Construction
Design / ROW /
Construction
Design /
Construction
Design /
Construction
Design /
Construction
Amount
Secured
$1,576,00
81210,000
$1,850,000
$645,000
$750,000
X
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
Award Da, .s
c
April '17 CU
April '17 2
NovembE N
N
►19 0
N
r.+
x
Lu
NovembE
`19
Q
Decembe,
Packet Pg. 109
7.1.a
Project Name Grant Program
76th Ave. W @a 22oth
St. SW Intersection CMAQ / STP
Improvements Federal
SR-104 ITS Adaptive
System CMAQ Federal
Hwy 99 Revitalization
from 22oth St. SW to
224th St. SW STP Federal
Hwy 99 Revitalization
from 244th St. SW to
238th St. SW State Funds
Amount
Phase Secured
Design / ROW $1,089,500
Design
Design
Design
$287,000
$1,580,000
$6,500,000
Award Date
November
`19 /
December
'20
December
'20
April `21
April `21
(tentative)
L
X_
N
O
N
N
N
O
0
A
d
W
C
0
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
x
W
E
Q
Packet Pg. 110
7.1.a
TOTAL SECURED
TRANSPORTATION GRANT OVER
LAST 5 years
$22�41lf 000
L
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
Packet Pg. 111
7.1.a
Project Name
Downtown Lighting
228th St. SW Corridor
POSSIBLE
SOUND TRANSIT
GRANTS
Grant Program
Sound Transit ST-3
from Hwy 99 to 95th PI W Sound Transit ST-3
Pine / SR-104 Walkway Sound Transit ST-3
Amount
Phase Requested
Design /
Construction $1,500,000
Design /
Construction $14,700,000
Design /
Construction $3,000,000
Sponsor o
Respons
L
July'21 N
0
N
N
N
O
N
July'21
x
W
July'z�
Q
Packet Pg. 112
7.1.a
'o
Public Hearin
Questions
L
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
0
.N
0
L
a.
L
L
r
I-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 113
7.1.b
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2022-2027)
Grant Opportunity
Project
(2022-2027)
Project Name
Purpose
Phase(s)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Secured grant funding shown in last ear's TIP
Recently secured Grant not shown in last ear's TIP
Preservation/Maintenance Projects:
1. Annual Street Preservation
Program
Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal,
and slurry seal
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$8,142,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(Fund 125, Fund 126)
Local, unidentified
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
$2,600,000
$700,000
$2,720,000
$700,000
$2,822,000
$700,000
$2,100,000
$2,800,000
2. 76th Ave. W Overlay
from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
Grind pavement, overlay
the west side of 76th Ave. W. Lynnwood will be completing
the east side of the street within their jurisdiction .
Secured Grant
&
Local Funds
Construction
$540,000
(Federal, secured)
(City of Lynnwood)
Local, General Fund
$540,000
$731,000
$354,000
$731,000
$354,000
3. Main St. Overlay from
6th Ave. to 8th Ave.
Grind pavement, 2" overlay, and curb ramps upgrades
Secured grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$750,000
(Federal, secured)
(State)
Local, General Fund
$126,000
$31,000
$624,000
$156,000
$0
$187,000
4. Citywide Signal
Improvements
Upgrade traffic signal cabinets and
improve technology
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State)
(Local, unidentified)
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$70,000
$70,000
$70,000
$0
$270,000
5. Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
Upgrade traffic signal
Possible grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$265,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$40,000
$40,000
$225,000
$225,000
$0
$265,000
6. 100th Ave. W @ 238th St. SW
Signal Upgrades
Rebuild traffic signal system
with new signal mast arms and
new vehicle detection
Possible Grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
(Local)
$150,000
$700,000
$850,000
$0
7. Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades
Upgrade traffic signal
Possible grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$325,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$50,000
$50,000
$275,000
$75,000
$0
$125,000
TOTAL
$2,345,000
$1,577,000
$1,500,000
$3,600,000
$4,740,000
$3,942,000
Safety / Capacity Protects:
8. SR-99 Revitalization (Initial Project)
Install raised median along the entire corridor in order
to improve corridor safety (restrict left turns to / from two-way left turn
onto private driveways), a HAWK signal, and Gateway Features
Secured Grant
Design, ROW,
and
Construction
$0
(Federal, unsecured)
(State, secured)
(Fund 125, Fund 126)
$7,415,000
$7,415,000
$0
9. Hwy-99 Revitalization
Install wider sidewalks, lighting improvements, capacity improvements,
and utility upgrades along entire SR-99 Corridor .
Secured Grant,
Possible Grant, and
Local Funds
Engineering
ROW, &
Construction
$0
(Federal, secured)
(Federal, unsecured)
(Local, Traffic Impact Fee)
$2,000,000
$400,000
$2,000,000
$400,000
$2,500,000
$500,000
$6,500,000
$1,300,000
10. Hwy 99 Revitalization
from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
Install wider sidewalks, lighting improvements, capacity improvements,
and utility upgrades along Hwy 99 from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW.
Secured Local,
Possible Grant, &
Local Funds
Engineering
ROW, and
Construction
$1,580,000
(Federal, secured)
Federal, unsecured)
(Local)
$539,000
$191,000
$1,041,000
$372,000
$826,000
$129,000
$1,501,000
$234,000
$1,500,000
$234,000
$6,000,000
$1,000,000
$9,827,000
$2,160,000
11. Hwy 99 Revitalization
from 244th St. SW to 238th St. SW
Install wider sidewalks, lighting improvements, capacity improvements,
and utility upgrades along Hwy 99 from 244th St. SW to 238th St. SW
Secured Local,
Possible Grant, &
Local Funds
Engineering
ROW, and
Construction
$2,096,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State, Secured)
(Local)
$650,000
$650,000
$648,000
$100,000
$648,000
$100,000
$800,000
$200,000
$1,300,000
$400,000
12. 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection
Improvements
Re -design intersection to reduce intersection delay and
improve level of service (LOS). Various utility
improvements are also included in the project.
Secured Grant,
Possible Grant, &
Local Funds
Design,
ROW, &
Construction
$5,500,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(Federal,secured)
(Local)
$351,000
$74,000
$535,000
$257,500
$184,000
$183,500
$5,500,000
$737,000
$1,070,000
$1,252,000
13. 228th St. SW Corridor imrpovements from
Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W
Widen roadway to add two-way left turn lane along stretch or
left turn lanes at specific intersections.
Install sidewalk and bike lanes.
Possible grant
Engineering,
ROW, &
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(Sound Transit, unsecured)
Local
$1,000,000
$1,700,000
$12,000,000
$14,700,000
$0
14. SR 524 (196th St. SW) @
88th Ave W. Intersection
Improvements
Design intersection improvements and addition of guardrail on
the west side of intersection due to 12' vertical drop (grade.
adjustment to improve sight distance to be considered).
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local, traffic impact fees
$150,000
$88,000
$150,000
$88,000
ROW acquisition
ROW
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local
$108,000
$108,000
$108,000
$108,000
Complete intersection improvements
Construction
$720,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$720,000
$0
$0
15. Main St. @ 9th Ave.
Installation of traffic signal or mini -roundabout.
Possible grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$588,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local, Traffic Impact Fees
$88,000
$88,000
$500,000
$500,000
$0
$588,000
E
cC
L
O
L
d
Y
C
d
E
d
O
Q.
E
C
O
O
O
O.
N
C
M
L
H
M
N
K
to
1-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
c
O
A
d
Q-'
u
d
H
ti
N
O
N
N
N
G
N
N
Z
s
K
W
C
N
E
s
U
M
r
r
Q
Page 1
Packet Pg. 114
7.1.b
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2022-2027)
Project Name
Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Project
Phase(s)
(2022-2027)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
16. Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane.
Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both
movements shared jurisdiction with City of Lynnwood)
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
ROW, &
Construction
(Federal)
(State)
Local
project costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project
17. Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane.
Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both
movements.
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
ROW, &
Construction
(Federal)
(State)
Local
project costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project
18. Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Widen 220th St .SW to add westbound right turn lane and
Hwy. 99 to add 2nd southbound left turn lane.
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
ROW, &
Construction
(Federal)
(State)
Local
project costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project
19. SR-104 ITS Adaptive System
Install ITS Adaptive System along SR-104 from
95th PI W to 226th St. SW
Secured Grants,
Possible Grants,
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
ROW, &
Construction
$287,000
(Federal, secured)
(Federal, unsecured)
(State, unsecured)
Local
$287,000
$123,000
$1,700,000
$255,000
$1,700,000
$0
$378,000
20. SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Extend SR-104 Westbound left turn lane and complete
bicycle improvements with traffic signal
improvements.
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
&
Construction
$220,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$20,000
$20,000
$200,000
$0
$20,000
21 Westgate / SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W
Intersection Access Management
Provide safety improvements within proximity to the intersection by
providing better access management on all approaches
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
&
Construction
$543,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$543,000
$125,000
$0
$125,000
22. SR-104 @ 95th PI. W
Intersection Improvements
Provide C-Curb with left turn channelization
for access management.
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
&
Construction
$207,500
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$32,500
$5,000
$175,000
1 $32,500
$0
$37,500
23. SR-104 @ 238th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Install traffic signal and other
intersection improvements.
Possible Grants
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
ROW, &
Construction
$1,157,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$173,000
$27,000
$984,000
$154,000
$0
$181,000
TOTAL
$9,220,000
$3,265,500
$1,322,500
$15,394,500
$9,183,500
$23,920,000
Pedestrian Protects:
24. Citywide Pedestrian
Crossing Enhancements
Install flashing pedestrian beacons, HAWK signal, or traffic signal
at various locations
throughout the City.
Secured Grant,
&
Local Funds
Construction
$10,000
(Federal, secured)
(State)
Local, General
$10,000
$2,000
$0
$2,000
25. Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S
Install sidewalk on south side of Walnut St. from
6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S
Secured Grant
Engineering,
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local
$265,000
$265,000
$0
26. Maplewood Walkway from Main St. to
200th St. SW
Install sidewalk on Maplewood St. from Main St. to 200th St. SW,
creating connection to Maplewood Elementary and Yost Park.
Possible Grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$1,800,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$150,000
$150,000
$1,500,000
$0
$0
27. Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S
to 9th Ave. S
Install sidewalk on Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S, creating
connections to Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools.
Possible grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal, unsecured)
(Local, Fund 422)
Local, Fund 125
$347,000
$621,000
$347,000
$621,000
28. 80th Ave. W Walkway from
212th St. SW to 206th St. SW
Install sidewalk on 80th Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW,
creating connections to Chase Lake and College Place
Elementary Schools.
Possible Grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$1,449,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$100,000
$110,000
$1,239,000
$0
$0
29. 80th Ave. W Walkway from
188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
Install sidewalk on 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
creating connections to Seaview
Elementary School.
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$1,506,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local, Fund 422
$315,000
$125,000
$1,191,000
$504,000
$0
$629,000
cv
L
O
aL
C
d
E
d
O
Q.
E
C
O
O
O
a
to
C
M
L
H
L
ca
N
K
Cn
t`
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
c
O
.y
d
a
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
s
K
W
C
N
E
s
0
M
r
Q
Page 2
Packet Pg. 115
7.1.b
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2022-2027)
Project Name
Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Project
Phase(s)
(2022-2027)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
30. 95th PI. SW Walkway from
224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
Install sidewalk on 95th PI. W from
224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
to improve pedestrian safety.
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local
$100,000
$20,000
$334,000
$334,000
$434,000
$354,000
31. 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
SR-104
Install sidewalk on one side of 232nd St. SW
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$850,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$130,000
$130,000
$720,000
$720,000
$0
$850,000
32 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to
97th PI. W
Provide sidewalk on one side of 236th St. SW
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$910,000
(Federal,unsecured)
(State)
Local
$135,000
$135,000
$775,000
$775,000
$0
$910,000
33 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to
234th St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th Ave. W
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$395,000
(Federal,unsecured)
(State)
Local
$75,000
$75,000
$320,000
$320,000
$0
$395,000
34. 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St.
Provide sidewalk along short missing link.
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering,
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State)
Local
$40,000
$0
$40,000
35. 218th St. SW Walkway
from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
Install sidewalk along missing link
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$795,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$120,000
$120,000
$675,000
$675,000
$0
$795,000
36. 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99
to 72nd Ave. W
Install 300' sidewalk on the north side of 216th St. SW
from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$150,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$150,000
$50,000
$0
$50,000
37. 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor Enhancements
Create corridor improvements to encourage pedestrian
activity along 4th Ave. N from Main St. to
3rd Ave. N from Downtown retail to Edmonds Center for the Arts
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$5,500,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local, various sources
$94,500
$250,000
$500,000
$100,000
$500,000
$100,000
$4,500,000
$500,000
$0
$1,044,500
38. ADA Curb Ramps Improvements
Construct Citywide ADA compliant curb ramps where
facilities don't exist nor meet current standards
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local, General Fund
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$0
39. SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non -motorized
Transportation Improvements
Install ADA curb ramps, extend bike lanes,and complete signal
modifications in order to improve non -motorized
transportation safety. Traffic signal owned by Shoreline.
Possible Grant
&
Local Funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local
$200,000
$40,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$40,000
40. Pedestrian Safety Program
Complete pedestrian safety improvements at pedestrian crossings
such as RRFB's, Flashing LED's at stop signs, and signage.
Local funds
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(State, unsecured)
Local, unidentified
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$0
$120,000
41. Downtown Lighting Improvements
Install additional street lights on both sides of
Dayton St. (cobra heads combined with pedestrian lights) and other
locations within proximity to Edmonds Transit Station.
Possible Grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(Sound Transit, unsecured)
Local
$300,000
$1,200,000
$1,500,000
$0
42. SR-104 / Pine St Walkway: SR-104 from mid -block crossing
- 400' north of Pine St. to Pine St. and Pine St. from
SR-104 to 9th Ave. S
Complete sidewalk missing links to improve pedestrian safety
and connectivity to Edmonds Transit Station.
Possible Grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(Sound Transit, unsecured)
Local
$250,000
$250,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$0
43. Citywide bicycle Improvements
Install bike lanes along 100th Ave.W / 9th Ave. W from 244th St. SW
to Walnut St. and along 84thAve. Way from 9th Ave. W to
84th AveW
Secured Grant
Construction
$0
(Federal)
(Sound Transit, secured)
(Local)
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$0
TOTAL
$2,594,500
$270,000
$20,000
$3,645,000
$9,083,000
$13,549,000
Traffic Calming / Non -motorized Transportation Safety Projects:
E
cC
L
O
a`
C
d
E
d
O
L
E
C
O
O
O
IZ
rn
C
R
L
L
co
O
ti
N
0
N
N
N
O
N
C
O
N
d
IY
a
I-
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
44. Traffic Calming Program / Traffic circles, speed cushions, Engineering $0 (Federal) N
Non -Motorized Transportation radar feedback signs, bulb -outs, etc. Local Funds only & $0 (State)
Safety Construction $90,000 Local, Unidentified $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 -2
t
Ferry / Waterfront Projects
45. Ferry Storage Improvements from
Dayton St. to Pine St.
Provide additional ferry storage area closer to the Ferry Terminal
(through striping revisions / C-Curb addition...).
Possible Grant
Engineering
&
Construction
$357,000
(Federal, unsecured)
(State)
Local
$357,000
$0
$0
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$357,000
$0
$0
Traffic Planning Projects:
46. Citywide
ADA Transition Plan
Complete an compliance evaluation of all existing ADA
curb ramps, as well as long range plan on how to address
those defficiencies.
Local Funds Only
Engineering
&
Planning
$0
(Federal)
(State)
Local, General Funds
$100,000
$0
$100,000
47. Pavement Rating
Study
Analyse the pavement condition of all arterial, collector,
and local streets to determine the stretches to be repaved
as part of future annual overlays.
Local Funds Only
Planning
$0
(Federal)
(State)
(Local / General Funds)
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$0
$40,000
K
W
C
O
E
t
U
co
r
Q
Page 3
Packet Pg. 116
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2022-2027)
Project Name
Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Project
Phase(s)
(2022-2027)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
48. Transportation Plan Update
Update Transportation Plan (current Plan was completed in 2015)
Local Funds Only
Engineering
&
Planning
$0
(Federal)
(State)
Local
$175,000
$0
$175,000
TOTAL
$215,000
$100,000
1 $40,000
$0 1
$40,000
1 $0
Total $109,933,500
$14,389,500
$5,227,500
$2,897,500
$23,011,500
$23,061,500
$41,426,000
Total Federal
$2,090,000
$2,513,000
$1,010,000
$16,457,500
$11,968,000
$20,451,000
Total Federal (Secured)
$2,090,000
$2,513,000
$184,000
$0
$0
$0
Total Federal (Unsecured)
$0
$0
$826,000
$16,457,500
$11,968,000
$20,451,000
Total State
$8,065,000
$650,000
$0
$1,365,000
$2,842,000
$500,000
Total State (Secured)
$8,065,000
$650,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total State (Unsecured)
$0
$0
$0
$1,365,000
$2,842,000
$500,000
Sound Transit (secured / unsecured)
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$1,550,000
$3,150,000
$14,500,000
Total Local Fund
$2,557,000
$2,338,500
$1,263,500
$3,264,000
$4,347,500
$3,975,000
Total Local (Fund 112)
$440,000
$752,500
$312,500
$1,883,000
$2,602,500
$2,670,000
Total Local (Fund 125 / Fund 126)
$1,321,000
$700,000
$700,000
$0
$0
$0
Total Local (Fund 422)
$347,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees)
$0
$0
$0
$576,000
$900,000
$500,000
Total Local (General Fund)
$394,000
$131,000
$196,000
$0
$40,000
$0
Total Local (unidentified)
$55,000
$755,000
$55,000
$805,000
$805,000
$805,000
Total (City of Lynnwood)
$731,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C
O
2
d
d
I-
I-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
L
K
W
C
O
E
t
U
co
r
Q
Page 4
Packet Pg. 117
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Economic Development
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
The Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor has been a concept -level project envisioned and in preliminary
planning stages since 2004. It was the keystone capital project included in the City's application for
Creative District designation. In 2020 the City hired Crea Consultants to assist us in developing working
concepts for the Corridor improvements, as well as engaging the public for their input and preferences.
A detailed presentation on the project's background, objectives, concepts explored and public
input/preferences was made at the 3/9/21 Council meeting (PowerPoint presentation attached for
reference). At that meeting City Councilmembers requested that a cost estimate be done for the
preferred concept and that the matter be brought back to Council for its direction on further action
steps.
Staff Recommendation
Request Council direction on preferred improvement concept to develop further in future schematic
design development.
Narrative
The attached presentation, which will be presented at the 5/25/21 Council meeting, provides a brief
recap of the summary provided on 3/9/21, plus a high-level summary of a cost estimate of the preferred
concept. This cost estimate was based on the consultant's concept -level project details, using Public
Works Department staff's standard cost estimating figures for both hard and soft costs, based on past
City of Edmonds streets projects.
Attachments:
Fourth Ave Cultural Corridor PPT for Council 3-9-21
Fourth Ave Cultural Corridor PPT for Council 5 25 21 final
2021-03-09 City Council Minutes
Packet Pg. 118
4
City of
DmnNF)S
4T" AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR
2020 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
and PUBLIC PREFERENCES
r r n,ya� V
•l
o®rzt
E ID M O N 0 S
CREATIVE
11 DISTRICT
I 8.1.a I
Packet Pg. 119 1
4
I 8.1.a I
In 2020 staff worked with
CREA AFFILIATES, on
concepts a48 public
process
Considerations:
What is Edmonds
Cultural Corridor?
What is special about
the location?
- How did it come to be?
Creating a special
place
Considerations for
Schematic Design -
roadway and public
spaces
4T" AVENUE EXISTING MURALS, EDMONDS
Packet Pg. 120 1
WHY HERE?
--A
The City of Edmonds ...
Celebrates
14, A seaside ambiance
Appealing small-town
quality
A walkable downtown
An active art community
Showcases year-round
events
Community sense of pride
and involvement in the arts
■ Certified as the State's first
Creative District
■ Civic commitment to arts
and culture
Integrates artwork into the
"fabric" of public spaces
j
0
T)
0
U
0
(L
a.
0J_
M
0
U
0
U_
E
M
U
a
I Packet Pg. 121 1
Goals
■ Draw pedestrians between
the ECA and downtown
businesses.
■ Transform a unique street into
a walkable arts destination.
■ Establish a new community
gathering place.
■ Provide a visible and
accessible space to display
temporary art and host
related activities.
Packet Pg. 122 1
I 8.1.a I
Objectives
■ Connect the Edmonds
Center for the Arts with
Main Street through an
enhanced and unique
pedestrian connection.
■ Welcome mixed -use
development with upper
story residential uses.
■ Accommodate a variety of
cultural events and exhibits
that will attract visitors and
stimulate economic
development.
Packet Pg. 123 1
I 8.1.a I
Cultural Corridor
Concept
• Celebrates the variety in arts
and culture in the Edmonds
community.
Establishes a unique and
memorable sense of place.
• Includes permanent and
temporary cultural features
and events.
Supports key goals of
Edmonds Creative District
• Draws residents and visitors
to the downtown area.
Packet Pg. 124 1
Arts and Culture...
• Transform the
commonplace into
surprising moments.
• Bring mystery and magic to
a streetscape experience.
• Create a memorable
experience.
• Strengthen community.
Packet Pg. 125 1
I 8.1.a
EDMONDS CENTER
♦FOR THE ARTS
.. �T
�y
FERRYTERMINAL ......• .
... ........
'9
PORT OF EDMONDS A
61�A
110
A.2
CASCADIA ART BRACKETTSLDIR LANDING MAIN STREET CITY HALL
MUSEUM NORTH AND SOUTH
.504
DISTRICT BOUNPARYY
PUBLIC SAFETY CIVIC PARK
COMPLEX
,_420■Uninterrupted views
.4
between the ECA and
downtown.
f . A block from City Hall, the
2
.4
Public Safety Complex and
1 41 '11IIIN 012
IP-11-1
Civic Park.
Intersects with major
POINT E—RDS P, paths between the
waterfront and civic
facilities.
I Packet Pg. 126 1
Characteristics
■ A quiet street.
■ Historic buildings.
■ Less than an average 350
cars/ day in either direction at
Main Street.
■ Few driveways onto 4tn
■ Secondary access through
rear alleys.
■ Artwork references
community history.
IWHY 4T" AVENUE? 19
MkISEEIM AND
FOR CRIQR
I
PUBLIC
COMMERCIAL
'
RE
_ ;]EMIH
R$0EM
ALLEY
w SWEI
LANOSCAP
FREE
F.:'� •SLOPE
..... ALLEY ACCESS
.
-- SEWER LINE
$fpRM LINE
WATER LINE
- - PROPEAII' uNE
I 8.1.a I
a�
c
a�
a
0
.N
m
N
6�
M
0
U
L
0
a.
0
L
0
U
R
L
V
Q
0
U-
C
d
E
t
V
a
Q
Packet Pg. 127 1
I 8.1.a I
4thAvenue Cultural Corridor
2004-05
Planning Board -
Identifies Arts Corridor
on 41" which leads to
a creation of BD5
zoning.
2007-09
Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Service
Department gets
50,000 from the
National Park Service's
Preserve America
for 4th Avenue
Cultural Corridor
Implementation &
Funding Plan.
1
I
1
I
1
I
♦
1
t
2006
Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Service
Department
updates the
Streetscape Plan,
adding the 4th
Avenue Arts Corridor
Concept Plan.
2016
Interim Public Art
Project funded by
EAC and Edmonds
Arts Festival
Foundation
"Luminous Forest" by
artist lole Alessandrini
1
1
l
2014
Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services
updates Community
Cultural Plan that
prioritizes interim steps
to implement the 4th
Ave Cultural Corridor
Plan.
2018
Community identifies
completion of 4t"
Avenue Cultural
Corridor as goal in 5
year work plan as a
part of its Creative
District designation.
2020
A tentative
conceptual design is
developed and tied
to cost estimates.
Through public input
schematic design
direction was
identified.
1 1 1
1 1 1
ID
1 1
1 1
l l
2016 2019
Western Washington
University and
Association of WA
Cities on Sustainable
Cities Partnership
develop four potential
public relations
campaigns.
Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Services
contracts for a site
survey and a
consultant to facilitate
development of a
feasible project
concept. Meetings
held with ECDAC and
the public.
Packet Pg. 128 1
2 0 0 5 — 6 f* MAIM L. PE�l iTK 'u 6iN C u�E 6LmAGCO PRoTFGT ViCw a
G ITT. DeR Air'cKCASi a-■L>GK 7� ATi GTNL 6B11N 17
TA616�T`f cRpif. A4, Pt"1-TfdrN Of' r.& Ejc,*u1CAdic PARKR4
5RU WE N. SNN ft kig
i
r � �eune�u f• Y-
�• E _ i. r R• .'_•:�'. Lei r
a
5TNAVF- 11
i
SECTION 1
I
is � �-
SECTION 2
8.1.a
d
tVTK MARKER5 3
pOL4G G4NStR 6TA6L - C
1'9c�ird ;
.w off. o
'_
■■ , 11 O
l YL�' ■ '� � .-91� U
H
a
9TfteNGTHGN ♦ L.
TLn[5r1[WN
40NHGGTIONFl
1 �
O
f I U
L
U
a
m
O
L
■
�
d
I
�
■
ISECTION 3 a
_
Packet Pg. 129
BUILDING THE i=
RECURRING THEMES
FROM PUBLIC INPUT
R Art reflecting both ends
of corridor.
■ Sequential discovery of
art elements.
■ Elements that are
approachable and
interactive.
■ Space for cultural
events.
■ Space for street artists.
Pocket park at Sprague.
Encourage artist studio
store fronts.
■ Outdoor cafe seating
areas.
Packet Pg. 130 1
BD-5 Zoning
■ Ground floor with commercial
space
■ Shall be oriented to 4th Avenue
■ At least one building entry shall
face 4th Avenue
■ Architectural details and/or
applied art shall be
incorporated
■ If structure is set back from the
street, it shall have landscaping
and/or artwork
■ Live/work uses are encouraged
within the BD5 zone.
LS1EDARDS
\Designated Street Front
ST
N
W
N Q
,aLoeR sr
W x
n �
WAL14UT ST_
�Cr
rrowei i war.1.
N
> ERBEN DR L
MAW.
DALEY 5T
sr
B LL
SDI
mil
MAPLE ST
al — 7wE=
ALDER ST
IMMMMM
qM11
r1 1LL
in � �
I 8.1.a I
a�
C
O
Q
L
C
O
.N
N
C4
M
C
O
U
0
I.L
CL
L
O
L
O
U
U
d
Q
t
E
V
Q
Packet Pg. 131 1
I 8.1.a I
■ New downtown public
restrooms.
■ Art elements that reflect
history, like "The Stages
of History" walking tour.
■ New Cascadia Art
Museum.
■ Downtown Murals
project.
■ Creative District
designation by ARTSWA.
0��
E G M G N o S
CREATIVE
—DISTRICT—
http://www.edmondsstagesofhisto�.com
STAGES OF HISTORY MARKER
CASCADIA ART MUSEUM
a�
c
a�
a
0
N
N
M
O
U
L
0
a.
O
L
O
U
L
Q
O
U-
c
E
U
a
i Packet Pg. 132 1
OVER THE YEARS
I 8.1.a I
Packet Pg. 133 1
Creating a
Special Place
2020
Concept
4
I 8.1.a I
a
Packet Pg. 134 1
I 8.1.a I
DALEY
STREET
GATEWAY
d
�
�r MAIN
STREET
GATEWAY
r 1.
r x
f0�1
I
Proposed Phasing:
Three blocks will be
■ REBUILT AND RECREATED
FOR PEDESTRIAN -ORIENTED DESIGN
■ RECAST
FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
ART INSTALLATIONS
■ REMANDED
TO ALLOW FOR COMPLEMENTARY
ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC REALM
a�
c
a�
Q
w
v
r
0
N
r
N
T
M
u
C
7
O
U
0
r
a
a
I.-
0
�L
0
U
U
a�
Q
7
O
LL
m
t
0
m
r
Q
I Packet Pg. 135 1
r.�
-W rr
t:r-�'•a
lei
Lea _
S r 17 �y r
001
Main to Edmonds
Streets.
■ WILL BE DESIGNED FOR ACTIVE
USES
SINGLE EVENT OR SHORT PERIOD OF
TIMES
■ WILL HOST PERMANENT AND
TEMPORARY EXHIBITS
SCULPTURE, PAINTING, POETRY, LIGHT
ART
■ MAY HOLD EVENTS
PUPPET SHOWS AND MUSIC TO
STREETPLAYS AND DANCE
a�
c
a�
Q
w
v
r
C
0
.N
d
r
N
T
M
0
U
0
a
a
I.-
0
•L
0
U
L
3
U
u-
c
m
L
0
0
r
Q
Packet Pg. 136 1
Main to Edmonds...
■ Tie into utility improvements at
Main Street intersection.
Enhance Bell and Edmonds
Street intersections.
Create a pedestrian oriented
experience.
■ Allow for flexibility in display
and safe walking during
events.
Allocate space for permanent
and temporary art and
events.
■ Create places to convene.
■ Plan for occasional displays
and performances in roadway
by closing to vehicular traffic.
Packet Pg. 137 1
0
.�➢.r ". ." r-,w........ " _. .- .-i!.'>: v... .. _i".. . _ ... •.�F...io-". " . re.w�.��'_:..... r- i ".. _ =rn .�::� e _ .: a..�.i.=: _ ✓_ ""�'�_ ._ _.. -" . - n ... .. - _ _ e. . _ r" rs ....
41) N4
4%
9414
Ak
A*44
4jc4
MAW&
AWA%4k_
.0"4w
A*',,W
AW AWAOIWAg
is_
1 7A
Packet Pg. 139
IM
IWA
IlIxt
I vmw
A
ll
i fry.
rt
M.e
to
KX,
3
rya- •�. �\-
f..
- s
g
ti
S 3 ft-
� _
LL
FPacket Pg. 140 1
k'
-_..............................................�....,.h.h....h.c[t.h
m
c
m
Q
s
v
c
�.;
-4
i�•� , Fy GE ,,
Edmonds to Daley
Streets.
■ WILL BE DESIGNED FOR PASSIVE
USE
WALKING DOG, PEOPLE WATCHING,
POCKET PARK AT SPRAGUE
■ WILL INCLUDE NEW LANDSCAPING
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AT EDMONDS
STREET INTERSECTION
■ COULD HOST SHORT-TERM EXHIBITS
ON SIDEWALKS
SCULPTURE, PAINTING, POETRY, LIGHT ART
■ WILL TRANSITION FROM 3RD
AVENUE ENTRY
A NEW BOULEVARD AND ENTRY PLAZA AT
DALEY COULD BE DEVELOPED IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ECA
Packet Pg. 144 1
I 8.1.a I
For this block...
■ Enhance intersections.
■ Retain street profile.
■ Explore a tree -lined
boulevard along the west
sidewalk.
■ Create a pocket park at
Sprague Street.
■ Develop places to rest and
talk.
■ Recreate surface light art in
this section.
Packet Pg. 145 1
U m-j-w
RMARIP80- i—lwow-M411"'Ai
40 el
IL
, OP,
0
itfik
Pot
PIMA
r .►a
:`.
i:� I I - -
-77 1
I 8.1.a I
SAFE WALKING SURFACES
u.
PAVING
Z.
I Packet Pg. 149 1
COLOR IN SPACE
J. , V{.
BOLLARDS
OV I
4e�
- lk
libHTING Ma
71
, ILti
Aft
PAINTED INTERSECTIONS
I
SCULPTURES
4
op r
I 8.1.a I
as
c
as
a
0
N
M
0
U
0
a
a
`0
•L
0
U
L
U
a
0
c
d
E
z
a
Packet Pg. 151 1
PASSIVE ART
.�Iwo.=
1!'-
-�;DREAM
LIGHTING
N} —
@ s
' - ART AS LANDSCAPE
f
jp
*
-77
S i
j - me .
* Fk S1sRi 7Rg LIGHT IN THE LANDSCAPE
ART
4
Considerations
for Schematic
Design
I 8.1.a I
- — -- - - -- I Packet Pg. 153
4
I 8.1.a I
Main to Edmonds...
■ How do we create an art -
infused safe and inviting
pedestrian connection?
■ With limited right-of-way
how can we provide more
space for people and art?
■ What option (s) would you
choose for reshaping 4tn
Avenue's public right-of-
way?
How can we carve out a
space that adjusts to unique
site conditions?
Phase 1
How do we get
there?
>
a
0
N
N
M
0
U
L
0
a.
CL
L
0
U
0
a
0
U-
0
E
0
a
Packet Pg. 154 1
MAIN TO BELL STREET
Wit_ I I I j I - -=
TRAVEL LANE
M j 7' 0-136'
0'
_I 7' 0" IX
� j 81DEWALK
ROADWAY
SIDEWALKj-
M j
50' 0"
j T
STREET WIDTH
I�
z I
50' 0"
j
M I
RIGHT-OF-WAY"
z
m
FEATURES
■ Two-way travel lanes.
Parking on both sides.
Built to roadway standards.
Sidewalks wide enough for 2-3 people.
■ Landscaping at Main Street and a few street trees.
■ Three overhead lights.
Per 2020 Property Sure;
FUNCTION
■ Free flowing traffic.
■ Occasional vehicular conflicts at Main Street
intersection.
■ Maximum parking.
■ Limited space for art or performances.
■ Limited greenery.
■ Moderately lit.
Packet Pg. 155 1
I 8.1.a I
BELL TO EDMONDS STREET
M
16, 0"
TRAVELLANE
3010,
ROADWAY
43' 0"
STREET WIDTH
60, 0"
m I RIGHT-OF-WAY'
� � f
FEATURES
■ Wider right-of-way.
■ Narrower roadway.
Two-way travel.
• Parking on both sides.
■ Narrow, cracked sidewalks.
■ Low-level lighting in roadway (luminous forest).
1
j 7' 0„ I i
I I
6' 6"
FUNCTION
■ Maximum parking.
■ Not standard travel lanes.
■ Slow traffic.
■ No landscaping in the public realm.
■ Limited space for art or seating.
■ Relatively dark walkways.
. Per 2020 Property Survey
Packet Pg. 156 1
BUILT TO STANDARDS
BELL TO EDMONDS STREET
+1 a, 01,
SIDEWALK
ROADWAY
STREET WIDTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY'
� T
FEATURES
■ Two-way with parking on both sides.
■ Standard travel lanes.
Standard sidewalks for 3-4 people and amenities.
New pedestrian scale vertical lighting.
I
SIDEWALK :
i-u
Im
I.0
IM
I�
Iz
Im
Per 2D20 Property Survey
FUNCTION
■ Wider roadway.
■ Wider sidewalks with some art space.
■ Wider streets for events.
■ Underground overhead poles and wires
■ Brighter walkways.
■ Street edge close to buildings.
8.1.a
Q
Packet Pg. 157 1
I 8.1.a I
■ Need a minimum of 8' for an
inviting and comfortable
pedestrian experience.
■ Need a minimum of an
additional 4' for art, displays
and activities.
■ Maintain vehicular access per
fire safety standards.
■ Retain parking (on one or both
sides).
■ Width of public sidewalk can
vary to accommodate
individual site conditions.
■ Art space beyond sidewalks
can be overseen by adjacent
properties.
EXPAND REDUCE
OUTWARDS ROADWAY
AIL-
i i i i i
i i i i i
i i i i i
8' 0" 4' 0" TO" i y 11 ' 0"
WALKING AMENITY W TRAVEL
ZONE ZONE LANE
I Packet Pg. 158 1
I 8.1.a I
Roadway Options
For existing street width between Bell and Edmonds
4:'s . � •:s. y�
Packet Pg. 159 1
7' 0" 29' 0"
:`'SIDEWALI( ROADWAY
43' 0"
STREET WIDTH
FUNCTION
Similar roadway and sidewalk widths.
Similar traffic flow.
Half the number of parking spaces.
Underground overhead poles and wires.
Limited space for pedestrian lighting.
Art and seating space in perimeter greenspace overseen
by private property owners.
I 8.1.a I
Packet Pg. 160 1
I 8.1.a I
A"A
I I I
1 7' 0"
16' 0"
I I
7' UP
i i t1
TRAVEL LANE
6I_ 6' 6"
a"
30' 0"
_I_ 6� 6" _i30'
_I_ 6� 6"
,J�
!SIDEWALK
�6'
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALK!
43' a"
STREET WIDTH
65, a„
V10&,11l1i1;&Ti►ITYN
FUNCTION
■ Roadway and sidewalk widths unchanged.
■ Traffic flow north between Main and Edmonds Street.
■ Maintain number of parking spaces.
■ Limited space for pedestrian lighting.
■ Art and seating space in perimeter greenspace overseen
by private property owners.
■ Reduce vehicular conflicts at Main Street intersection.
■ Wider sidewalks between Main and Bell Streets.
Packet Pg. 161 1
I 8.1.a I
AIGVII
,t"M'Y
I 1
0 j
`� SIDEWALK ROADWAY 51aM K
I d
MI
43'0"
G
STREET WIDTH
j
�_
60, a„
z
m I
RIGHT-OF-WAY'
.i z
I m
FUNCTION
■ Roadway narrowed by 8.'
■ No parking between Bell and Edmonds Streets.
■ Same traffic flow.
■ Wider sidewalks for seating, lighting and art.
■ Additional art and seating space in perimeter
greenspace overseen by private property owners.
- Per 2020 Property Survey
Packet Pg. 162 1
I 8.1.a I
I �
16' 0'
17' 0"
-a
TRAVELLANE
I �° r �' I I
I
M l
S, 0" 33' 0"
a
U j'SIDEWALK
ROADWAY SIDEWALK'•
IT
X I
i_ 43' 0" _l
I X
STREET WIDTH
j
j=
60, 0„
z
M I
RIGHT-OF-WAY'
.i z
I m
FUNCTION
■ Roadway widened by 3.'
■ One-way traffic flow north of Bell Street to Edmonds Street.
■ Similar number of parking between Bell and Edmonds
Streets.
■ Narrower sidewalks do not allow for seating, lighting and art.
■ Additional art and seating space in perimeter greenspace
overseen by private property owners.
Packet Pg. 163 1
Which of the street
sections do you prefer?
=■
;' I 7' 1 W 1 r I
� j IOE1M105L ROADWAY SIOEWALiCj
yl F aa9
� I STR E ET W IDTN
I w 0•
m j RIGHT-OF-WAY'
TWO-WAY 1 PARKING
A&;
i j I f I I
TRAVEL LA77��
j UEWu ROADWAY SIOEWAII
p l Ja' it j
�I STREETWIOTH
zI w0•
m I RIGHT-OF-WAY'
ONE-WAY 2 PARKING
POLL: STREET SECTION
am
0 � ,m
of i 1ae• �, zro- ,j, 1Q6' i to
yj i SIOEWALIC RW1pWAY SIDEWALK ` ry
�i aa•v i�,
�I STREETWIOTH I�
d0.0• i
RIGHT-OF-WAY' Im
NARROW ROADWAY
I 8.1.a I
j 1 HAVE_ L RE
•
o� aa9'
I sg j
ro
I IDEWALK ROADWAY
Sr�EWALI(i
ly
IT
Ip
I STRE ET WIOTii
ml d00'
i
' I RIGHT-OF-WAY'
Im
ONE-WAY BACK -IN
AM
• ' I. 7 G may, 22 .l,
71 0' _j , ..
j I O TRAVELLANE
SIDEWALK ROR9NYAY
`JDEwP
STRF 1VIDTH
CI BOF-
Ir
m � RIOIiTH�F�'yAY'
BUILT -TO -STANDARDS
I Packet Pg. 164 1
I 8.1.a I
Focus on Pedestrian Realm
Options for creating a pedestrian realm for art, activities
and a generous space for walking.
A
Packet Pg. 165 1
NEW EDGE
ii0 i
I 8.1.a I
•
6' 6"
30' 0"
15' 0"
b I
SIDEWALK
ROADWAY
SIDEWALK
IT
xI
L
51'6"
IMX
STREET WIDTH
I -<
z 160'
a"
.i z
m I
RIGHT-OF-WAY'
Im
Per 2020 Property Survey
FUNCTION
■ One sidewalk is widened by 9'.
■ Wider sidewalk allows for art, seating and pedestrian
lighting.
■ The other sidewalk does not allow for pedestrian lighting.
■ Art and seating space for the narrow sidewalk is in the
perimeter greenspace that will be overseen by private
property owners.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 166 1
LANDSCAPED WALKS
STREET WIDTH I
60, 0" i� z
M I RIGHT-OF-WAY' Im
FUNCTION
■ Both sidewalks are widened for 3-4 people and pedestrian
lighting but not enough to accommodate art or seating.
■ A landscaped strip separates the sidewalk from the roadway
and can hold pedestrian lighting and art / seating.
- Additional art and seating space is in the perimeter
greenspace that will be overseen by private property
owners.
Per 2020 Property Survey
Packet Pg. 167 1
I 8.1.a I
I
0
v
m
r
z
m
I � I
I I I I
_ 10' 6" 30' 0" 'j� 10' 6"
SIDEWALK ROADWAY SIDEWALK
��51' 00,
STREET WIDTH
60. 0"
RIGHT-OF-WAY'
—�--ram--
FUNCTION
■ Both sidewalks are widened for art/ seating and pedestrian
lighting.
■ Additional art and seating space is also available in the
perimeter greenspace that will be overseen by adjacent
property owners.
Per 2020 Property Survey
Packet Pg. 168 1
FULL BUILDOUT
=mA
I 8.1.a I
Packet Pg. 169 1
I 8.1.a I
Which pedestrian realm do you prefer?
i
IOEWAL ROADWAY SIDEWALK [� yl i ROADWAY SIOEWALN� I�
L 55'T ,j IA
STREET WIDTH ! I STREET W IDTH I �
R�-WAYm mm GN IRIGHT-OF-WAY' m
NEW EDGE
i !
ROADWAY SIDEWALK •i I�
5V(r i I
3TREEi WIDTH'
I RIGHT -OF -WAY- m
ce xxv ns..h �n
WIDE EDGES
LANDSCAPED WALKS
BULL BUILDOU
Packet Pg. 170 1
I 8.1.a I
Rimm- ,ft
• Virtual Open House held 8/24/20
• Online Survey 8/25 - 9/26/20
• 214 responses received (32 during Open
House; 182 from survey)
Pedestrian Safety and Amenities are a Priority
• safety of walking surfaces
• wider walking areas
• added seating
• unique lighting
• trees and plantings
• art elements like colorful crosswalks
• permanent sculpture
• occasional exhibits
• opportunity for mini seasonal fairs
16�
140
n}
,C0
W
60
40
20
0
4
5
°111C,
G�
�G
Packet Pg. 171 1
ilk
Pedestrian Safety and Amenities are a Priority
40
0In �,�j G� oco ��r t`�S� lz§
..
1
b`
r
Q
Packet Pg. 172 1
I 8.1.a I
Preferences for Street Cross -Section and Sidewalk Treatment
n0
30
16
20
i3
0
Tvvo-way 1 One -Way Narrow One -Way Built to
parking 2 parking Roadway Back -In Standards
120
100
y 80 ....
r
60
40
2(} ... �......... ......... .....................M
New Edge Wide Edges Landscaped Full Buildout
Walks
The preferred option for future schematic design is the One-way Two -Parking
Alternative with a focus on enhancing the pedestrian realm. This could be
accompanied by new seating, adding color and unique lighting to the street, as well
as making sure that the entire public space can host occasional or permanent
exhibits, sculptures and events.
This option maintains parking, while enhancing walkability, including artistic
treatment and allowing for gatherings. Depending on location, improving portions
of the right-of-way where encroachment exists would occur on a case -by -case
basis and in close coordination with the property owners.
Packet Pg. 173 1
I 8.1.a I
Next Steps
Council may wish to adopt the publicly
preferred concept and design
preferences
This will inform schematic design
development in the future
Schematic design development will also
involve public input and Council review
Packet Pg. 174 1
J
WW
Fourth Avenue
Cultural
Corridor
2020 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,
PUBLIC PREFERENCES,
AND COST ESTIMATE
CITY COUNCIL
MAY 25, 2021
r F I),y
E D M O H D 5
CREATIVE
DISTRICT—
Packet Pg. 175
8.1.b
2019-2020 staff worked
with CREA Affiliates LLC on
concepts, potential
phasing and public
process.
Context:
Edmonds certified as the
State's first Creative
District in 2018
■ 4th Ave Cultural Corridor
identified through public
process as key capital
project for Creative
District
■ Civic commitment to
integrating arts and
culture into public space
2019 -2020 -A
r
4T" AVENUE EXISTING MURALS, EDMONDS
Packet Pg. 176
CULTURAL CORRIDOR
74
i5
1
-�' City of Edmonds
Washington
EDMONDS CENTER
. FOR THE ARTS
40
♦ � �� i�z5533Ie. •
Fyyv 51
FERRYTERMINAL ••••••.••�'' oQ�� �_..
• "•
AZ
♦ .�
PORT OF EDMONDS —
9� ry DOWNTOWN CREATIVE DISTRICT BOUNDARY
R
�♦ _ i ..c2.
P ♦ 4� CASCADIA ART BRACKETTS LANDING MAIN STREET CITY HALL PUBLIC SAFETY CIVIC PARK
�y� ♦ MUSEUM NORTH AND SOUTH COMPLEX
„� 11,■ Uninterrupted views
between the ECA and
• ,ar;so.- downtown.
.q
o�° ♦ f w ■ A block from City Hall, the
4°�� r
�� ....Ho. Public Safety Complex and
a Civic Park.
■ Intersects with major
paths between the
waterfront and civic
L
O
�L
O
U
L
3
3
U
m
3
C
d
Q
L
NI
L0
NI
0
C
3
O
U
H
d
d
L.
L
0
U
;a
3
U
m
3
O
U.
E
facilities.
Packet Pg. 178
Characteristics
.$n
■ A quiet street.
■ Historic buildings.
■ Less than an average 350
cars/ day in either direction at
Main Street.
■ Few driveways onto 4tn
■ Secondary access through
rear alleys.
■ Artwork references
community history.
PERFORMING
+uswM AMo
ROR cum
I
Z ZZRuelx:
MERCLH
=Av%E[TuSE
RFi41ENML
_' ALIEY
SFRfEI
LANDSCAPE
TREe
..... AtLEYACCESS
.
-•— SEWER LFE
SfpRM LNE
WATERLINE
— — PROPE4ti1' uNE
F 24
Packet Pg. 179
8.1.b
2004-05
Planning Board -
Identifies Arts Corridor
on 4t' which leads to
a creation of BD5
zoning.
Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Service
Department gets
50,000 from the
National Park
Service's Preserve
America
for 4th Avenue
Cultural Corridor
Implementation &
Funding Plan.
2006
Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Service
Department
updates the
Streetscape Plan,
adding the 4th
Avenue Arts Corridor
Concept Plan.
'.orridor
X%-A
2016 r 2018
Interim Public Art
Project funded by
EAC and Edmonds
Arts Festival
Foundation
"Luminous Forest" b
artist lole Alessandrin,.
2014
Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services
updates Community
Cultural Plan that
prioritizes interim
steps to implement
the 4th Ave Cultural
Corridor Plan.
1
2016
Community identifies
completion of 4t"
Avenue Cultural
Corridor as goal in 5
#year work plan as a
part of its Creative
District designation.
Western Washington
University and
Association of WA
Cities on Sustainable
Cities Partnership
develop four potential
public relations
campaigns.
2020
A tentative
conceptual design is
developed and tied
to cost estimates.
Through public input
schematic design
direction was
identified.
2019
Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Services
contracts for a site
survey and a
consultant to facilitate
development of a
feasible project
concept. Meetin�,y
held with ECDAC cfid
the public.- '
Ci
Packet Pg. 180
8.1.b
Pr
RECURRING THEMES
FROM PUBLIC INPUT
Art reflecting both ends
of corridor.
■ Sequential discovery of
art elements.
■ Elements that are
approachable and
interactive.
■ Space for cultural
events.
■ Space for street artists.
■ Pocket park at Sprague.
■ Encourage artist studio
store fronts.
Outdoor cafe seating
areas.
Packet Pg. 181
8.1.b
7
I
Creating a
Special Place
2020
Concept
Packet Pg. 182
DALEY
STREET
GATEWAY
MAIN
STREET
GATEWAY
Proposed Phasing:
Three blocks will be
■ REBUILT AND RECREATED
FOR PEDESTRIAN -ORIENTED DESIGN
■ RECAST
FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
ART INSTALLATIONS
REMANDED
111111" �_
I Packet Pg. 183
IN,
ON
V4
ki
rf-
law
IL
144-AVOW, A
1001- 1 �Um
A d a
it M a ■
n '� n p
a
a
k
d
d R
d
R
N
P
Q
Packet Pg. 185
$ F�,'bvwF " is x "',61 �; ": h "� � •
�.
r
mv
1 ' 1WWI,
+ /%f�
,low
09
�l1 w?_ A
8.1.b
�r Considerations
for Schematic
71 Design
- j
A?
44
Packet Pg. 187
8.1.b
r
■ How do we create an art -
infused safe and inviting
pedestrian connection?
■ With limited right-of-way
how can we provide more
space for people and art?
■ What option (s) would you
choose for reshaping 4tn
Avenue's public right-of-
way?
■ How can we carve out a
space that adjusts to unique
site conditions?
How do we get
there?
Packet Pg. 188
8.1.b
■ Need a minimum of 8' for an
inviting and comfortable
pedestrian experience.
• Need a minimum of an
additional 4' for art, displays
and activities.
• Maintain vehicular access per
fire safety standards.
■ Retain parking (on one or both
sides).
■ Width of public sidewalk can
vary to accommodate
individual site conditions.
■ Art space beyond sidewalks
can be overseen by adjacent
properties.
■ Wider sidewalks + amenities
can occur by either narrowing
roadway OR expanding ROW
improvements
EXPAND REDUCE
OUTWARDS ROADWAY
i i i i i
i i i i i
8' 0" 4' 0" 7' 0" In
�I
WALKING AMENITY Q TRAVEL
ZONE ZONE LANE
Cl
O
�L
L
O
V
L
3
3
0
a'
Lo
N
I
N
I
O
IL
a
0
0
L
3
3
V
a'
3
O
LL
_
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 189
8.1.b
V
a
6J
Packet Pg. 190
■
ARL
i i TRAVELLARE � ; ; Ir
s ram; $i AD i EW y o IDELM105LK ROADWAY slowuici
�I F ET �f 1
I STRE E7N!IDIH j
m I RIGHT-0E-WAY' I m
TWO-WAY 1 PARKI
bl �IDEWALK
ROADWAY S10EWALJ
MI
43.0•
�I
STREET WIDTH
I�
zl
w0•
r2
m I
RIGHTOF-Mr
m
ONE-W►PAR Y 2
- Cl
O
L
L
\ O
_ U
U
>
i� Q
SIDEWAUC ROADWAY SIDEWALK i N
i 43• o• Jy +'
�I STREETWIDTH I�
ma,
- RIGHTOF-WAY• Im
NARROW ROADWA'1�
C41
Lo
NI
r 7
% .� r V
r L
i TRAVEL IARE
�� ylPIDEOALK ROADWAY SIDEWALK;
$ a
y l 43.0• l y a
�i STREETWIDTH
d0.0• I� L
RIGHTOF-WAY• Im
AY IN 0
U
i
3
U
d
A L
I f I 4 TRAVEL LANE O j I, Q
1a'0'_ I_ 36'0- �I LL
f rWALK RGADIM1'RY SIOEWALI('� ,
nl �� C
I STREETWIDTH
Cj B0'I C
Ai R Irs HT-`JFAfJAY' �im G
BUILT -TO -STANDARDS
a
Packet Pg. 191
_ Z .
6' 6„
U I jS I EDI ED WA
�I 4�
M i-
k
�:] TRAVEL LANE
30' 00" 6161,
1 ;0
ROADWAY SIDEWALK!
1 0
43'0"
I�
_�
STREET WIDTH
j
80' 0"
1 z
RIGHT-OF-WAY'
IM
Roadway and sidewalk widths unchanged.
Traffic flow north between Main and Edmonds Street.
■ Maintain number of parking spaces.
Limited space for pedestrian lighting.
Art and seating space in perimeter greenspace overseen
by private property owners.
Reduce vehicular conflicts at Main Street intersection.
Wider sidewalks between Main and Bell Streets.
A
f�
Per 2020 Property Survey
11
Packet Pg. 192
'N V A& 14W
Focus on Pedestrian Realm
Options for creating a pedestrian realm for art, activities
and a generous space for walking.
Packet Pg. 193
V
r
f r i
yj Ii)EWAL
ROADWAY SIDEWALK
�i i
51 a
I
STREE7 WIDTH
m I
o
RIGKr-OF-WAY'
SIDEWALK
fv of fNy .
IDEWALK d.. ROADWAY
Ip �I 55'0-
i 7 7 i STREEr wloTrl
cn xw mpnry %+.�+
LANDSCAPED WALKS
►7
L
O
�L
L
O
L
3
7
ci
d
3
C
d
L
r
C
r
04
v
�I
NI
�
Lf)
m
cn xw nep.ry %+.�+ •�
3
O
V
i2
a.
L.
O
�L
L
O
" .
LJ-"
3
�j SIDEWALK
ROADWAY
SIDEWALK I
A I
90' 0'
I
STREET WIDTH
I Q
r i
m l
R70�dF-WAY`
it
O
U.
FULL BUILDOUT
E
a
Packet Pg. 194
8.1.b
'N V Ak 14W
ALT
Virtual Open House held 8/24/20
Online Survey 8/25 - 9/26/20
214 responses received (32 during Open
House; 182 from survey)
Pedestrian Safety and Amenities are a Priority
,_ -
-41
safety of walking surfaces '�
wider walking areas
added seating 120 —
unique lighting '°° - —
trees and plantings so —
art elements like colorful crosswalks 60
permanent sculpture '° _
occasional exhibits 20 — —
opportunity for mini seasonal fairs
Packet Pg. 195
8.1.b
r-cUcStrian Safety and Amenities are a Priority
LA
140 -
120
100 .--------.... .. ... .
100
so
6. 6
40
20
0
r�S° ���r� �cJ� ��r�•� �aSGo G�J�� �aSGo a�a�
��o eel
cp ego °\ �?�r
l QJ� °I s-a spa `ter \:, \cr G�° ��S SGJ
C;\e Boa ?Aeo��
P �.
0
a_
c
m
�. E
_ 0
r
Packet Pg. 196
8.1.b
O
L
3
r
7
U
m
3
Q
t
i� H
•�
el e
&F
Ln
CM
-0. I I
I -U
LI
c
U j SIDEWALK ROADWAY
SIDEWALK•
j -u
0
MI 5510,
j ��
U
STREET WIDTH
I
z �_ 60' 0.,
m I RIGHT-OF-WAY'
.� z
I m
d
a
' Per 2020 Property Survey
L.
O
'L
��
.•
w
L
O
U
3
Both sidewalks are widened for 3-4 people and pedestrian
ci
lighting but not enough to accommodate art or seating.
>
Q
A landscaped strip separates the sidewalk from the roadway
and can hold pedestrian lighting and art / seating.
c
Additional art and seating space is in the perimeter
U.
greenspace that will be overseen by private property
fir,.
_
d
owners.='��
,
�.�
E
Packet Pg. 197
8.1.b
DP1
9W
Street Cross -Section
k.
70
60--
50
4
30
20_
10
0
Two-\aay l One -Way Narrow One -Way Built to
parking 2 parking Roadway Back -In Standards
Sidewalk Treatment
New Edge Wide Edges Landscaped Full Buildout
Walks
The preferred option for future schematic design is the One-way Two -Parking Alternative
with a focus on enhancing the pedestrian realm. This could be accompanied by new
seating, adding color and unique lighting to the street, as well as making sure that the
entire public space can host occasional or permanent exhibits, sculptures and events.
This option maintains parking, while enhancing walkability, including artistic treatment
and allowing for gatherings. Depending on location, improving portions of the right-of-
way where encroachment exists would occur on a case -by -case basis and in close
coordination with the property owners.
Packet Pg. 198
8.1.b
Past Estimates
I
The 15% level design concept presented
to City Council in 2009 had an estimated
cost of approximately $5.2-5.6 million in
2008 dollars.
This concept included the entire corridor
from just south of Main, north past the
ECA to 3rd Avenue.
That figure in 2021
6.95 million
dollars would be $6.45-
Packet Pg. 199
8.1.b
Current Estimate
Based on consultant's concept -level details and Public
Works Dept cost figures based on past streets projects:
Phase A-D, Main to Daley Streets
General/Logistics
$622,004
• Site Preparation
$242,525
• Site Improvements (Paving)
$978,750
• Site Utilities
$980,200
• Site Electrical
$245,700
• Site Landscaping/Amenities
$467,445
• Site Lighting
$148,560
• Subtotal
$3,685,184
• Soft Costs/Contingencies/Reserves
$2,262,703
• Total
$5,947,887
Phase E (Daley to V Avenue N)
$1,982,629
Combined Total
$7,930,517
a
Packet Pg. 200
8.1.b
Phase E Potential Partnership
5
o Edmonds Center for the Arts is interested
in seeing the improvements continue
north of Daley to 3rd Ave N, as conceived
in the original project
ECA may be able to assist with the
additional costs for that portion
0
0
r
U.
rwa
Packet Pg. 201
8.1.b
Next Steps
M,
o Council adopt the publicly preferred
concept and design preferences
- This action will inform schematic/30%
design development in the future
Li Schematic design development will also
involve public input and Council review
Council provide direction on timing of
schematic/30% design development-
U
m
approximately $150,000
0
LL
T Ar E
Packet Pg. 202
8.1.c
pronoun. She assumed an immediate switch of pronoun and a fast apology. Finn Paynich answered as a
person using they/them pronouns, they has had to correct people. A person who has corrected someone
wants to hear an immediate switch to their preferred pronoun and not have the person make a huge deal
out of apologizing. Apologizing puts the person on the spot, but a quick I'm sorry and switch to the
preferred pronoun makes them feel supported but not othered.
Councilmember Olson thanked the Youth Commission for the presentation, not only for the Council but
also the public watching the meeting as this is a topic a lot of adults have not been exposed to. She was a
little blown away by a statistic regarding how many cultures around the world recognize a lot of different
genders; learning that was a tectonic shift in her thinking about this. She appreciated the Youth
Commission bringing this message to more people and to the Council in particular.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Youth Commission for their presentation, commenting the best
statement in the presentation was there is no negative impact. Everyone has learning moments, some
people have archaic thinking. She has added her preferred pronoun on her phone.
2. 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PUBLIC PROCESS
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained the 4' Avenue Cultural
Corridor has been a concept -level project envisioned since 2004. It was also the keystone capital project
included in the City's application for Creative District designation. He reviewed:
• hi 2020 staff worked with CREA AFFILIATES on concepts and public process
o Considerations:
■ What is Edmonds Cultural Corridor?
■ What is special about the location?
■ How did it come to be?
■ Creating a special place
■ Considerations for Schematic Design —roadway and public spaces
The City of Edmonds...
o Celebrates
■ A seaside ambiance
■ Appealing small-town quality
■ A walkable downtown
■ An active art community
o Showcases year-round events
■ Community sense of pride and involvement in the arts
o Certified as the State's first Creative District
o Civic commitment to arts and culture
■ Integrates artwork into the "fabric" of public spaces
Goals
o Draw pedestrians between the ECA and downtown businesses.
o Transform a unique street into a walkable arts destination.
o Establish a new community gathering place.
o Provide a visible and accessible space to display temporary art and host related activities.
Objectives
o Connect the Edmonds Center for the Arts with Main Street through an enhanced and unique
pedestrian connection.
o Welcome mixed -use development with upper story residential uses.
o Accommodate a variety of cultural events and exhibits that will attract visitors and stimulate
economic development.
Cultural Corridor Concept
o Celebrates the variety in arts and culture in the Edmonds community.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 203
8.1.c
o Establishes a unique and memorable sense of place.
o Includes permanent and temporary cultural features and events.
o Supports key goals of Edmonds Creative District
o Draws residents and visitors to the downtown area.
Arts and Culture
o Transform the commonplace into surprising moments.
o Bring mystery and magic to a streetscape experience.
o Create a memorable experience.
o Strengthen community.
Connecting Anchors
o Uninterrupted views between the ECA and downtown.
o A block from City Hall, the Public Safety Complex and Civic Park.
o Intersects with major paths between the waterfront and civic facilities.
Why 4t1i Avenue?
o Characteristics
■ A quiet street.
■ Historic buildings.
■ Less than an average 350 cars/ day in either direction at Main Street.
■ Few driveways onto 4th.
■ Secondary access through rear alleys.
■ Artwork references community history
Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin reviewed:
• Timeline
o 2004-05: Planning Board identifies Arts Corridor on 4' which leads to a creation of BD5
zoning
0 2006: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department updates the Streetscape Plan,
adding the 4t' Avenue Corridor Concept Plan
0 2007-09: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service Department gets
0 50,000 from the National Park Service's Preserve America for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Implementation & Funding Plan.
0 2014: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services updates Community Cultural Plan that
prioritizes interim steps to implement the 4th Ave Cultural Corridor Plan.
0 2016: Project funded by ECA and Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation "Luminous Forest" by
artist Iole Alessandrini
0 2016: Western Washington University and Association of WA Cities on Sustainable Cities
Partnership develop four potential public relations campaigns
0 2018: Community identifies completion of 4thAvenue Cultural Corridor as goal in 5 year
work plan as a part of its Creative District designation.
0 2019: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services contracts for a site survey and a consultant to
facilitate development of a feasible project concept. Meetings held with ECDAC and the
public.
0 2020: A tentative conceptual design is developed and tied to cost estimates. Through public
input schematic design direction was identified.
Drawings of earlier concepts in 2005-06 and 2007-09
Recurring themes from public input
o Art reflecting both ends of corridor.
o Sequential discovery of art elements.
o Elements that are approachable and interactive.
o Space for cultural events.
o Space for street artists.
o Pocket park at Sprague.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 204
8.1.c
o Encourage artist studio store fronts.
o Outdoor caf6 seating areas
BD-5 Zoning
o Ground floor with commercial space
o Shall be oriented to 4th Avenue
o At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue
o Architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated
o If structure is set back from the street, it shall have landscaping and/or artwork
o Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone
Project limits have not changed since 2006.
o Most recent work focused on middle section of corridor and ways of identifying phases and
what would be feasible to do initially to transform the public right-of-way .
Over the years
o New downtown public restrooms.
o Art elements that reflect history, like "The Stages of History" walking tour.
o New Cascadia Art Museum.
o Downtown Murals project.
o Creative District designation by ARTSWA.
Mr. Doherty described:
Creating a Special Place 2020 Concept
• Proposed Phasing: Three blocks (Main to Daley) will be:
o Rebuilt and recreated for pedestrian -oriented design
o Recast for temporary and permanent art installations
o Rebranded to allow for complementary activities in the public realm
• Activity Zone
o Main to Edmonds Streets
■ Will be designed for active uses
- Single event or short period of times
■ Will host permanent and temporary exhibits
- Sculpture, painting, poetry, light art
■ May hold events
- Puppet shows and music to street plays and dance
■ Tie into utility improvements at Main Street intersection.
■ Enhance Bell and Edmonds Street intersections.
■ Create a pedestrian oriented experience.
■ Allow for flexibility in display and safe walking during events.
■ Allocate space for permanent and temporary art and events.
■ Create places to convene.
■ Plan for occasional displays and performances in roadway by closing to vehicular traffic.
Illustrations/Renderings of before and after enhancement and during a street closure
o Main Street Intersection
o Bell Street Intersection
o Edmonds Street Intersection
Passive Zone
o Edmonds to Daley Streets
■ Will be designed for passive use
- Walking dog, people watching, pocket park at Sprague
■ Will include new landscaping
- Green infrastructure at Edmonds street intersection
■ Could host short-term exhibits on sidewalks
- Sculpture, painting, poetry, light art
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 205
8.1.c
■ Will transition from Yd Avenue entry
- A new boulevard and entry plaza at Daley could be developed in partnership with the
ECA
■ For this block
- Enhance intersections.
- Retain street profile.
- Explore a tree -lined boulevard along the west sidewalk.
- Create a pocket park at Sprague Street.
- Develop places to rest and talk.
- Recreate surface light art in this section.
Mr. Doherty reviewed inspirational/aspirational images:
• Activating Space
o Safe walking surfaces
o Paving
o Mini seasonal fairs
o Street artists
o Motion art
o Street games
o Occasional exhibits
o Storytelling
o Seating
• Color in Space
o Bollards
o Lighting
o Markers
o Plants
o Crosswalks
o Painted intersections
o Sculptures
• Temporary Art
• Passive Art
o Benches as art
o Lighting
o Daydreaming
o Walking
o Paving
o Art as landscape
o Infrastructure art
o Light in the landscape
Mr. Doherty reviewed:
Considerations for Schematic Design
• Phase 1 - How do we get there?
o Main to Edmonds
■ How do we create an art -infused safe and inviting pedestrian connection?
■ With limited right-of-way how can we provide more space for people and art?
■ What option(s) would you choose for reshaping 4thAvenue's public right-of-way?
■ How can we carve out a space that adjusts to unique site conditions?
o Diagram of existing street Main to Bell
■ Features
- 50' right-of-way
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 206
8.1.c
- 36' improved as roadway
- 7' sidewalks on either side
- Two-way travel lanes.
- Parking on both sides.
- Few amenities, landscaping or artwork
o Diagram of existing street Bell to Edmonds
■ Features
- Wider right-of-way - 60'.
- Narrower roadway - 30' within 43' total improved width
- 6.5' sidewalks on both sides.
- Old, narrow, cracked sidewalks.
- Two-way travel - 16-foot lanes
- Parking on both sides.
- Few amenities, landscaping, lighting or artwork
- Area perceived/maintained as front yards actual City right-of-way
o Diagram of Bell to Edmonds Built to Standards (not proposed)
■ Features
- 56' street width
- 10' sidewalks,
- 36' roadway with 22' travel lane and parking on both sides.
- Area perceived/maintained as front yards would be used
Considerations
o Need a minimum of 8' for an inviting and comfortable pedestrian experience.
o Need a minimum of an additional 4' for art, displays and activities.
o Maintain vehicular access per fire safety standards.
o Retain parking (on one or both sides).
o Width of public sidewalk can vary to accommodate individual site conditions.
o Art space beyond sidewalks can be overseen by adjacent properties.
Roadway Options for existing street between Bell and Edmonds Streets
o Two -Way Travel, One Lane Parking
■ Slightly wider sidewalks
■ Some space for amenities, landscaping and artwork
o One -Way Travel, Two Lane Parking
■ Roadway and sidewalk widths unchanged.
■ Art and seating space in perimeter greenspace overseen by private property owners.
o Narrow Roadway
■ Roadway narrowed by 8.'
■ No parking between Bell and Edmonds Streets.
■ Same traffic flow.
■ Wider sidewalks for seating, lighting and art.
■ Additional art and seating space in perimeter greenspace overseen by private property
owners.
o One -Way Back -In
■ Roadway widened by 3.'
■ One-way traffic flow north of Bell Street to Edmonds Street.
■ Similar number of parking between Bell and Edmonds Streets.
■ Narrower sidewalks do not allow for seating, lighting and art.
■ Additional art and seating space in perimeter greenspace overseen by private property
owners.
Mr. Doherty reviewed:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 207
8.1.c
Focus on Pedestrian Realm - options for creating pedestrian realm for art, activities and a generous
space for walking
• New Edge
o One sidewalk is widened by 9'.
o Wider sidewalk allows for art, seating and pedestrian lighting.
o The other sidewalk does not allow for pedestrian lighting.
o Art and seating space for the narrow sidewalk is in the perimeter greenspace that will be
overseen by private property owners.
• Landscaped Walks
o Both sidewalks are widened for 3-4 people and pedestrian lighting but not enough to
accommodate art or seating.
o A landscaped strip separates the sidewalk from the roadway and can hold pedestrian lighting
and art / seating.
o Additional art and seating space is in the perimeter greenspace that will be overseen by
private property owners.
• Wide Edges
o Both sidewalks are widened for art/seating and pedestrian lighting.
o Additional art and seating space is also available in the perimeter greenspace that will be
overseen by adjacent property owners.
• Full Buildout
o Both sidewalks are widened for maximum art/seating and pedestrian lighting
o Potential for mid -block landscaped areas and planters
Public Preferences
o Virtual Open House held 8/24/20
o Online Survey 8/25-9/26/20
0 214 responses received (32 during Open House; 182 from survey)
■ Pedestrian Safety and Amenities are a Priority
- Safety of walking surfaces
- Wider walking areas
- Added seating
- Unique lighting
- Trees and plantings
- Art elements like colorful crosswalks
- Permanent sculpture
- Occasional exhibits
- Opportunity for mini seasonal fairs
■ Preferences for Street Cross -Section and Sidewalk Treatment
- The preferred option for future schematic design is the One-way Two -Parking
Alternative with a focus on enhancing the pedestrian realm. This could be
accompanied by new seating, adding color and unique lighting to the street, as well
as making sure that the entire public space can host occasional or permanent exhibits,
sculptures and events.
- This option maintains parking while enhancing walkability, including artistic
treatment and allowing for gatherings. Depending on location, improving portions of
the right-of-way where encroachment exists would occur on a case -by -case basis and
in close coordination with the property owners.
Next Steps
o Council may wish to adopt the publicly preferred concept and design preferences
o This will inform schematic design development in the future
o Schematic design development will also involve public input and Council review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 208
8.1.c
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are many cities with something like a 4t1i Avenue Corridor
such as Copenhagen; Portland, Oregon; etc. She asked if estimated costs have been calculated. She
personally preferred no traffic but knew that would not go over well. Mr. Doherty answered schematic
design would cost approximately $125,000 and the cost of improvements vary widely. Any utility work
that occurred would result in new pavement or repaving but the amount of utility work is unknown given
other priorities. Recrowning and repaving would be needed in all the scenarios; the least expensive
alternative would be one that does not increase the improved roadway width and only repurposes and
focuses more on the sidewalk realm. The build to standard concept would be 2-3 times that cost. The
project is in the concept development phase; schematic design will provide some cost estimates. Once
Council gives direction regarding a preferred concept, cost estimates will be developed.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she needed to know the cost range to determine a preferred concept. She
asked if Utilities would pay for some of cost of the street. Mr. Doherty answered while there are older
utilities in the street, there are higher priority streets in the oldest parts of the City for full utility
replacement. There may be some utility replacement/upgrade required in the 4t1' Avenue Corridor so a
small amount would be provided by Utilities but not as much as one might think. When the planning
process began, it was thought more funding would be provided by Utilities.
Ms. Chapin recalled the early plan was in the $6M range. When the current phase began two years ago,
the goal was to develop a feasible plan that was still around $3M. That is the only number that has been
identified as an estimate for some of the work. Mr. Doherty offered to confer with Public Works
Engineering to develop ballpark figures for a range from full improvement to the most minimal. He noted
sometimes the available funding determines the outcome. For example, if funding of $4M is identified,
the effort is focused on how that funding can be used to meet most of the objectives.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented many Councilmembers are seeing this for the first time. She goes
way back on this project and has always been supportive. The challenge now is to complete the planning
so when things loosen up, the City is ready to apply if there is a capital arts program in 2023-25
legislative biennium. She believed the City might get support for grants as this was a key feature in the
Creative District.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard a lot of comments from the people who live on 4t1i
Avenue that do not support getting rid of parking on 4t' Avenue. Her vote will be to predominately
support the residents on 4' Avenue who purchased their houses not knowing there was the possibility
they would lose parking. She acknowledged there are alleys but often there is not enough room for
parking.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is a unique opportunity for Edmonds. A lot of the items in
the presentation spoke to her such as interactive spaces, community gathering spaces, art displays, art
activities, pedestrian oriented experiences, pocket parks, etc. She referred to the objectives that include
welcome mixed use development with upper story residential and one of the characteristics regarding why
4' Avenue is an ideal place lists historic building. She wondered if those statements were in conflict and
asked how they would be balanced. Mr. Doherty answered that was more about zoning than street
improvements. The BD5 zoning is the lowest intensity of the downtown zones so the height limit is only
25' versus 30' and slightly higher in other parts of downtown. In addition to single family homes, the
corridor includes office buildings, old apartment buildings, an old motel, and an old commercial building.
The 25' height limit is taller than some of the buildings so a property owner may decide it would make
sense to add to or even possibly demolish and rebuild; there is little incentive to demolish a building that
is close to the 25' height limit. Some of the buildings are nondescript, mid-century and do not have
historic value. The BD5 zoning was not a historic preservation tool per se; the lower height gives less
incentive or pressure for redevelopment. Anything further would require a historic preservation district or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 209
guidelines for redevelopment which is not technically part of this proposal but is related to what happens
on 4' Avenue.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Doherty and Ms. Chapin for the presentation and information
and expressed his appreciation for describing where the corridor has been and where it is headed. He
supported maintaining the current right-of-way at 30' and configuring it as necessary as well as
maximizing the adjacent pedestrian spaces, basically the 1 way 2 parking and landscaping. He also
supported safe crossings at the intersections such as bollards and speed table intersections that provide
traffic/speed calming as well as a more welcoming space when the street is closed for events. He was
excited to see this work continue.
Councilmember Olson thanked staff for the presentation and the online survey which was really well
done. It contained a great deal of information and gave her an opportunity to get up to speed with a
project that has been in process for a long time. With regard to long term planning, she would be excited
to have a second arts corridor near Highway 99 featuring an international flavor of art and implementing
many of the same features, possibly in the neighborhood of the Esperance Park. With regard to the 4'
Avenue Corridor, she favored the options that maintain parking on both sides as parking is important for
residents as well as to provide parking for amenities and attractions downtown, citing past efforts to
increase, not decrease parking. As a long term resident, she realized the 4t' Avenue Corridor was less
busy and having it be one-way would not be a huge sacrifice for the community. The one-way should be
in the direction of the ECA. She commended staff for the work they have done and said she was excited
about the proposal.
Council President Paine supported having a better pedestrian environment and preferred the 1 way 2
parking. She worried the improvements would make some of the historic or unique flavor buildings
vulnerable to redevelopment pressure. She asked if there were zero lot lines. Mr. Doherty answered some
commercial buildings may be, but most of the single family homes were not. Council President Paine
asked if a residential building could be replaced with a zero lot line commercial building. Mr. Doherty
answered he was not certain but it may be possible. Council President Paine summarized she liked the
street and viewed it as an asset to the community. She agreed with focusing on an area outside downtown
next time.
With regard to parking in the 4tn Avenue Corridor, Councilmember K. Johnson said people may have an
expectation when they purchase a home that the space in front is theirs for parking, but in fact it is public
right-of-way, not something they own. Although it makes sense to have some parking on that street, she
recommended counting the number of spaces along 4t' Avenue and in the alleys and use that to help
determine whether to have parking on one side or no parking. From Bell north it makes sense to have a
one-way roadway with parking and enhancing the pedestrian corridor as much as possible. She loved the
idea of doing things in other parts of the City, but it has taken 15 years to get this point. She recalled the
original design had another arts corridor on Dayton that connected to the former Safeway property.
Projects like this take a long time and a lot of public will; she was willing to support this effort.
Mr. Doherty said the public preference was one-way north, maintaining parking, maintaining the size of
the roadway, increasing amenities on the sides in the public realm. He invited Council to discuss their
preferences tonight or staff can return at a future meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she personally liked the one-way with parking. She would like to have a
cost analysis and supported having Utilities fund the road work where possible. She supported the
recommendation from the open house.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 210
8.1.c
Council President Paine said she was in favor of looking at the next level of design and the associated
costs. Mr. Doherty said no design work is currently planned; once the Council provides direction, that
direction would be used to guide schematic design development with costs.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST AND SECONDED TO
RECOMMEND WE TAKE THE 30' ROADWAY WITH ENHANCED LANDSCAPED WALKS AS
PRESENTED BASED ON PUBLIC FEEDBACK TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF SCHEMATIC
DESIGN.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if that included parking. Mr. Doherty answered yes, it included
parking on both sides.
Councilmember L. Johnson said while she was leaning toward supporting the motion, it was on the
agenda under New Business so she was not ready move forward tonight and preferred having additional
time for review
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson; because this item was on the agenda
under New Business, it was more appropriate for the Council to be briefed first and come back for more
deliberative action at another meeting. She was also not ready to move forward.
Councilmember Olson said she was ready to support the motion, but agreed as it was a New Business
item, she supported giving Councilmembers more time especially since when an item is not time critical.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION.
3. COUNCILMEMBER REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM
Councilmember Buckshnis explained this was discussed by the Finance Committee for transparency
purposes and to avoid a rolling quorum. The agenda memo for this is very long and she was willing to
provide it to the media with attachments. A Councilmember requested an approximately $307
reimbursement which was denied by last year's Council President and again by this year's Council
President. She read from the City of Edmonds policy for expense reimbursement, the City of Edmonds
reimburses employees and elected or appointed officials for reasonable expense incurred conducting City
business provided the expenses are prudent and directly related to the individual's service on behalf of the
City. This $307 expense was for investigative work related to hiring for the Chief of Police position. The
information was obtained in a rush by Councilmember Olson related to a record for one of the candidates.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled there have been many respectful disagreements between
Councilmembers and Directors in the past; the most recent was in 2019 when the former HR Director
provided non -represented employee salary amounts and there was an honest disagreement between
Council and the HR Director. Another example was a disagreement she had with a former Finance
Director related to a GASB ruling. She concluded with regard to this item, the Finance Committee
recommended the reimbursement claim be paid.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not view this expense as reasonable or prudent. She denied
it last year and one of the reasons was this is HR work and not the work of a Councilmember. She
believed there was some level of looking to find issues with this person because it was not brought up
until this person was chosen to be the first person of color associated with the designation of Police Chief.
She relayed Councilmember Olson stated she asked HR twice to do this; HR indicated to her last year
when she was Council President that Councilmember Olson had not reached out to them to request
assistance with this. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in general she found it to be hunting for issues
with this person that perhaps should not have been hunted for which is why she denied it. She was aware
Council President Paine denied it this year when it was submitted again. She was uncertain why this was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 9, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 211
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Master Permit authorizing Placement of Small Wireless (Small Cell) Facilities in the City's Rights -of -Way
Staff Lead: City Attorney, Public Works, Planning
Department: City Attorney's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The Council passed amendments to chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communication Facilities, in April
2019, addressing site specific requirements for locating small wireless facilities. Chapter 20.50 requires a
Master Permit as a condition of receiving a wireless facilities permit and a right of way construction
permit, and all three are required in order to place wireless facilities in the City's rights -of -way. (Staff
may, as a matter of administrative convenience, combine the latter two into one permit.)
Staff Recommendation
That the City Council be advised about the Master Permit and pass an ordinance containing the draft
language recommended by city staff and the City Attorney's Office.
Narrative
New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC, aka AT&T ("New Cingular"), has asked the City for permission to place
its small wireless facilities in the City's rights -of -way. Before placing its small wireless facilities in the
city's rights -of -way, New Cingular needs to obtain the following permits:
Master Permit, which must be granted by the City Council; and
Wireless facilities permit and right-of-way construction permits which are granted
administratively by city staff according to the procedures of chapter 20.50 ECDC.
City staff have been working on the wireless facilities permit and rights -of -way construction permit
applications which were submitted by New Cingular with paid permit fees at the end of March. The City
Attorney's Office in consultation with city staff has been negotiating the terms of a Master Permit for a
little over a year.
The following legal framework surrounding cities' authority to regulate telecommunications service
providers may be helpful for City Council to have in mind when considering this matter:
RCW 35A.47.040: The state statute generally authorizing code cities to grant nonexclusive
franchises for use of the rights -of -way for various utilities, including communications, and
requires passage by the city council by approving vote of at least a majority of the entire council.
RCW 35.99: The state statute applicable to telecommunications, establishing a system whereby
cities may grant "master permits" (also known as franchises) for use of the city's rights -of way
Packet Pg. 212
8.2
for placement of facilities for telecommunications service.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The federal law that addresses state and local
governments' ability to regulate telecommunications including wireless telecommunications. 47
U.S.C. 253 (a) and 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7) reflect Congressional intent to expand deployment of
wireless services and authorize the FCC to preempt any state and local requirements that
"prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" any entity from providing telecommunications
services.
FCC orders: Orders promulgated under the authority of Congressional statute and governing the
installation and management of small wireless facilities, including the manner in which local
governments can regulate them, often spelling out limits on local governments' authority to
regulate telecommunications providers.
The following are some questions and answers that might be of interest to the City Council:
What is Council being asked to do? Council is being asked to approve an ordinance authorizing the
Mayor to execute a Master Permit containing the language recommended by city staff and the City
Attorney's Office, attached. The parties agree in most respects to the attached draft language but
disagree over a portion of the indemnity (further addressed below).
What is a Master Permit? A Master Permit is a franchise for telecommunications providers issued under
the authority of RCW 35.99 which is a general authority for a telecommunications provider to place its
facilities in the City's rights -of -way in order to provide telecommunications services.
What are some of the main items covered in this Master Permit?
• It gives a general permission to place small wireless facilities and associated equipment
located within ten feet of a support structure in the City's rights -of -way, subject to other
required permits and the terms of the Master Permit.
• It specifies that prior to placement the provider needs a wireless facilities permit and a
right-of-way construction permit, considered in accordance with the procedures of
chapter 20.50 ECDC.
• It has a five-year term, subject to renewal by the city council, and requires any defaults be
cured before any renewal will be granted.
• Other providers may obtain master permits or franchises as well.
• City can require relocation of the facilities at New Cingular's expense in accordance with
RCW 35.99, e.g., to accommodate a public improvement project, and sets agreed
procedures.
• New Cingular shall reimburse the City for its actual administrative costs incurred. No
franchise fee is charged as dictated by RCW 35.21.860.
• New Cingular will indemnify the city, maintain specified insurance, and assume risk of
damage to its facilities.
• New Cingular will maintain an inventory of its facilities with a copy to the City and provide
updates.
• New Cingular agrees to comply with all applicable laws, standards, and regulations
relating to its facilities and at all times will maintain them in a safe condition in good order
and repair.
Packet Pg. 213
8.2
Procedures are specified in the event of a breach, including notice and an opportunity to
respond and request public hearing before Council. In addition to termination, the City
may impose lesser sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary penalties, for
violation of this Master Permit.
New Cingular will establish a permanent security fund in the amount of $50,000 to
guarantee the performance of its requirements under the Master Permit and payment of
sums due the City.
Certain provisions survive expiration or termination of the Master Permit for the
protection of the City, e.g., the indemnity and insurance provisions.
Does Council have discretion to grant a Master Permit? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states
that no local government may prohibit or effectively prohibit the provision of telecommunications
service. Congress expressly preempted state and local governments from enacting laws or ordinances
that conflict with this mandate; however, Congress allowed cities to retain the ability to manage the
rights -of -way. We can negotiate terms of our agreement but cannot prohibit the provider from
providing their telecommunications service.
Is New Cingular the first provider seeking permits to install small wireless facilities within the City of
Edmonds rights -of -way? Yes.
Is New Cingular providing 5G? The Master Permit authorizes the provision of telecommunications
services and does not specify any particular generation of wireless service or broadband technology. The
Council may inquire of New Cingular what types of service technology it plans to utilize.
Does New Cingular need PUD's approval before locating its equipment on PUD's poles? Yes. That
approval is required in ECDC 20.50.070(G).
Can Council see images of what is planned to be installed in the City's rights -of -way? Aesthetic review
occurs as part of the site -specific review, which is an administrative process as provided in chapter 20.50
ECDC. There is no aesthetic review as part of the master permit process. ECDC 20.50.070 (D) requires
any applicant for a wireless facilities permit to submit photos and photo simulations showing the
existing appearance of each site and the appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public
viewpoints. City staff should have these items to share with Council.
I've heard there are "shot clocks." What are they and do they apply here? The FCC has created time
limits, called shot clocks, for cities to process applications to locate small wireless facilities. The shot
clock started to run in this case when New Cingular submitted its small wireless facilities application.
Shot clocks apply to all local government authorizations required of the applicant. In this case the shot
clock is sixty days. New Cingular has been informed of the schedule for Council consideration and
approval extending into June.
What is the disagreement over the indemnity? The City Attorney's Office and staff are recommending
an indemnity that specifically addresses RF emissions, whereas New Cingular wants an indemnity that
does not specifically address RF emissions. From our point of view, this is not a statement on RF safety
but rather simply an assurance that the provider will defend and indemnify the City on this issue,
regardless of compliance with FCC standards, if it should ever arise. From the provider's point of view
the language makes it sound as if RF emission is something that should be of public concern.
Packet Pg. 214
8.2
Is the federal government regulating RF emissions? Yes. The FCC is obligated to evaluate the potential
impacts of human exposure to radiofrequency emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Over the years the FCC has adopted radiofrequency standards which limit the amount of radiation that
can be emitted from wireless transmitters and has created a framework to ensure compliance with
those limits. In December 2019 the FCC issued an order finding its existing RF exposure limits should
remain unchanged.
Have the courts upheld recent FCC orders? Yes. The FCC has promulgated orders relating to the
installation and management of small cell facilities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently
upheld several orders issued in 2018, holding that, "We conclude that, given the deference owed to the
agency in interpreting and enforcing this important legislation, the [orders] are, with the exception of
one provision, in accord with the congressional directive in the Act, and not otherwise arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law." City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020, 1032 (2020).
What if Council wants to impose conditions on the placement of the wireless facilities based on RF
emissions? The United States Congress has the authority to preempt state and local regulation in the
area of telecommunications, including wireless telecommunications. This is authority granted to
Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Congress has enacted
legislation -The Telecommunications Act of 1996- as well as earlier legislation, asserting federal control
of telecommunications. In regards to radio frequency, or RF, Congress has granted authority to establish
RF emissions standards only to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and preempted all
municipal regulation of radiofrequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with federal
emissions standards. Therefore, local officials' hands are largely tied in this area.
What if there are violations of any health and safety requirements? We do not expect violations from
the provider. These requirements are specified to make clear the parties' intentions surrounding New
Cingular's compliance with all applicable regulations relating to health and safety. However, if there is a
violation, the following language applies: "If a violation of the National Electrical Safety Code or other
applicable regulation is found to exist by the City, the City will, after discussions with Permittee,
establish a reasonable time for Permittee to make necessary repairs. If the repairs are not made within
the established time frame, the City may make the repairs itself or have them made and collect all
reasonable costs thereof from Permittee." However, with regard to any RF violation, the provider is
required to shut off the device within 48 hours of being notified. If there are repeated violations, the
City can invoke the forfeiture and revocation procedures of Section 25, which provides that in addition
to termination, the City may impose lesser sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary penalties,
for violation of this Master Permit.
What can I do if 1 still have concerns about RF emissions? In 2000 the FCC published a guide called, "A
Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and
Practical Guidance." If there are concerns about compliance with FCC standards, the guide suggests
interested persons should contact the provider because the provider is required to understand the FCC's
rules and to know how to apply them in specific cases at specific sites. If that does not resolve any issue,
then interested persons should contact the FCC. The 2000 publication provides the following contact
information:
Compliance and Information Bureau (888) CALL -FCC.
Packet Pg. 215
8.2
Concerns about RF emissions exposure at a particular site: Office of Engineering and Technology, RF
Safety Program, phone (202) 418-2464; rfsafety@fcc.gov <mailto:rfsafety@fcc.gov>.
Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services, Wireless
Communications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division (202) 418-0620
You can also contact your federal elected officials.
We received a few questions from Council during the last meeting. These will be addressed during the
upcoming Council meeting because we did not have time to put this into the packet.
Attachments:
210520 City of Edmonds Draft Master Permit
January 15 2019 City Council - Full Minutes-2251
February 12 2019 City Council - Full Minutes-2264
March 19 2019 City Council - Full Minutes-2295
March 26 2019 CC Public Hearing -Full Minutes-2298
ATT Master Permit 05.25.2021 CC Q & A
Packet Pg. 216
8.2.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
A NON-EXCLUSIVE MASTER PERMIT AGREEMENT TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND
MAINTAIN SMALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING
CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO,
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
whose sole member is AT&T Mobility II LLC and whose sole manager is AT&T Mobility
Corporation, with its principal offices at: 1025 Lenox Park Blvd. NE, P Floor, Atlanta, GA 30319;
and
WHEREAS, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, has an existing Master Use Agreement
with the City of Edmonds effective February 25, 2005 and with a maximum term of twenty years;
and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2019, the City Council passed ordinance 4147, amending Chapter
20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Wireless Communications
Facilities," updating standards and process requirements of wireless communications facilities,
including new standards relating to location preference hierarchy and design standards for small
wireless facilities in the right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, since Chapter 20.50 was amended New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, has
requested that the City grant it the right to enter, use, and occupy the city right-of-way in order to
install, operate, and maintain its planned small wireless facilities deployments: a wireless network
consisting of a collection of interrelated small wireless facilities designed to deliver
telecommunications services, and
WHEREAS, due to the Chapter 20.50 amendments, the City requires a new Master Permit
relating to New Cingular's new, and any existing, small wireless facilities; however, the existing
Master Use Agreement shall continue to govern and control with respect to New Cingular Wireless
PCS, LLC's macro facilities and associated equipment installed in the City's right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority under RCW 35A.47.040, RCW 35.99.020
and Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code to grant, issue, or deny Master
Permit Agreements for the use of city right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant the rights requested subject to certain terms and
conditions.
Packet Pg. 217
8.2.a
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definition. For the purposes of this Master Permit Agreement, the following
terms, phrases, words, and abbreviations shall have the meanings ascribed to them below. When
not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words
in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the
plural number.
a. "Affiliate" means an entity which owns or controls, is owned or controlled
by, or is under common ownership with the Permittee.
b. "City" means the City of Edmonds, Washington.
C. "Facility" or "Facilities" means Permittee's owned, operated, or controlled
Small Wireless Facilities as defined in the Edmonds Community and Development Code
(ECDC) 20.50, incorporated herewith. Facilities further includes any Permittee owned or
controlled Small Wireless Facility support structures, e.g. poles, and any conduit, wires,
coaxial cables, fiber, and other equipment necessary to operate the Small Wireless Facility
that is within ten (10) feet of any support structure --whether Permittee owned or not --to
which the Small Wireless Facility is attached. Facilities do not include any equipment that
is not within ten (10) feet of any support structure to which the Small Wireless Facility is
attached (excluding any strand -mounted unit). Facilities do not include anything used to
provide wireline services, fronthaul or backhaul services. Facilities do not include anything
that is not within the Right -of -Way, or that is covered under a separate master permit or
franchise.
d. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission, or any successor
governmental entity thereto.
e. "Master Permit Agreement" or "Master Permit" shall mean this agreement,
or renewal thereof, granted by the City pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020(C), through this
Ordinance, or a subsequently adopted Ordinance.
f. "Permittee" means New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, or the lawful successor, transferee, or assignee thereof.
g. "Person" is to be interpreted in its broadest sense and includes individuals,
corporations, companies, associations, joint stock companies or associations, firms,
partnerships, limited liability companies, and any other entity or organization.
h. "Public Ways" or "Rights -of -Way" means land acquired or dedicated for
public roads and streets in the Service Area, but does not include:
OA
Packet Pg. 218
8.2.a
(a) State highways;
(b) Land dedicated for roads, streets, and highways not opened and not
improved for motor vehicle use by the public;
(c) Structures, including poles and conduits, located within the right-of-
way;
(d) Federally granted trust lands or forest board trust lands;
(e) Lands owned or managed by the state parks and recreation
commission; or
(f) Federally granted railroad rights -of -way acquired under 43 U.S.C. Sec.
912 and related provisions of federal law that are not open for motor
vehicle use;
(g) buildings or other City -owned physical facilities; and
(h) parks, poles, conduits, fixtures, real property or property rights owned
by the City, or similar facilities or property owned by or leased to the City.
i. "Reasonable" or "reasonably" means an action or decision for which a
reason or basis can be stated, such reason or basis arising from the facts and circumstances
of the particular situation presented. Reasonable or reasonably is contrasted with arbitrary,
i.e., unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of facts and circumstances.
Where there is room for two opinions, a decision is reasonable even though one may
believe an erroneous conclusion has been reached.
j. "Service Area" means the present municipal boundaries of the City, and
shall include any additions thereto by annexation or other legal means.
k. "Telecommunications Service" means the transmission of information by
wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means for hire, sale, or resale
to the general public. "Information" means knowledge or intelligence represented by any
form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, sounds, or any other symbols.
Telecommunications Service shall not include the over -the -air transmission of broadcast
television or broadcast radio signals, nor the provision of Cable Services as defined in 47
U.S.C. Section 522(6), for which a separate permit and franchise would be required.
Section 2. Terms, Conditions, and Provisions of ECDC Chapters 20.50 and 18.60
Incorporated by Reference. The terms, conditions, and provisions of Chapters 20.50, and 18.60 of
the Edmonds Community and Development Code (ECDC), existing at the time of execution of
this Master Permit or as may thereafter be amended, are incorporated herein by reference. All
rights granted hereunder are subject to the terms, conditions, and requirements of Chapters 20.50
and 18.60 ECDC.
Section 3. Authority Granted. The City hereby grants to the Permittee, its heirs, successors,
legal representatives, and assigns, subject to the requirements of Chapters 20.50 and 18.60 ECDC
and the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the right, privilege, and authority to construct,
operate, maintain, and replace Permittee's Facilities in the Public Ways for the purpose of
providing Telecommunications Service. The City may require a license agreement prior to
Packet Pg. 219
8.2.a
placement or replacement of any support structures in the Public Ways or any attachment to City
owned poles. No substantive expansions, additions to or modifications or relocation of any of the
Facilities shall be permitted without first having received prior authorization from the City.
Section 4. Authority Limited to Occupation of Public Ways. The authority granted herein
is a limited authorization to occupy and use the Public Ways of the City. No authority is granted
to occupy or use any City owned or leased properties. Nothing contained herein shall be construed
to grant or convey any right, title, or interest in the Public Ways of the City to the Permittee, nor
shall anything contained herein constitute a warranty of title.
Section 5. Wireless Communication Facility Permits and Right -of -Way Construction
Permits Required.
A. Prior to site -specific location and installation of any portion of its Facilities within
a Public Way, the Permittee shall apply for and obtain both a wireless communication facility
permit pursuant to ECDC 20.50. and a Right -of -Way construction permit pursuant to ECDC
20.50.020(D) and ECDC Chapter 18.60. The Public Works Director or designee shall review
wireless communication facility permit applications according to the procedure set forth in ECDC
20.50. In addition to any criteria set forth in ECDC Chapter18.60, the Public Works Director or
designee shall apply the following criteria in the issuance or denial of a Right -of -Way construction
permit application:
1. Whether the Permittee has received all requisite licenses, certificates, and
authorizations from applicable federal, state, and local agencies with
jurisdiction over the activities proposed by the Permittee;
2. Whether there is sufficient capacity in the Public Ways to accommodate the
Permittee's proposed Facilities;
3. The capacity of the Public Ways to accommodate additional utility, cable,
and facilities if the construction permit is granted;
4. The damage or disruption, if any, of public or private facilities, utilities,
improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the construction permit is
granted;
5. The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction
within the Public Ways.; and
6. If any criteria lead the Public Works Director to deny Permittee a
construction permit, then City will consider any alternate routes and/or
locations that may be proposed by Permittee.
B. Unless otherwise provided in said Right -of -Way construction permit and except
for emergency repairs, the Permittee shall give the City at least forty-eight (48) hours' notice of
M
Packet Pg. 220
8.2.a
the Permittee's intent to commence work in the Public Ways. The Permittee shall file plans or
maps with the City showing the proposed location of its Facilities and pay all duly established
Right -of -Way construction permit and inspection fees associated with the processing of said
permit. Except as otherwise provided in this Master Permit Agreement, no work shall commence
within any Public Way without said Right -of -Way construction permit.
C. The City may adopt procedures combining the application and resulting permit for
wireless communication facility and Right -of -Way construction permits.
Section 6. Term of Master Permit; Standards for Renewal.
A. Term. The term of this Master Permit shall be for a period of five (5) years from
the date of acceptance as set forth in Section 39 (Acceptance), unless sooner terminated as provided
herein.
B. Renewal of Master Permit --Procedure. If Permittee desires to renew its Master
Permit for an additional term it shall, not less than 180 days before expiration of the current
Master Permit, file an application with the City for renewal which shall include the following:
1. The information required pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020(C)
2. Any proposed changes to the current Master Permit submitted electronically in
Word format, proposed changes in track changes. Either party may propose
changes;
3. Any information required pursuant to the current Master Permit;
4. Such other information as the Public Works Director, in his/her discretion, shall
deem appropriate; and
5. An application fee for recovery of City staff costs which may be set by the City
Council by resolution, and an additional amount for recovery of costs for
attorneys, consultants, and City Attorney's Office review.
C. Renewal of Master Permit -Standards. The city council shall decide whether to renew,
renew with conditions, require a new master permit, or deny the application, all in accordance
with the terms and procedures of ECDC 20.50.020(C).
D. Renewal of Master Permit -Obligation to Cure. No Master Permit shall be renewed
until any ongoing violations or defaults in the Permittee's performance under the Master Permit,
the requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC, the Edmonds Code, as applicable, and any other
lawful applicable regulations with respect to use and management of the Public Ways, other
ways, and City property, have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action to be taken by
the Permittee has been approved by the City.
5
Packet Pg. 221
8.2.a
Section 7. Non -Exclusive Grant. This Master Permit shall not in any manner prevent the
City from entering into other similar agreements or granting other or further Master Permit
Agreements, franchises, Right -of -Way permits in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below
any of said Public Ways of the City, nor from exercising such other powers and authorities granted
to the City by law. Permittee shall construct, install, maintain, and continuously operate its
Facilities to prevent interference with the other facilities in the Public Ways and the operation
thereof. Further, this Master Permit shall in no way prevent or prohibit the City from using any of
its Public Ways as authorized by law or not prohibited by law or affect its jurisdiction over them
or any part of them, and the City shall retain power to make all necessary changes, relocations,
repairs, maintenance, establishment, improvement, dedication of the same as the City may deem
fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new Public
Ways, all in compliance with this Master Permit and applicable law.
Section 8. Relocation of Facilities.
A. Where relocation of Facilities is required by the City, City and Permittee shall comply
with RCW § 35.99.060(2). If RCW 35.99.060(2) is amended after the date of this Master Permit,
then the parties' obligations are likewise amended.
B. Permittee acknowledges that its Facilities may need to be relocated during the term of
this Master Permit Agreement. Permittee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to
protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, or remove from any Public Way any portion of
its Facilities when so required by the Public Works Director by reason of traffic conditions, public
safety, dedications of new Public Ways and the establishment and improvement thereof, widening
and improvement of existing Public Ways, street vacations, highway construction, change or
establishment of street grade, or the construction of any public improvement or structure by any
governmental agency acting in a governmental capacity; provided that the Permittee shall in all
cases have the privilege to temporarily relocate, in the authorized portion of the same or similar
public way upon approval by the Public Works Director, any Facility required to be temporarily
disconnected or removed.
C. Upon the reasonable request of, and with at least thirty (30) days' notice from, the Public
Works Director and in order to facilitate the design of City street and right-of-way improvements,
the Permittee agrees to, at its sole cost and expense, locate, and if reasonably determined necessary
by the City, to excavate and expose portions of its Facilities for inspection so that the location of
same may be taken into account in the improvement design, PROVIDED that Permittee shall not
be required to excavate and expose its Facilities unless the Permittee's as -built plans and maps of
its Facilities submitted pursuant to Section 19 (Inventory) of this Master Permit are reasonably
determined by the Public Works Director to be inadequate for purposes of this paragraph. The
decision to require relocation of said Facilities in order to accommodate the City's improvements
shall be made by the Public Works Director upon review of the location and construction of the
Permittee's Facilities.
D. If the Public Works Director determines that the project necessitates the relocation of
the Permittee's then existing Facilities, the City shall:
Con
Packet Pg. 222
8.2.a
1. Within a reasonable time, which shall be no less than sixty (60) days, prior to
the commencement of such improvement project, provide the Permittee with
written notice requiring such relocation. Provided, however, that in the event an
emergency posing a threat to public safety, health or welfare, or in the event of an
emergency beyond the control of the City and which will result in severe financial
consequences to the City, the City shall give the Permittee written notice as soon
as practicable; and
2. Provide the Permittee with copies of information for such improvement
project and a proposed location for the Permittee's Facilities so that the Permittee
may relocate its Facilities in other Public Ways in order to accommodate such
improvement project. City will strive to afford a location from which Permittee can
provide substantially similar service to that provided from the original location
whenever practicable.
3. The Permittee shall complete relocation of its Facilities at no charge or
expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project at least 10 days
prior to commencement of the project. In the event of an emergency as described
herein, the Permittee shall relocate is Facilities within the time period specified by
the Public Works Director.
E. The Permittee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its Facilities,
submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives
and advise the Permittee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate
the work, which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the Facilities. If so requested by the
City, the Permittee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such
evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by the Permittee full and fair
consideration, within a reasonable time, so as to allow for the relocation work to be performed in
a timely manner. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable
alternative, the Permittee shall relocate its Facilities as otherwise provided in this Section.
F. The provisions of this Section shall in no manner preclude or restrict the Permittee from
making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of
its Facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the facilities to be constructed by
said person or entity are not or will not become City -owned, operated or maintained facilities;
provided, that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project.
G. Permittee acknowledges and agrees that the placement of its Facilities on third party -
owned poles does not convey an ownership interest in such poles. Permittee acknowledges and
agrees that to the extent Permittee's Facilities are on poles owned by third parties, the City shall
not be responsible for any costs associated with requests arising out of a relocation. A relocation
includes movement of Facilities arising out of pole removal, replacement or upgrade. Permittee is
not permitted to purchase any utility owned pole in order to avoid relocation or costs associated
with relocation unless specifically authorized by the City.
7
Packet Pg. 223
8.2.a
H. The Permittee will indemnify, hold harmless, and pay the costs of defending the City
against any and all claims, suits, actions, damages, or liabilities for delays on City construction
projects caused by or arising out of the failure of the Permittee to relocate its Facilities in a timely
manner; provided, that the Permittee shall not be responsible for damages due to delays caused by
the City or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee.
I. The cost and expenses associated with relocation of the Permittee's Facilities shall be the
responsibility of the Permittee unless the Permittee had paid for the relocation cost of the same
Facilities at the request of the City within the past five years. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Ordinance, in the event of a conflict between this Ordinance and the provisions of applicable
state law, the provisions of the applicable state law shall control.
J. In the event of an unforeseen emergency that creates a threat to the public safety, health,
or welfare, the City may require the Permittee to relocate its Facilities at its own expense, any other
portion of this Section notwithstanding.
Section 9. Undergrounding of Facilities.
The parties agree that this Master Permit does not limit the City's authority under federal
law, state law, or local ordinance to require the undergrounding of utilities, including Permittee's
Facilities.
Permittee's Facilities shall be undergrounded; Provided that undergrounding requirements
shall not apply to those elements of Permittee's Facilities that are required to remain above ground
in order to be functional. The City shall not pay any of the cost of undergrounding. Upon an
undergrounding project, Small Wireless Facilities and associated Facilities may be required to
relocate to an alternative approved structure or pole consistent with ECDC 20.50.130 and pursuant
to the relocation requirements of this Master Permit (for example, if all utility poles in the area are
removed as part of the undergrounding project.)
Section 10. Work in Public Ways.
A. During any period of relocation, construction, or maintenance, all surface
structures, if any, shall be erected, used, and maintained in such places and positions within said
Public Ways and other public properties so as to interfere as little as possible with the free passage
of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the free use of adjoining property. The Permittee shall at
all times comply with all applicable safety and traffic control regulations during such period of
construction as required by the specifications and codes, and all other applicable local municipal,
state, and federal codes, rules and regulations.
B. During the progress of the work, the Permittee shall not unnecessarily obstruct the
passage or proper use of the Public Ways, and all work by the Permittee in any area covered by
this Master Permit and as described in this Section shall be performed in accordance with City of
Edmonds Public Works Construction Standards and warranted for a period of two (2) years.
N.
Packet Pg. 224
8.2.a
C. The Permittee shall cooperate with the City and all other persons with authority
from the City to occupy and use the Public Ways of the City in coordination of construction
activities and joint trenching projects. By February 1st of each calendar year, the Permittee shall
provide the City with a schedule of its proposed construction activities for that calendar year in,
around, or that may affect the Public Ways of the City. The Permittee shall also meet with the
City and other grantees, franchisees, permittees, and users of the Public Ways of the City annually,
or as determined by the City, to schedule and coordinate construction activities.
D. Consistent with RCW Chapter 35.99, the Permittee may, on an annual basis, file
notice with the City Clerk and the City Engineer of its desire to receive notices related to public
improvement projects within the Public Ways of the City. In the event that the Permittee is mailed
such a notice and fails to coordinate installation or construction of its Facilities with the public
improvement project, the City Engineer may deny the Permittee's construction permit application
for those portions of any of the Permittee's construction projects which seek to disrupt the surface
of any said street for a period of up to five years, as reasonably determined by the City Engineer
for the purpose of protecting the City's investment in said public improvement projects. In the
alternative, the City Engineer may require the Permittee to fully restore the surface and sub -surface
areas of such street to the condition that it was in immediately after completion of the public
improvement project.
Section 11. Restoration after Construction. The Permittee shall, after installation,
construction, relocation, maintenance, removal, or repair of its Facilities within the Public Ways,
restore the surface of said Public Ways and any other City -owned property, including support
structures, that may be disturbed by the work, to at least the same condition the Public Way or
property was in immediately prior to any such installation, construction, relocation, maintenance,
removal, or repair. The Public Works Department shall have final approval of the condition of
such Public Ways and City -owned property after restoration, all in accordance with the Edmonds
Municipal Code and Public Works Construction standards. All survey monuments which are to
be disturbed or displaced by such work shall be referenced and restored, as per WAC 332-120, as
the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, and all pertinent federal, state and local
standards and specifications. The Permittee agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and
to promptly repair any damage caused by such work to the Public Ways or other affected area at
its sole cost and expense according to the time and terms specified in the Right -of -Way
Construction Permit issued by the City all in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Edmonds Municipal Code, as the same now exists or as it may hereafter be amended or
superseded. All work and restoration by the Permittee pursuant to this Section shall be performed
in accord with City of Edmonds Public Works Construction standards and warranted for a period
of two (2) years.
Section 12. Emergency Work — Permit Waiver. In the event of any emergency in which
any of the Permittee's Facilities located in, above, or under any Public Way break, are damaged,
or if the Permittee's construction area is otherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger
the property, life, health, or safety of any individual, the Permittee shall immediately take the
proper emergency measures to repair its Facilities, to cure or remedy the dangerous conditions for
X
Packet Pg. 225
8.2.a
the protection of property, life, health, or safety of individuals without first applying for and
obtaining a Right -of -Way construction permit as required by this Master Permit . However, this
shall not relieve the Permittee from the requirement of notifying the City of the emergency work
and obtaining any permits necessary for this purpose as promptly as reasonably possible after the
emergency work. The Permittee shall notify the City by telephone immediately upon learning of
the emergency and shall apply for all required permits not later than the second succeeding day
during which the Edmonds City Hall is open for business.
Section 13. Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to Abate. In the event of any
emergency in which any of Permittee's Facilities breaks, falls, becomes damaged, or if Permittee's
Facilities is otherwise in such a condition as to immediately endanger the property, life, health or
safety of any person, entity or the City, or whenever construction, installation, or excavation of the
Facilities authorized by this Master Permit has caused or contributed to a condition that appears to
substantially impair the lateral support of the adjoining Public Way, street, or public place, or
endangers the public, street utilities, or City -owned property, the City Engineer may require the
Permittee, at the Permittee's own expense, to take action to protect the public, adjacent public
places, City -owned property, streets, utilities, and Public Ways. Such action may include
compliance within a reasonably prescribed time. What will be considered reasonable time will be
determined by the City based on the nature of the dangerous condition.
In the event that the Permittee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the
City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require
immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to
protect the public, the adjacent streets, utilities, Public Ways, to maintain the lateral support
thereof, or actions regarded as necessary safety precautions; and the Permittee shall be liable to
the City for the reasonable costs thereof after receipt of an itemized bill.
Section 14. Recovery of Costs. Permittee shall be subject to all permit fees associated
with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this Master Permit or under the laws of
the City. Where the City incurs costs and expenses for which a fee is not established, Permittee
shall reimburse the City the actual administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly
related to receiving and approving a permit, license, and this Master Permit, to inspecting plans
and construction, to supervision of activities undertaken through the authority granted in this
Master Permit or any ordinances relating to the subject for which a permit fee is not established,
or to the preparation of a detailed statement pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW. Permittee shall
further reimburse the City for Permittee's proportionate share of all actual, identified expenses
incurred by the City in planning, constructing, installing, repairing or altering any City facility as
a result of the construction or the presence in the Right -of -Way of the Permittee's Facilities. Fees
for which Permittee is responsible under this Section may include reimbursement for time
associated with attorneys, consultants, City Staff, and City Attorney's Office review.
In addition to the above, the Permittee shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all
reasonable costs the City incurs in response to any emergency involving the Permittee's Facilities.
Iff
Packet Pg. 226
8.2.a
The time of City employees shall be charged at their respective rate of salary, including
overtime if applicable plus benefits and reasonable overhead. Any other costs will be billed
proportionately on an actual cost basis. All billings will be itemized as to specifically identify the
costs and expenses for each project for which the City claims reimbursement. A charge for the
actual costs incurred in preparing the billing may also be included in said billing. The billing may
be on an annual basis or sooner, but the City shall provide Permittee with the City's itemization of
costs at the conclusion of each project for information purposes.
Section 15. Fees for Use of Public Ways.
A. Prohibition of Franchise Fee. Pursuant to RCW 35.21.860, the City is precluded
from imposing a fee on a "telephone business" or a "service provider" for use of the right-of-way,
except for administrative expenses or any applicable tax authorized by law, and other exceptions listed
therein. This Master Permit is premised upon the City and Permittee's understanding that the activities
proposed by the Permittee and authorized by the City constitute those of a "telephone business" or
"service provider." The City hereby reserves its right to impose a fee on Permittee, to the extent
authorized by law, for purposes other than to recover its administrative expenses, if the Permittee's
operations are not those of a "telephone business" or "service provider" or if statutory prohibitions on
the imposition of such fees are removed, whether by legislative or judicial action. The City also
reserves its right to require that the Permittee obtain a separate agreement for its change in use, which
agreement may include provisions intended to regulate the Permittee's operations, as allowed under
applicable law.
B. Permittee Obligated to Pay Taxes. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to alter,
amend, or modify the taxes and fees that may lawfully be assessed on Permittee's business
activities under this Ordinance pursuant to applicable law. This Master Permit does not limit the
City's power of taxation. Permittee agrees that all of its activities in the City of Edmonds authorized
by this Master Permit are specifically taxable as a telephone business under Edmonds Municipal
Code Chapter 3, including EMC 3.20.050, and are taxable at the rate specified therein now in effect
or as amended. Permittee is subject to payment of any applicable local utility tax and any other tax
of whatever kind applicable to Permittee's operations.
C. Site Specific Charges. The City may impose a charge for use of the Right -of -
Way in the circumstances outlined in RCW 35.21.860(1)(e), and the parties agree the City may
charge an amount consistent with FCC orders. If FCC orders are no longer in effect during the
term of this Master Permit, then the parties will negotiate an acceptable charge. If the parties cannot
agree then they will utilize the process outlined in RCW 35.21.860(1)(e).
Section 16. Manner of Payment; Audit. Permittee shall make all required payments
under this Master Permit, including taxes, in the form, intervals, and manner requested by the City
Finance Director, and furnish him/her any information related to his/her revenue collection
functions reasonably requested. The City Finance Director may call for an audit pertaining to
payments under this Master Permit twice per calendar year and not more frequently unless the
Finance Director has a reasonable basis therefore. In case of audit, the City Treasurer may require
Permittee to furnish a verified statement of compliance with Permittee's obligations or in response
11
Packet Pg. 227
8.2.a
to any questions. Said certificate may be required from an independent, certified public accountant,
at Permittee's expense. Permittee agrees, upon request of the City Treasurer, to provide copies of
all documents filed with any federal, state, or local regulatory agency affecting any of Permittee's
Facilities or related business operations pursuant to this Master Permit.
Permittee agrees that it will manage all of its operations in accordance with a policy of keeping
books and records open and accessible to the City. Without limiting its obligations under this
Master Permit, Permittee agrees that it will collect and make available books and records for
inspection and copying by the City in order to ensure the operations of Permittee are that of a
telephone business or service provider pursuant to RCW 35.21.860. Permittee shall be responsible
for collecting the information and producing it. Books and records shall be produced to the City at
one of Permittee's physical offices in the State of Washington in the greater Seattle area or such
other location as the parties may agree. Permittee shall take all steps required, if any, to ensure
that it is able to provide the City all information which must be provided or may be requested
under this Master Permit, including providing appropriate subscriber privacy notices. Nothing in
this Master Permit shall be read to require Permittee to violate 47 USC Section 551. Permittee
shall be responsible for redacting any date that federal law prevents it from providing to the City.
Permittee shall have the right to have its employee and agents physically present at all times that
the City, its employees or agents are conducting any such audit and representatives of the City
shall comply with Permittee's standard accounting policies and procedures pertaining the City's
auditing of Licensee's accounting records which are considered by Licensee to be proprietary and
confidential. Records shall be kept for at least six years. Permittee shall maintain records sufficient
to show its compliance with the requirements of this Master Permit and shall produce those records
within thirty (30) days of a City request. Such written notice from the City must identify with
specificity the period for which the City wishes to conduct its audit.
Section 17. Indemnification and Waiver. As consideration for the issuance of this Master
Permit, Permittee shall indemnify the City as follows:
A. Permittee hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents,
consultants, volunteers, and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or
liability to any Person arising from injury, sickness, or death of any Person or damage to property:
For which the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents, servants,
officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by this Master
Permit are the proximate cause;
2. By virtue of Permittee's exercise of the rights granted herein;
3. By virtue of the City permitting Permittee's use of the City's Public Ways
or other public property;
4. Based on the City's inspection or lack of inspection of work performed by
Permittee, its agents and servants, officers or employees in connection with
12
Packet Pg. 228
8.2.a
work authorized on a Facility, the Public Ways, or property over which the
City has control pursuant to this Master Permit or pursuant to any other
permit or approval issued in connection with this Master Permit;
5. Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Permittee, its agents,
servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety
systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation,
construction, or work upon the Public Ways, in any Public Way, or other
public place, or work upon a Facility, in performance of work or services
under this Master Permit; and
6. Based upon radio frequency emissions or radiation emitted from
Permittee's equipment or Facilities, regardless of whether Permittee's
equipment or Facilities complies with applicable federal statutes and/or
FCC regulations related thereto.
B. The provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall apply to claims against the
City by Permittee's own employees and the employees of the Permittee's agents, representatives,
contractors, and subcontractors to which Permittee might otherwise be immune under Title 51
RCW. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions
brought against the City by the aforementioned employees is with respect to claims against the
City arising by virtue of Permittee's exercise of its rights. To the extent required to provide this
indemnification, Permittee waives its immunity under Title 51 RCW as provided in RCW 4.24.115.
This waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW has been mutually negotiated by the parties hereto,
and Permittee acknowledges that the City would not enter into this Master Permit without
Permittee's waiver thereof.
C. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by the Permittee at the
time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants
of indemnification. Provided that Permittee has been given prompt written notice by the City of
any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall also extend to claims which are not reduced
to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or
the institution of any litigation. Permittee shall control the defense of any claim under which it is
providing indemnification, and the City has the right to participate in the defense of any such claim,
and has the right to approve any settlement or other compromise of any such claim.
D. If Permittee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having
been made pursuant to this Section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having
jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to the matter), to have been a
wrongful refusal on the part of the Permittee, then Permittee shall pay all of the City's costs for
defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorney's fees, the
reasonable costs of the City, and reasonable fees of recovering under this Subsection.
E. The obligations of Permittee under the indemnification provisions of this Section
shall apply regardless of whether liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to Persons or
13
Packet Pg. 229
8.2.a
damages to property were caused or contributed to by the City, its officers, agents, employees or
contractors except to the extent that such claims, actions, damages, costs, expenses, and attorney's
fees were caused by the sole negligence or any willful, malicious, or criminal act on the part of the
City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. In the event that a court of competent
jurisdiction determines that a Master Permit is subject to the provisions RCW 4.24.115, the parties
agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute
and liability shall be allocated as provided therein.
F. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, Permittee assumes the risk
of damage to its Facilities located in the Public Ways and upon City -owned property occurring as
a result of or in connection with any public works, public improvements, construction, excavation,
grading, filling, or work of any kind on such City property or within the Public Ways by or on
behalf of the City, regardless of whether such activities are conducted by the City, its officers,
agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused
by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful, malicious, or criminal act on the part of the
City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Permittee releases and waives any and all such
claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. In no event shall the City be
liable for any indirect, incidental, special, consequential, exemplary, or punitive damages,
including by way of example and not limitation lost profits, lost revenue, loss of goodwill, or loss
of business opportunity in connection with its performance or failure to perform. Permittee further
agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including,
but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of
Permittee's Facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of
Permittee's Facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers,
agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused
by or arises from the sole negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its
officers, agents, employees or contractors.
G. These indemnification requirements shall survive the expiration, revocation, or
termination of this Master Permit or any other permits or approvals related thereto.
Section 18. Insurance. The Permittee, and any subcontractors performing services on its
behalf, shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and
authority granted hereunder to the Permittee, its agents, representatives or employees. The
Permittee shall provide to the City, for its inspection, an insurance certificate together with an
endorsement including the City, and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees,
agents, consultants, volunteers, and representatives as additional insureds prior to the
commencement of any work or installation of any Facilities pursuant to this Master Permit. Such
insurance certificate shall evidence:
A. Commercial general liability insurance as per ISO Form CG 00 01 or its
equivalent, written on an occurrence basis, including contractual liability coverage, and shall cover
liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products -completed
operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract.
14
Packet Pg. 230
8.2.a
There shall be no exclusion for liability arising from explosion, collapse or underground property
damage. The Public Entity shall be included as an additional insured under the Permittee's
Commercial General Liability insurance policy by endorsement with respect this Master Permit
using ISO endorsement CG 20 12, with limits of $5,000,000 per occurrence and $10,000,000 in
the aggregate for bodily injury and property damage.
B. Commercial Automobile liability covering all owned, non -owned, hired and
leased vehicles with a combined single limit of $5,000,000.00 for each accident for bodily injury
and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) form
CA 00 01.
C. Worker's compensation within statutory limits and employer's liability insurance
with limits of $1,000,000.00 each accident/disease/policy limit, which may be self -insured by
Permittee for this Section 18.C. The Permittee shall provide stop gap employer liability coverage
in the amount of $1,000,000 per accident, per disease policy limit, per disease per employee.
D. Contractors Pollution Liability coverage or self-insurance in the amount of
$2,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate covering third party claims for bodily injury, property
damage or cleanup costs as required by law, where the pollution is caused during and by
Permittee's operations under this Agreement.
E. Excess umbrella liability policy with limits of $5,000,000 per occurrence and in
the annual aggregate. It shall be excess over Permittee's Commercial General Liability and
Automobile Liability insurance.
F. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a rating of A.M. Best & Company's
Key rating Guide of A, VII Overall and a Financial Size Category of VII. The liability insurance
policies required by this Section shall be maintained by the Permittee throughout the term of this
Master Permit, and such other period of time during which the Permittee is operating without a
Master Permit hereunder, or is engaged in the removal of its Facilities. Payment of deductibles
and self -insured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of the Permittee. The commercial
general liability insurance required by this Section shall contain a clause stating that the coverage
shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought. The
Permittee's insurance shall be primary insurance with respect to the City, its elected and appointed
officers, officials, employees, agents, consultants, volunteers, and representatives. Any insurance
maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Permittee's insurance and shall not contribute with
it. Permittee's maintenance of insurance shall not be construed to limit the liability of Permittee to
the coverage provided by such insurance or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy
available at law or equity.
G. In addition to the coverage requirements set forth in this section, Permittee must
notify the City of any cancellation or reduction of any required coverage that is not replaced.
Within 30 days after receipt by the City of said notice, and in no event later than 15 days prior to
said cancellation or intent not to renew, Permittee shall obtain and furnish to the City a replacement
insurance certificate meeting the requirements of this Section.
15
Packet Pg. 231
8.2.a
Section 19. Inventory.
Permittee shall maintain a current inventory of its Facilities throughout the Term of Master
Permit. Permittee shall provide to the City a copy of the inventory report no later than one hundred
eighty (180) days after the Effective Date of this Master Permit, and shall be updated within thirty
(30) days of request by the City. The inventory report shall be provided in hard copy and digital
copy. The inventory report shall include GIS coordinates, date of installation, type of pole used for
installation, description/type of installation for each Small Wireless Facility installation and
photographs taken before and after the installation of the Small Wireless Facility and taken from
the public street. Small Wireless Facilities that are abandoned or whose use has been discontinued
per ECDC 20.50.140, shall be included in the inventory report and Permittee shall provide the
same information as is provided for active installations as well as the date the Small Wireless
Facilities were abandoned or discontinued, and the date of removal from the Right -of -Way. The
City shall compare the inventory report to its records to identify any discrepancies, and the parties
will work together in good faith to resolve any discrepancies. Permittee is not required to report
on future inventory reports any abandoned or discontinued Small Wireless Facilities which were
removed from the Right -of -Way since the last reported inventory. Inventory required to be
maintained and provided under this Section 19 shall be at no cost to the City.
After construction is complete, Permittee shall provide the City with accurate copies of all
as -built plans and maps showing the location of all components meeting the definition of Facilities
placed in the Right -of -Way, in a form and content prescribed by the Public Works Director. These
plans shall be provided at no cost to the City, and shall include hard copies and digital copies in a
format specified by the Public Works Director.
Section 20. Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee's Facilities.
In addition to the abandonment and removal requirements of ECDC 20.50.140, Permittee
agrees to the following:
Upon the date of expiration, termination, or revocation of the rights granted under this Master
Permit, within sixty (60) days the Permittee must remove the Facilities and any structures in
accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.50.140 and this Section 20. If Permittee fails to
remove all Facilities in accordance with ECDC 20.50.140 and this section, then the City shall,
upon at least thirty (30) days advance written notice to Permittee, have the authority to take any of
the following actions: (1) physically remove the Facilities and charge all costs for removal and all
costs for storage or disposal to the Permittee; (2) compel the Permittee to remove any such
Facilities through judicial action; or (3) take title of such Facilities.
Section 21. Safety Requirements.
A. Permittee shall, at all times and at its sole responsibility and expense, comply with
all applicable laws, standards and regulations relating to the installation, operation, maintenance,
16
Packet Pg. 232
8.2.a
repair and/or removal of its Facilities. In accordance with applicable federal, state, and local safety
requirements, Permittee shall at all times employ reasonable and ordinary care and shall install and
maintain and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents
which are likely to cause damage, injury, or nuisance to the public and/or workers. The Facilities
shall at all times be kept and maintained in a safe, suitable condition, and in good order and repair.
B. As an exercise of its police powers in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare, and to the extent not preempted by federal law, the City may require verification of
Permittee's compliance with any health and safety laws and regulations applicable to its Facilities
at Permittee's cost and expense. The City may, but shall have no obligation to, conduct inspections,
and Permittee shall cooperate with any such inspections and provide all information requested by
the City as it may reasonably determine is necessary as part of its inspection. Permittee shall
reimburse the City for its reasonable costs related to all health and safety inspections according to
the procedures of Section 14; PROVIDED THAT with respect to any RF emissions inspections,
Permittee shall only be charged if Permittee is found to be out of compliance with FCC standards.
C. If a violation of the National Electrical Safety Code or other applicable regulation
is found to exist by the City, the City will, after discussions with Permittee, establish a reasonable
time for Permittee to make necessary repairs. If the repairs are not made within the established
time frame, the City may make the repairs itself or have them made and collect all reasonable costs
thereof from Permittee.
D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if either party discovers that the emissions from a
Facility exceed the FCC standards, and if discovered by the City then also after testing and
certification of test results from a qualified RF engineer, then Permittee shall immediately turn off
the Facility or portion thereof committing the violation, until the emissions exposure is remedied.
Upon any City discovery of violation, notification shall be made verbally by calling 1-800-832-
6662 and by email notice to REleaseAdmin@att.com. Permittee is required to promptly turn off
that portion of the Facility that is in violation, no later than forty-eight (48) hours after date and
time of email notice or of its own discovery of noncompliance.
E. Pursuant to ECDC 20.50.070, upon each application for a wireless
communications facility permit, Permittee shall provide the certificate of an RF engineer with
knowledge of the proposed development that the small wireless facility network will comply with
RF standards adopted by the FCC. Permittee shall further provide proof of FCC and other
regulatory approvals required to provide the service and to utilize the technology sought to be
installed. Permittee shall thereafter perform any testing and provide certification of the Facilities
as may be requested by FCC or any other government agency with the authority to regulate
exposure to RF emissions, and Permittee will provide a copy of any such compliance reports to
the City.
17
Packet Pg. 233
8.2.a
Section 22. Construction Bond. Before undertaking any of the work, installation,
improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this Master Permit,
the Permittee shall furnish a Right -of -Way Construction Bond written by a corporate surety
acceptable to the City equal to at least one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the estimated
cost of restoring the Public Ways of the City to the pre -construction condition required by Section
11 (Restoration after Construction) of this Master Permit. Said bond shall be required to remain
in full force until sixty (60) days after completion of the construction of Permittee's Facilities and
other improvements from the Public Ways of the City. In the event that a bond issued to meet the
requirements of this Section is canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms
of said bond, Permittee shall, prior to expiration of said bond, be responsible for obtaining a
replacement bond which complies with the terms of this Section.
Section 23. Maintenance Bond. Permittee shall furnish a maintenance bond written by a
corporate surety acceptable to the City equal to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the original
Construction Bond amount which shall warrant all restoration work for a period of two (2) years.
The Maintenance Bond must be in place before City may release the Construction Bond. In the
event that a bond issued to meet the requirements of this Section is canceled by the surety, after
proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Permittee shall, prior to expiration of said
bond, be responsible for obtaining a replacement bond which complies with the terms of this
Section.
Section 24. Modification. The City and the Permittee hereby reserve the right to alter,
amend or modify the terms and conditions of this Master Permit upon the written agreement of
both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Said modifications shall be approved
by the City by ordinance and accepted by the Permittee consistent with Section 41 (Acceptance)
hereof.
Section 25. Forfeiture and Revocation.
A. This Master Permit may be terminated for failure by Permittee to comply with the
material provisions hereof and other provisions of the Edmonds Municipal Code. In addition to
termination, the City may impose lesser sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary
penalties, for violation of this Master Permit in accordance with the terms of the Master Permit
herein.
B. If the City has reason to believe that Permittee is in violation of this Master Permit
or other provisions of the Edmonds Municipal Code, the following procedures shall be followed
by the City:
1. The City shall provide Permittee with a detailed written notice, by certified
mail, detailing the violation, the steps necessary to cure such violation, and a reasonable time
period within which the violation must be cured. Within thirty days (30) thereafter, Permittee shall
respond demonstrating that no violation occurred, that any problem has been corrected, or with a
proposal to correct the problem within a specified period of time.
Packet Pg. 234
8.2.a
2. Permittee may request an extension of time to cure an alleged violation if
construction is suspended or delayed by the City, or where unusual weather, natural consequences
(e.g., earthquakes, floods, etc.), extraordinary acts of third parties, or other circumstances which
are reasonably beyond the control of Permittee delay progress, provided that Permittee has not,
through its own actions or inactions, contributed to the delay. The amount of additional time
allowed will be determined by the City. The extension of time in any case shall not be greater than
the extent of the actual non-contributory delay experienced by Permittee.
3. If said response is not satisfactory to City, the City may declare Permittee
to be in default, with written notice to Permittee in accordance with the Notice requirements of
this Master Permit. Within ten business days after notice to Permittee, Permittee may deliver to
the City a request for a hearing before the City Council. If no such request is received, the City
may declare the Master Permit terminated for cause and/or impose lesser sanctions.
4. If Permittee files a timely written request for a hearing, such hearing shall
be held within thirty (30) days after the City's receipt of the request therefor. Such hearing shall
be open to the public and Permittee and other interested parties may offer written and/or oral
evidence explaining or mitigating such alleged non-compliance. Within ten days after the hearing,
the City Council, on the basis of the record, will make the determination as to whether there is
cause for termination, whether the Master Permit will be terminated, and/or whether lesser
sanctions should be imposed. The City Council may in its sole discretion fix an additional time
period to cure violations. If the deficiency has not been cured at the expiration of any additional
time period or if the City Council does not grant any additional period, the City Council may, by
resolution declare the Master Permit to be terminated and forfeited or impose lesser sanctions.
5. If Permittee appeals revocation and termination, such revocation may be
held in abeyance pending judicial review by a court of competent jurisdiction, provided the
Permittee is otherwise in compliance with this Master Permit. While revocation is held in
abeyance, City may suspend the issuance of additional permits. In any such appeal, Permittee
shall be responsible for the costs of preparing and filing the City's administrative record with the
Court and such costs shall be paid prior to the City's filing thereof.
C. In the event that the City elects to impose monetary penalties upon the Permittee
for failure to comply with the material provisions of this Master Permit, said penalties shall be
assessed at five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day, per violation, for each day beyond thirty (30)
days that Permittee has been in violation.
D. Monetary penalties may be assessed retroactive to the date that notification was
provided to Permittee in such cases where Permittee has been non -responsive in correcting the
violation or in the case of flagrant violations. If payment of any penalty is delinquent by three (3)
months or more, the City may: (1) require partial or total forfeiture of any performance bond, the
Security Fund, or other surety posted by Permittee; (2) terminate this Master Permit; and/or (3)
commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to collect said penalty.
ILI
Packet Pg. 235
8.2.a
E. If this agreement is terminated for cause, the sixty (60) day clock referenced in
Section 20 (Abandonment and Removal of the Permittee's Facilities) begins to run the date the
City or City Council declares the Master Permit terminated for cause in accordance with the
procedures of this Section 25; Provided that if Permittee appeals revocation and termination
pursuant to paragraph B(5) of this Section 25, then paragraph B(5) shall govern.
F. Permittee shall not be deemed to be in default, failure, violation, or non-compliance
with any provision of this Master Permit where performance was rendered impossible due to
materially, substantially, and reasonably to an act of God, fire, flood, storm, or other element or
casualty, theft, war, disaster, strike, lock -out, boycott, prevailing war or war preparation, or bona
fide legal proceedings, beyond the control of Permittee.
Section 26. Security Fund.
A. At the same time as providing acceptance of this Master Permit, Permittee shall establish
a permanent security fund in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to guarantee the full
and complete performance of the requirements of this Master Permit and to guarantee payment of
any costs, expenses, damages, or loss the City pays or incurs, including monetary penalties,
because of any failure attributable to Permittee to comply with the codes, ordinances, rules,
regulations, or permits of the City. The amount of the Security Fund shall not be construed to limit
Permittee's liability or to limit the City's recourse to any remedy to which the City is otherwise
entitled at law or in equity.
B. Permittee shall replenish the security fund within fourteen (14) days after written notice
from the City that there is a deficiency in the amount of the fund.
C. Upon termination or expiration of the Master Permit, all funds remaining in the Security
Fund shall be returned to Permittee within thirty (30) days after removal of Permittee's Facilities
in the Public Ways.
Section 27. Hazardous Substances. Permittee shall not introduce or use any hazardous
substances (chemical or waste), in violation of any applicable law or regulation, nor shall Permittee
allow any of its agents, contractors or any person under its control to do the same. Permittee will
be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials,
employees and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, costs and liabilities including
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration
of any property associated with Permittee's use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances, or
the use, storage or disposal of such substances by Permittee's agents, contractors, or other persons
acting under Permittee's control.
Section 28. City Ordinances and Regulations. Permittee agrees to comply with all present
and future federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. This Master Permit is
subject to ordinances of general applicability enacted pursuant to the City's police powers. Nothing
herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and
appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this Master Permit,
20
Packet Pg. 236
8.2.a
including any ordinance made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety
and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by
appropriate regulations the locations, elevation, manner or construction and maintenance of any
facilities by the Permittee, and the Permittee shall promptly conform with all such regulations,
unless compliance would cause the Permittee to violate other requirements of the law.
Section 29. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions, and requirements of this Master
Permit shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities the Permittee may have
to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract. The provisions, conditions, and requirements
of Sections 8, Relocation of Facilities; 9, Undergrounding of Facilities; 10, Work in Public
Ways; 11, Restoration after Construction; 13, Dangerous Conditions, Authority for City to
Abate; 17, Indemnification and Waiver; 18, Insurance; 20, Abandonment and Removal of the
Permittee's Facilities, 26 Security Fund, and 27 Hazardous Substances, shall survive the expiration
or termination of this Master Permit, and any renewals or extensions thereof. All of the provisions,
conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this Master Permit shall further be binding
upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the
Permittee and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of the Permittee shall inure to
its heirs, successors, and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned wherever the
Permittee is named herein.
Section 30. Severability. In any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Master Permit
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Master Permit.
Section 31. Assignment. This Master Permit may not be assigned or transferred without
prior written notice to the City, except that the Permittee may freely assign this Master Permit
without notice in whole or part to a parent, subsidiary, or Affiliate or as part of any corporate
financing, reorganization or refinancing. In the case of transfer or assignment as security by
mortgage or other security instrument in whole or in part to secure indebtedness, such notice shall
not be required unless and until the secured party elects to realize upon the collateral.
Permittee may, without the prior written notice to the City: (i) Lease the Facilities, or any
portion thereof, to another; (ii) Grant an Indefeasible Right of User Interest in the Facilities, or any
portion thereof, to another; or (iii) Offer or provide capacity or bandwidth in its Facilities to
another, PROVIDED THAT: Permittee at all times retains exclusive control over such Facilities
and remains solely responsible and liable for the performance of all obligations under this Master
Permit, including but not limited to responsible for locating, servicing, repairing, relocating or
removing its Facilities pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Master Permit. Permittee cannot
grant any rights to a Lessee that are greater than any rights Permittee has under this Master Permit.
Any Lessee shall not be construed to be a third party beneficiary under this Master Permit.
Section 32. Vacation. The City may at any time by ordinance vacate all or any portion of
the area affected by this Master Permit, and the City shall not be liable for any damages or loss to
the Permittee by reason of such vacation. The City shall strive to notify the Permittee in writing at
21
Packet Pg. 237
8.2.a
least sixty (60) days prior to vacating all or any portion of any such area in which Permittee is
located. , This Master Permit shall terminate with respect to such vacated area after sixty (60) days
written notice to Permittee.
Section 33. Notice of Tariff Changes. If applicable to Permittee, Permittee shall, when
making application for any changes in tariffs affecting the provisions of this Master Permit, notify
the City in writing of the application and provide the Public Works Director with a copy of the
submitted application within three days of filing with the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission or other regulatory body. If applicable to Permittee, Permittee shall further provide
the Public Works Director with a copy of any actual approved tariff change affecting the provisions
of this Master Permit.
Section 34. Notice. All notices, requests, demands, and communications hereunder will
be given by first class certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally
recognized overnight courier, postage prepaid, to be effective when properly sent and received,
refused or returned undelivered. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows:
CITY:
City of Edmonds
Public Works Director
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Telephone: (425) 771-0220
With a copy to the City Attorney at the same address.
PF.RMITTF.F.-
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Attn: Network Real Estate Administration
Site No. City of Edmonds Wireless Franchise Agreement (WA)
1025 Lenox Park Blvd NE, 3rd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30319
With a copy to:
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Attn: AT&T Legal Dept — Network Operations
Site No. City of Edmonds Wireless Franchise Agreement (WA)
208 S. Akard Street
Dallas, TX 75202-4206
22
Packet Pg. 238
8.2.a
Section 35. Entire Master Permit. This Master Permit constitutes the entire understanding
and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or
understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon approval and
acceptance of this Master Permit. Provided further, that the City and Permittee reserve all rights
they may have under law to the maximum extent possible and neither the City nor Permittee shall
be deemed to have waived any rights they may now have or may acquire in the future by entering
into this Master Permit.
Section 36. Attorney's Fees. Except as otherwise provided in this Master Permit, if any
suit or other action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising under this Master
Permit, each party shall be responsible for its own attorneys' fees and costs; This section shall
have no effect on the indemnity and defense obligations of this Master Permit.
Section 37. Non -waiver. Failure of the City to declare any such breach or default
immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith,
shall not waive such breach or default, but the City shall have the right to declare any such breach
or default at any time. Failure of the City to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver
of the City's right to declare another breach or default.
Section 38. Governing LawNenue. This Master Permit shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. The venue and jurisdiction over
any dispute related to this Master Permit shall be with the Snohomish County Superior Court, or,
with respect to any federal question, with the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, at Seattle.
Section 39. Titles. The section titles are for reference only and should not be used for the
purpose of interpreting this Master Permit.
Section 40. Acceptance. Within sixty (60) days after the passage and approval of this
ordinance, this Master Permit shall be accepted by Permittee by its filing with the City Clerk an
unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of the Permittee to so accept this Master Permit
within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof, and the rights and privileges herein
granted shall, after the expiration of the sixty (60) day period, absolutely cease and determine,
unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose.
Section 41. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after the passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
23
Packet Pg. 239
8.2.a
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Rm
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
24
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR MICHAEL NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 240
8.2.a
SUMMARY 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, GRANTING TO NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS
PCS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A
NON-EXCLUSIVE MASTER PERMIT TO INSTALL,
OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN SMALL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES,
TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO,
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2021.
City Clerk, Scott Passey
25
Packet Pg. 241
8.2.a
26
a�
r
c
m
r
m
u
E
a�
a�
L
3
E
O
a�
E
m
c�
Q.
a�
c
N
�L
O
L
E
L
a)
a
L
r
N
R
r
E
L
w
Q.
L
N
C�
G
L
N
C
O
E
W
4-
0
c.�
O
N
LO
O
T-
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a
Packet Pg. 242
8.2.b
to e people monitored to ensure safety. Every DUI conviction includes a mandatory $250 fee
suppose be used to fund the toxicology lab. He said the Edmonds Police Department is t
about DUI en o ent.
Councilmember Mesaros fo it disheartening to hear that it takes so to o get toxicology results. He
asked if the City pays fee for proc g blood tests. Chief Compa id there is no fee. Councilmember
Mesaros said there are good medical sex V1 throughout Sn ish County including Swedish -Edmonds
in Edmonds. He suggested jurisdictions in Sno is Minty could come together and establish the same
level of criteria necessary from a legal standpo' or trol of evidence and chain of evidence instead of
relying on the State lab. Mr. Zachor sai and Mr. Come uld love to have their own toxicology lab;
unfortunately, it is highly technic nd highly regulated by the
Council President ey-Monillas referred to an article in the Seattle Times 1 e last six months about
the state cri a and the fact that they do not have enough staff to process evidence 'cker. It is beyond
bloo r for DUIs, it includes rape kits and a variety of evidence. Until the legislature give em enough
f, those delays will continue.
6. 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Kari Marino, Verizon Wireless, commented on the importance of the work the Council is doing to support
small wireless facilities. Macros have been around for a long time and provide coverage; the small wireless
facilities are required to argument capacity. Capacity has become more important as a mobile data usage
has increased; it has increased 35 times since 2016, and internet machine to machine devices have increased
from about 36 million estimated in 2013 to 263 million by the end of 2018. More than 50% of households
are wireless only and more than 80% of phone calls originate on wireless phones. Services provided by the
wireless industry are integral to everyone lives, whether the doorbell ring cameras, shopping on phones,
etc. Mr. Taraday has her contact information and she is available for questions during that agenda item.
Carol Tagayun, Director of External Affairs, AT&T, provided comment on Agenda Item 10, Small Cell
Wireless. She thanked the Council for taking on this policy decision, citing the importance of developing a
good policy for the community and its residents. Consumers today are very reliant on devices, particularly
with the advent of the Smartphone, people expect to have data capacity and service wherever they are. Since
the advent of the iPhone, AT&T has seen a 360,000% increase in data usage on their network. Many
wireless households depend on their cell phones to call 911, making wireless service critical in residential
areas. For these reasons, AT&T continually upgrades it network to ensure there is capacity and coverage to
meet the demand. AT&T is building out where the demand is needed which includes investing and building
new technologies such as small cell service that adds data capacity in areas where there is already coverage.
Building this out and ensuring coverage will allow AT&T to bring new services, faster high speed networks,
etc. AT&T is interested in a workable code where they can provide services when they're needed. She is
available to answer questions;
Saa enicke, Edmonds, referred to information provided at the presentation on January 10 regar
Compass Ho ' When Compass CEO Janet Pope painted a word picture of how lovel r okable
development will be, s ed about screening of potential residents and the pres o onsite managers.
She also said some people wou zero rent and they can do whatev y want in the privacy of their
housing unit as long as they do not disrupt mmumty wh' s. Jaenicke concluded sounded a lot like
low barrier housing. Although Ms. Pope said that nds residents would be given advance notice in
order to apply for housing early, she did y people that c work or live in Edmonds would have
priority. Ms. Pope sited the project as an example of how w ompass Housing works. Ms.
Jaenicke suggested n y needed to talk to people who live in that neighbor o hear about people
sleepin it doorsteps who become belligerent when asked to leave, and human excrem d needles
ivate property. The subject is essentially moot because they have been granted the zoning to t
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
January 15, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 243
8.2.b
9.
no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILM BER
UCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4139, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TY OF
E ONDS WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BAN ON THE USE OF NON -COMPOST E FOOD
SER ICE CONTAINERS BY FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CI MOTION
CA D UNANIMOUSLY.
1.
Public Works Director Phil liams displayed a photograph of the existi 2007vactor truck, explaining
this is a regular replacement of t vehicle on 12-year schedule. The Cit as three vactor trucks, one each
for water, sewer and street/storm.\oater.
yed a photograph of th new vactor truck on a Freightliner
chassis with a tag axle that allows spection at the scales ' necessary. This is a highly mechanical
vehicle and carries up to 1500 gallThe vehicle will e purchased through Owen Equipment in
Portland. He reviewed:
• Major changes between 2007 and 201 vactors ar
o Single engine, PTO/hydraulic driven acuu fans
o Vac on the go hydrostatic drive
0 5x5 boom
o Hydro Excavation system
• Cost: $542,000
o Old vactor truck will be sold auction for fans
' ately $50,000-$75,000 used to offset cost
• Funding source: stormwater rat
Councilmember Buckshnis asked y three vactor trucks are needed. r. Williams answered all three are
heavily used. The storm vactor ' used year round; the sewer vactor is u d to clean sewer pipes ahead of
the video truck and the waterivision primarily uses the vactor for excavati and potholing. Each division
has a slightly different usehey are well used year round and could not be fectively shared.
COUNCILM BER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILM BER TIBBOTT, TO
AUTHORI THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PURCHAS (1) 2019 VACTOR
2100I C MBINATION SEWER/STORM CLEANER TRUCK FROM OW EQUIPMENT
THR GH NJPA PURCHASING GROUP.
Council esident Fraley-Monillas asked the funding source. Mr. Williams answered stormwat rates that
have been accumulated over 11 years to replace the existing vactor truck.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
10. STUDY ITEM
1. INTRODUCTION ON SMALL CELL WIRELESS AND ORDER ISSUED BY THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC). DISCUSSION ON
INCORPORATING SMALL CELL STANDARDS INTO THE CITY'S WIRELESS CODE
(ECDC 20.50) AND POSSIBLE INTERIM ORDINANCE
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City has a short timeframe to incorporate small cell standards into
the City's wireless code due to federal regulatory action. The purpose of tonight's presentation is to get
early policy feedback/guidance from the City Council to ensure the Council approves of the direction staff
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
January 15, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 244
8.2.b
is taking in the development of the policy. An ordinance has not yet been drafted because staff first wanted
to seek policy guidance from the Council.
Mr. Taraday reviewed:
• FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018, titled Accelerating Wireless Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment
o The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications
for the installation of small wireless facilities
o January 14, 2019 — The Order goes into effect
o April 14, 2019 —Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place
Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell reviewed:
• What are small cell deployments?
o Small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and
capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather
o Streetlights, utility poles and slimline poles
■ Antennas connected to nodes receive and transmit wireless signals to and from mobile
devices
■ Optical fiber connects to other nodes and carries data to and from communication hubs
operated by wireless carriers
■ The cabinet holds equipment that process wireless signal for multiple wireless carries
• Photograph of macro cell in Edmonds — Main Street
o Macro antenna array
o Equipment screened behind fence
• Examples of small cell in other cities
o Pole with antenna and equipment box
o Standalone pole with antenna and equipment concealed
Mr. Taraday explained the FCC has constrained the extent to which cities can regulate the aesthetic
appearance of small cell facilities. Not only is there a very short timeframe to adopt the regulations, there
also are limitation on the substance of those regulations. He reviewed the FCC's aesthetic requirements:
• Reasonable
• No more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments
o Undergrounding Requirements - May be permissible under state law as a general matter.
■ Regulations cannot require that all small cell facilities be underground because they do not
function underground
■ Any undergrounding requirement that materially inhibits wireless service could be found
to be preemptive by the federal regulations
• Objective
• Published in advance
Mr. Taraday displayed a map of small cell antenna spacing in the Long Beach waterfront area, relaying that
industry need could place a small cell on every block. Although small cell antennas will improve service,
there will be aesthetic impacts depending on the City's policy. Minimum spacing requirements can be
upheld as long as they are consistent with other aesthetic regulations.
Ms. McConnell displayed a map of existing macro site spacing in Edmonds. She reviewed staff s proposed
location preferences for small cell antennas, noting locations outside of the right-of-way are preferred over
locations within the right-of-way:
Locate Outside the Right-of-WaX
1. Existing structure
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
January 15, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 245
8.2.b
2. Standalone pole
Locate Within the Right-of-WaX
3. Existing street light pole or traffic light (hollow poles)
4. New standalone pole or street light
5. Existing PUD single-phase pole (installation on top of pole)
6. Existing PUD transmission pole (installation in communication space)
7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space)
She displayed photographic examples of the proposed location preferences:
Installations Outside of the Right -of -Way
1. Locate on existing structures (example at 4t1i & Main
2. SF Zoned property
• Standalone pole within 5 feet of right- of -way;
o Locate on same side of street as power lines;
o Height limit 35 feet;
• Other Zoned property —
o Standalone pole consistent with zoning height
• Rooftop placement (example on Puget Drive)
W Right -of -ay Installations
3. Existing hollow streetlight pole or traffic signal light
4. New standalone pole or new street light
• Custom designs — Sternberg model currently used in downtown Edmonds
• Sternberg makes a model specific for wireless facilities
5. Installation single phase power pole
• Antenna in line with pole
External conduit
• External equipment
6. Installation on transmission pole
• Antenna in communications space
• External conduit
• External equipment
7. Strand -mounted facilities
• Installation on an existing pole
• Antenna n the communication space
• External equipment
Ms. McConnell displayed photographs of clutter on existing wood poles. Future code updates will include
working with carriers and the industry to better manage those systems. She displayed a photograph of
equipment and wires, internal and external.
Mr. Taraday reviewed the proposed project timeline:
• January 8: Introduction to Council PPW Committee
• January 9: Introduction to Planning Board
• January 14: FCC Order goes into effect
• January 15: Introduction to full Council
• February 5: Public hearing and adoption of interim ordinance
• February -March: Discussions at Planning Board, review interim ordinance and discuss refinements
for small cell aesthetic regulations and bring back to Council
• April 2 or sooner: Hearing before City Council
• April 14: Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic rules in place
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
January 15, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 246
8.2.b
Councilmember Nelson asked if his definition of "not being an eyesore" was a sufficient aesthetic
regulation. Mr. Taraday answered that was a good example of a regulation that would not be objective
under the FCC guidance. Councilmember Nelson said that generally expresses his sentiment. Although his
family uses wireless and he understands the need, the proposal prefers standalone over existing poles in the
right-of-way. He asked how far apart the standalone poles would be, how many there would be and could
they be designed to fit into the community. Mr. Taraday said ranking 7 is what staff is seeking Council
feedback on. This is staff s thinking about the proposed policy but want to ensure the Council agrees
standalone is better than locating on existing wood utility poles. To Councilmember Nelson's question
about spacing, jurisdictions have the ability to place spacing requirement to ensure there are not new
standalone poles 50 feet apart. Councilmember Nelson said his preference would be to maximize spacing
and to have them on existing structures. He preferred not to create a pole simply to site a small cell.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Councilmember Nelson, and hoped whatever was on the outside of
the building would be more aesthetic pleasing and smaller than what is located on the side of the building
at 4t' & Main. Ms. McConnell advised that is a macro facility. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with the first
two priorities and with regard to priority 3, asked if there could be a distinction made between a decorative
light fixture like the ones on Main Street versus a streetlight pole in neighborhoods. Mr. Taraday said the
Sternberg example is related to ranking 4 as it would not be an existing Sternberg; it would need to be a
new, specialty Sternberg pole.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if it would be theoretically possible for a carrier to locate a small cell antenna
on a Sternberg pole. Ms. McConnell said given there is a Sternberg pole option for wireless facilities, she
did not foresee the ability to attach an antenna to an existing Sternberg pole. If there was a desire to locate
a wireless facility where there is an existing Sternberg pole, it would need to be changed to the Sternberg
pole that can accommodate a wireless facility. Councilmember Tibbott clarified he was opposed to any
external antennas on existing Sternberg lights. Mr. Taraday said none of proposed rankings contemplate
that scenario.
Councilmember Tibbott requested the regulations make a distinction between a decorative light pole and
other light poles. Mr. Taraday did not envision an ordinance that allowed a modification to be made to an
existing Sternberg pole. If a carrier wanted to locate in the area where an existing Sternberg pole was, they
would need to replace it with a special purpose Sternberg pole that accommodates the small cell
infrastructure inside. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the new Sternberg pole would match the others. Mr.
Taraday assumed if it were allowed, it would have to match. Councilmember Tibbott expressed concern
that "assume" was objective. Mr. Taraday said on Main Street where a very clear, aesthetic pattern is already
established, the regulations would be clear the pole would have to match the existing Sternberg pole.
Councilmember Tibbott expressed concern ranking 3 did not make a distinction between a Sternberg pole
and other poles. Mr. Taraday agreed that could be clarified.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how much staff trusted the companies that were producing the antennas to
accommodate the City's interests. If the regulations are very objective, he would expect them to abide by
the code, but to push the envelope. There are many examples in the City where there is a lot of clutter and
cables, for example 76' & 196' where they almost obscure the signal lights. He personally did not trust the
carriers to police those issues. Mr. Taraday said an objective, enforceable ordinance will be drafted that
tells the industry what the policy makers want to see. The industry has been cooperative, but staff does not
tend to rely on trust.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
January 15, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 247
8.2.b
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the long process when the Council considered regulations for cell
towers. She agreed with not further cluttering already cluttered poles. She asked who paid for installation
of the small cell antennas. Mr. Taraday answered the industry would pay all the installation costs including
a new standalone pole if necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a small cell antenna was located on
a building, would the carrier would pay for the antenna and seek the building owner's permission. Mr.
Taraday answered if an antenna were located on private property, that would be between the carrier and the
private property owner, but he assumed the carrier would pay for it.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if consideration had been given to allowing small cell antennas on large
buildings. Mr. Taraday said that is the first choice - existing structure outside the right-of-way which could
be public or privately owned property. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the Council considered
cell towers, options to camouflage were considered such as trees. Mr. Taraday said that is not being
contemplated.
Councilmember Mesaros commented the church he attends in Seattle has a macro tower in the steeple
which provides good cell coverage for the neighbors as well as a revenue stream for church. The private
property owner worked out the lease with the carrier.
Councilmember Tibbott said in his neighborhood in the past, wires have been strung across the street to
connect homes to services. When the service arrangement changed and those wires were no longer needed,
the wires still remained. He suggested a cleanup effort where carriers removed those overhead wires. Mr.
Taraday said staff will develop a companion ordinance that imposes similar aesthetic requirements on other
facilities. Councilmember Tibbott commented it would be great if the wires and poles around Civic Field
could be undergrounded.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification, at one point there was a sentiment expressed for any existing structure
over any new standalone. He asked if 5, 6, and 7 were preferred over 4. Councilmembers answered no. Mr.
Taraday clarified the Council still preferred 4 over 5, 6 and 7.
Mayor Earling said he was on the Council when the Council had to react to cell towers; he was the only
Councilmember who voted against it. He encouraged the Council to maintain aesthetics in the community.
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Ear 1 encouraged the community to participate in one or both of the Martin Lut ing Day
celebrations on ay, January 21 at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, one in the mg that is more
family and youth oriente d another in the evening.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Mesaros noted although Martin ther ' g Day is celebrated on January 21, today is his
actual birthday.
Council President Fraley-Monillas sai e Martin Luther King pr tations at the ECA are at 10:00 a.m.
(free admission) and 7:00 p.m. admission).
Councilmember Teit reported his knee replacement surgery went well and he 1 aling quickly. He
thanked the Co it for accommodating his participation by phone; he will return next we
Johnson expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to participate by phone.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
January 15, 2019
Page 18
Packet Pg. 248
8.2.c
velopment Services Director Shane Hope recalled staff discovered a building permit was submitted a
app ved that allowed for 9 units/3 stories to be built in a downtown zone with no onsite parking. e
build\11V is adjacent to a bus stop and some bicycle parking was provided. The City code allowed f this
as long lak the building footprint did not exceed 4800 square feet, a code that had been in place a east 10
years. Tha 'ssue had not been raised before and no one else had submitted a permit utilizing tha rcvision.
That building p it raised the issue and staff proposed a moratorium that was adopted by t e City Council
to halt the develo ent of any further residential units in that area without onsite parki g while the issue
was studied. The P nning Board held two public meetings, the first in October an public hearing in
December on a propo d code change to remedy the situation. The proposed code hange eliminates the
4800 square foot footpri t exemption, the existing commercial code applies to c mmercial buildings and
requires residential buildin s to provide at least one onsite space per unit. Th lanning Board discussed
alternatives and concluded th was the most reasonable approach. Other re ations apply in other areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis quest ned why a staff person did not sa wait when this application was
submitted, why the code did not di rentiate between residential an commercial, and why this building
was approved. Ms. Hope said if a per n applies for a building p it and the application meets code, it
cannot be denied based on what someo\didot
d rather the cod aid. She does not always hear about all
the permits that are submitted and staff approach hera out this one. Even if she had learned about
it immediately, once an application is suit is veste Councilmember Buckshnis said the BD zone
is a business district and one would not expect
assured this change would address the issue.
building in a business district. Ms. Hope
Mayor Earling opened the public participation po ' n the public hearing. There was no one present who
wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling osed the ublic participation portion of the public hearing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked here the tenants f this building were parking. Ms. Hope
answered she did not know. Some tenant ay not have a car; th e with a car will either have to find street
parking or someplace else to park. Co cil President Fraley-Moni s said with this provision, a developer
was not obligated to inform the City, here tenants would park. Ms. ope agreed, the proposed ordinance
would require one onsite parking ace per unit.
Council President Fraley-M illas asked if there were alternatives to this oposal. Ms. Hope said there
could have been alternativ such as a parking pass program, one space for eve two units, exceptions due
to proximity to a bus sto , etc. The Planning Board preferred this proposal and po ibly consider something
different in the futur This is a straightforward requirement and fits with the g eral market. Council
President Fraley-M illas expressed concern with having additional cars parked down wn when there are
already issues wi parking. Ms. Hope agreed downtown parking is at a premium.
CO CIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN LMEMBER
B KSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4140, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ONES,
PERMANENTLY ELIMINATING AN EXEMPTION FROM PARKING REQUIREMEN FOR
BUILDINGS WITH A FOOTPRINT OF LESS THAN 4800 SF. MOTION CA ED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INTEGRATION OF SMALL CELL STANDARDS INTO
THE CITY'S WIRELESS CODE (ECDC 20.50) AND ADOPTION OF INTERIM
ORDINANCE
Mike Clugston explained staff has been working with City Attorney Jeff Taraday to develop regulations
for a new type of wireless facility, small cell wireless. The packet contains the draft interim ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 249
8.2.c
Mr. Taraday explained:
• Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC the authority to interpret the Act
• FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018, titled Accelerating Wireless Broadband
Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment
o The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications
for the installation of small wireless facilities
o January 14, 2019 — The Order goes into effect
o April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place
o Packet contains interim ordinance. Reason for interim ordinance
1. Allow applications to be processed
2. Clarifies that City requires franchises prior to allowing applications to be processed
3. While expect permanent ordinance for consideration/action by April 14, unexpected things
happen.
Mr. Clugston reviewed:
• What are small cell deployments?
o Complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and capacity to urban and residential
areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather
o Streetlights, utility poles and slimline poles
■ Antennas connected to nodes receive and transmit wireless signals to and from mobile
devices
■ Optical fiber connects to other nodes and carries data to and from communication hubs
operated by wireless carriers
■ The cabinet holds equipment that process wireless signal for multiple wireless carries
Facility Types
o Macro Cell
o Small Cell
■ FCC defines small wireless facilities as meeting each of the following conditions:
1. Height — 50 feet +/-
2. Each antenna — 3 cubic feet
3. Equipment — 28 cubic feet
Map of wireless facilities in Edmonds
o Current Macro sites: 24
o Future Macro sites: dozens more?
o Future small cell sites: 1000s?
Ms. McConnell reviewed a hierarchy of location preferences for small cell antennas, noting locations
outside of the right-of-way are preferred over locations within the right-of-way:
Locate Outside the Right-of-WaX
1. Existing building
2. Freestanding small cell pole located
Locate Within the Right-of-WaX
3. Existing street light pole or utility pole (hollow poles)
4. New freestanding small cell pole or street light
5. Existing PUD single-phase pole (installation on top of pole)
6. Existing PUD transmission pole (installation in communication space)
7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space)
She displayed photographic examples of the proposed location preferences:
Installations Outside of the Right -of -Way
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 250
8.2.c
1. Locate on existing structures (example at 4' & Main)
2. Zoned property
• Freestanding small cell pole within 5 feet of street and side property lines;
o Locate on same side of street as power lines;
o Height limit 30 feet
Right -of -Way Installations
3. Existing hollow streetlight pole or traffic signal light
4. New freestanding cell pole or new street light
• Custom designs — Sternberg model streetlights currently used in downtown Edmonds do not
have sufficient space
• Sternberg makes a model specific for wireless facilities
5. Installation on single phase power pole
• Cantenna in line with pole
• External conduit — color matched to pole
• External equipment — color matched to pole
6. Installation on transmission pole
• Antenna in communications space
• External conduit
• External equipment
7. Strand -mounted facilities
• Installation on an existing pole
• Antenna in the communication space
• External equipment
Considerations in Developing code:
o Equipment and Wires: Internal vs. External
o Clutter on existing wood poles
Mr. Clugston reviewed
• Changes to ECDC 20.50
o Small cell location preferences and design standards — NEW
o Eligible facility requests — Codify existing reference
o Permit and review timelines (`Shot Clocks') — Update
o New macro monopoles — Update
o Clean up
• Project timeline:
o January 8: Introduction to Council PPW Committee
o January 9: Introduction to Planning Board
o January 14: FCC Order goes into effect
o January 15: Introduction to full Council
o February 12: Public hearing and adoption of interim ordinance
o February -March: Discussions at Planning Board, review interim ordinance and discuss
refinements for small cell aesthetic regulations and bring back to Council
o April 2 or sooner: Hearing before City Council
o April 14: Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic rules in place
Mr. Taraday relayed staff is hoping to meet with industry representatives later this week. He anticipated
they would provide testimony during the public hearing as well as at that meeting regarding changes they
would like. Staff will be open minded to their input but will also be looking out for the City's best interests.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the photograph in Preference 6 and asked whether that would be a
typical installation. Mr. Clugston answered it was difficult to say which was the reason for a range of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 251
8.2.c
preferences. From an industry standpoint, he anticipated Preference 6 would be the easiest to attach and to
get permitted. Through the preferences, the goal is to have antennas moved out of right-of-way onto zoned
property on buildings or freestanding poles near the right-of-way that do not impact other utilities. Staff
does not have a perfect understanding so are providing a range of options to work with the City's
preferences for aesthetic appearance and technology feasibility for the industry.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in hearing from the public, but personally would rather see
installations on existing poles rather than new poles. The top two preferences are outside the right-of-way,
which in some cases will be on new poles. If there were a perfectly good wood pole 10 feet away, he asked
whether that location would be encouraged. Mr. Taraday said Preference 6 does not illustrate the conduit
which is of considerable concern to staff. One of the problems with wood utility poles is that everything is
mounted on the outside of the pole. He referred to another photograph illustrating several conduits on the
exterior of the pole and several antennas which he noted begins to look unsightly. He acknowledged staff
is somewhat guessing what the industry will install; the industry has a better sense of what they will be
installing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to a photograph with exterior conduit mounted close to the pole
and that matched the pole color, noting he preferred that to additional poles.
With regard to Sternberg poles, Councilmember Tibbott preferred to have an exact replica versus an
approximate match. He was uncertain how that could be required via the code, noting he found it
unacceptable to have a row of Sternberg poles and one that was a different style. Ms. McConnell said she
will be checking with the Sternberg representative to see what options are available. Her understanding was
it would not be an exact replica of what currently exists because those are not designed for small cell
installations. She assumed the new Sternberg pole would have a similar look.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about staff time to process permits, relaying his understanding there may
be an opportunity to batch installations. Mr. Clugston offered to research. Councilmember Tibbott assumed
permit fees would be collected and asked if the fees would cover the cost of the review process. Mr.
Clugston advised it would cover the review time.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the desire to remove clutter from poles and assumed some equipment
would be obsolete by the time new equipment is installed. He asked if obsolete equipment, conduit, wires,
etc. could be required to be removed before installation of new equipment. Mr. Taraday said staff is also
working on a companion piece of legislation that includes revisions to another chapter of the code related
to other overhead utilities, but that applies more broadly than just to small cell installations.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was referring to 3G versus 5G equipment and whether the older equipment
on a building could be removed. Ms. McConnell said the code requires obsolete equipment be removed.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if that has been discussed with industry representatives. Ms. McConnell said
a meeting is scheduled later this week to discuss the interim ordinance with industry representatives and
assumed that would be discussed if it was a concern to the industry.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if macro towers were becoming obsolete and would go away and be replaced
with 5G equipment or would the macro towers remain and more installed. Mr. Clugston said it was his
understanding that macro towers will still be used but he was unsure if more macro sites would be required.
Councilmember Tibbott recognized this technology would citizens to enjoy better cell service. However, it
was also an opportunity to clean up clutter from previous installation and improve aesthetics. Ms.
McConnell referred to Section 20.50.140 that addresses abandonment and discontinuation of use.
Councilmember Nelson commented there is nothing small about 1000 cell towers in the city. It was his
understanding there was a distance of 150 feet between towers. Ms. McConnell answered the code proposes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 252
8.2.c
300 feet between freestanding small cell facilities but if a specific location on private property does not
work, the carrier is asked to talk to adjacent property owners within 150 feet about locating. Councilmember
Nelson asked if there was a maximum distance between towers to limit the number. Mr. Taraday said one
of the reasons they are referred to as small cell is because the range is small. They are not very powerful
antennas and do not cover a large area which is why there need to be so many. Trying to balance the
dispersion requirement prompted a great deal of discussion between staff and he anticipated that discussion
would continue both with the Council and the industry. The goal is to strike the right balance where there
is not too much impact in one place and yet recognize the need to provide working technology and the
industry's need to deploy in a functional manner. He was uncertain that 300 feet, the minimum spacing in
the interim ordinance, was the right number and whether that would be in the final draft.
Councilmember Nelson commented this is an FCC regulation written by the wireless communication
industry, federal law that severely limits what the City can do. He asked about the existing fee charged to
a wireless company for a macro tower. Mr. Clugston offered to research, noting no new macro towers have
recently been permitted on zoned property or in the right-of-way. Councilmember Nelson said the proposed
fee is standard fee throughout the country. Mr. Clugston said the fees in the Order are acceptable fees from
the FCC's viewpoint; jurisdictions can charge different fees if they can be justified. Councilmember Nelson
said a lot of cities are frustrated by the lack of flexibility in fees due to the FCC's nationwide
standardization.
Councilmember Nelson said public rights -of -way are one of the most valuable public assets and these low
fee rules deprive jurisdictions from potential revenue -generating opportunities on City -owned infrastructure
that would benefit and improve citizens' lives. He was frustrated with the limitations the FCC imposed,
independent of the fact that health implications are not on the table. He was also frustrated with holding a
public hearing following the worst snow storm in 70 years. He was concern with the FCC's shot clock to
fast track the process when it has profound implications for the City. He was interested in slowing down
the process not speeding it up.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled one of main comment from the wireless industry is the requirements in the
proposed ordinance are more onerous than they would like and they increase the cost and time to obtain
permits. He asked how Edmonds' requirements compared with other cities. Mr. Clugston said other
jurisdictions who have recently adopted regulations have concealment/camouflage requirements but do not
have the requirement to look on private property first. The industry is asked to do that research as part of
their siting process before submitting an application and to describe on the application how the location
was determined. He was uncertain if other jurisdictions have required that, but staff felt it was a reasonable
request in siting deliberations. t
Councilmember Buckshnis feared there would be more than 1000 small cell facilities. She agreed with
Councilmember Nelson's comment that the right-of-way is very important. She asked the cost of a master
permit agreement, commenting if 1000 small cell facilities are allowed, the City should get some money.
Mr. Taraday said the state legislature does not allow jurisdictions to charge for use of right-of-way if the
user is a telecommunications company. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was a fee for the master
permit agreement if it was located in the public right-of-way. Mr. Taraday answered the City can charge
direct reasonable costs for processing an application such as staff time to review the application, but use of
the public right-of-way is free.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained the state legislature made a distinction between pole
owners and right-of-way owners. Pole owner can charge a small amount for pole rental space but the City
as the owner of the right-of-way is not allowed to charge for right-of-way rental.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 253
8.2.c
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the City had to allow poles in the right-of-way. Mr. Taraday
said the City has to allow them to deploy. The FCC has stated thou shalt allow small cell deployment in
your jurisdiction. Ultimately the City needs to allow the industry to create a feasible pathway for small cell
deployment. The FCC's guidance is not so specific as to state exactly what the City can and cannot do
which is the reason there is some disagreement, and he expected industry representatives to state during the
public hearing that some of the things in the ordinance are illegal. Staff is looking out for the City's best
interest given the guidance policy makers have provided but it is not clear exactly what the City can and
cannot do so there will be differences of opinion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council could make a decision that there could be no more
than X number of small cell towers total in the right-of-way. Mr. Taraday did not think so, anticipating that
would be considered an impermissible prohibition of their right to deploy. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said it would not hold up their right to deploy as they could deploy on private property and
negotiate the cost. Mr. Taraday did not disagree from a policy standpoint, but he was predicting the outcome
if it were challenged. He acknowledged he could be wrong and the courts could be more generous than he
expected but he was not optimistic.
Council President Fraley-Monillas understood better cell reception was important to a lot of people, but she
was not happy that they can install in the right-of-way and do not have provide compensation for using City
property. She suggested the City could assist the industry with contracting with private property owners to
use their property. She envisioned these facilities would be located on new buildings in the future which
would require compensating the private property owner.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there was an existing requirement to remove old equipment.
Mr. Taraday said that is in the existing code. Mr. Clugston agreed. Mr. Taraday did not think there had been
a major problem with the wireless industry leaving old equipment. The clutter concern is bigger than the
wireless industry which is why it is being addressed more broadly. The code is designed to allow the
wireless industry to easily take down an old antenna and replace it with a new antenna in exactly the same
place.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the shot clock. Mr. Clugston said the FCC allows a specific
amount of time to review these permits, for example an eligible facilities request, if it is not reviewed within
60 days, it is automatically deemed approved and the industry could challenge that in court. For small cell,
the shot clock is also 60 days and if the City misses that deadline, it is not automatically deemed approved
yet, but the industry could challenge to have the review done. A shot clock is the amount of time given by
the FCC to review permits.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented additional staff may be required if there were 1000+
requests, recalling it was difficult in a good economy to get permitting done quickly. She was concerned
there may not be adequate staff to handle the permits and that the fees would not be adequate for staff time,
benefits, etc. without hiring additional staff.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Gregory Bush, Wireless Policy Group, consultant representing AT&T, expressed AT&T's support for
the City's efforts to update its code and reiterated AT&T commitment to working with staff to develop
workable policies for all carriers to provide high quality service as technology continues to evolve. AT&T
has significant concerns with the current draft of the wireless code update. The seven step hierarchy requires
carriers to locate small cells on private property unless the applicant can demonstrate justification for
locating in the right-of-way. The main issue with this is it is complex, not in line with what other
jurisdictions in Washington are doing, it will lead to more poles and clutter in the right-of-way due to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 254
8.2.c
requirement to put a new pole within 5 feet of an existing pole, and it makes it more difficult to comply
with shot clocks because of the two week period to check with other private landowners. They prefer to
locate on utility poles because they have only one pole owner to talk to and it prevents long, extended
negotiation for each pole. He was concerned the draft code may conflict with the recent FCC order, both
the shot clock deadlines and imposing burdens not applied to other types of infrastructure deployments.
The FCC requires jurisdictions' aesthetic regulations be reasonable, technically feasible, objective, no more
burdensome than other applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and to be published in advance.
If the City requires carriers talk to private property owners, a step not required for power, utilities, Comcast,
internet, etc., it does not comply with the FCC order. AT&T strongly urges the City to work with the
wireless industry to develop reasonable standards and work with other stakeholders such as Snohomish
County PUD to reach a workable policy.
Kari Marino, Bellevue, representing Verizon Wireless, referred to the letter submitted last week by Kim
Allen, Wireless Policy Group representing Verizon, that states the urgency and the reason to deploy,
outlining the FCC requirements and asking the City to delay adopting this emergency ordinance until there
is an opportunity to ensure it is feasible. There needs to be a path forward for wireless providers that protects
the City's best interests especially aesthetic standards. She highlighted the four main issues in the letter:
1. Seven -step preference hierarchy. Small cell technology is designed to radiate RF out; a location on
a building does not serve the building well. A property owner has to pull a separate power feed and
fiber optic connection which makes it unworkable for the property owner. Another concern is
proving they have checked with all property owners within 150 feet.
2. Requesting proprietary coverage maps. She assured they would not provide their strategy plan. The
City will know what they want when they submit a permit.
3. Concern the shot clock timeframe will not be met
4. Size restrictions are too limiting.
A meeting is scheduled on Thursday with staff, AT&T and Verizon and possibly other carriers. She looked
forward to continuing to work with the City to ensure the end product serves everyone.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Teitzel commented if a small cell wireless facility is mounted to the side of an apartment
building, it could be close to a bedroom. He asked if there were any health issues with radiation, cell
transmissions, etc. that have been studied at a national level and if so, what were the findings. Mr. Clugston
said the FCC provides guidance for RF emissions exposure. It was his understanding that if the industry
states they meet those standards, there is assumed there will no health impacts. Small cell are smaller
antennas and less powerful; what may have been a larger concern with macro antennas may be less with
these smaller antennas. If the industry can meet the RF criteria provided by the FCC, the City cannot not
further regulate health impacts.
Councilmember Teitzel observed two of the major carriers were represented at the public hearing. He asked
how many carriers could potentially put up small cell facilities in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston anticipated
Verizon AT&T and T-Mobile and Sprint.
If a carrier puts up a standalone wireless only pole, Councilmember Teitzel asked if the carrier was obligated
to share the pole with other carriers to co -locate equipment. Mr. Clugston answered co -location is
encouraged but it is not required.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the AT&T's representatives statement that the City's
regulations would require more work and asked if any study had been done regarding the amount of time it
would take a wireless company to talk to private property owners and the cost. Mr. Clugston answered not
that he was aware of. Carriers have sited macro towers on the sides of buildings so there may be a precedent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 255
8.2.c
for small cell. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was concerned about the cost to citizens versus
the cost to a private company as her obligation was to the City's 42,000 citizens, not the wireless companies.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the master permit agreement refers to maps, yet the Verizon representative
stated their maps are proprietary. She asked how the City could determine how many small cell facilities
there would be without those maps. Mr. Taraday said propriety maps will be discussed with the industry.
He was not yet convinced that the City could not require that as part of its franchising authority.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed if 4-5 carriers are going to put up freestanding poles, as many as
possible should be located on each pole. Mr. Taraday said one of the reasons the City is asking for that
information is to see areas in the City where there are gaps and direct deployment into areas that are
underserved, get more than one provider to coordinate if there is a need in an area, etc. There is a good
public interest basis for seeking those propriety maps.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4141, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20.50
OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES." UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCIL
PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday said the emergency clause in the ordinance will not be effective due to the 3-2 vote; a majority
plus one was required for the emergency clause to be effective. Therefore, the ordinance will not be
effective until five days after publication.
& ACTION ITEMS
CRUMB RUBBER MORATORIUM EXTENSION
Council Presi t Fraley-Monillas explained the moratorium will expire soon an she requested the
moratorium be con' ued through August 31, 2019 pending a response from th A and other entities
regarding crumb rubbe .
COUNCIL PRESIDE FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SVDNDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS TO APPR ORDINANCE NO. 4142, N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
T EDMONDS, WASHINGON, TENDING THE PR IBITION OF THE INSTALLATION OF
STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBB (ALSO KNO AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER" ON
PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC LDS HIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR AN
ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the atorium h been extended a number of times and asked
whether there was any legal limit on th ber of extension City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered no, 1)
this is not within the framework of A, and 2) there are goo asons for continuing the moratorium as
ongoing human health impact s ies are still occurring at the federa evel and in California. Both studies
are making progress and Kthewill eventually be a conclusion reached a hich time there maybe a more
permanent ordinance;,W summarized he was not aware of any limitation continuing the moratorium
until the studies wge completed.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF EXCELSIOR PLACE STREET
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
February 12, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 256
8.2.d
rvice do not complete it. Judge Coburn said a significant number complete it but the alternative if
d 't depends on how it was imposed. For example if jail time was converted to community service,
go t 'ail if they do not complete their community service. Councilmember Teitzel assumed it was a
small ixrcentage of defendants that do not complete community service. Mr. Gamez said most de nc
comnlet ommunity service.
Councilmem r Nelson asked about the concept of mobile court. Judge Coburn expla' ed Edmonds'
courthouse is 1 ated in downtown which is great except it is not close to a major trans rtation hub and
there is only one s route down Main Street. That is significant bec/hhgh perce age of those in the
criminal justice sys are poor/indigent and a high percentage do ncar or driver's license. The
more difficult it is to t to court, the more often they miss court anre o en they miss court, the
more bench warrants ar issued, the more bench warrants there are,e ople there are in jail and
the more money the City s ends to keep people in jail. Some of that been avoided if coming to
court were easier. Another ' sue is the underlying issues of peoped in the criminal justice —
addiction, mental health, requ ements for tests, etc. When those care not followed, a review
hearing is held which requires th to come to downtown Edmondso not appear, the same cycle
occurs.
Judge Coburn explained the idea of con,
o unity
is easily accessible to the people who are vol
large area and extends beyond Hwy 9. A co e
held on or near Hwy 99, making it easily acc
location would also be closer to social servi
counselors, testing, other agencies, etc. If all tl
possibility when people come to the review he
would advance the reason why they are on pro
1) address issues, 2) reduce the likelihood of t
court is having Xurt at least once in a while in a place that
ed in the cri al justice system. Edmonds encompasses a
A is being i estigated whereby review hearings would be
;sible due o the numerous bus routes on Hwy 99. Such a
prov'ders, substance abuse counselors, mental health
)se ices were available nearby the mobile court, it is a
xi . 11 their issues could be addressed at that time and it
to spend time in jail. With the technology a ilable today
worthwhile investigating whether it woul be beneficial to
summarized the hope was mobile court would,
ng new crimes, and 3) reduce the need for them
hq efforts being tried in other jurisdictions, it is
the ity.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred o the Judge Coburn's repo and the statement, "According to the
auditor's report, if local authorities cross the state released all 2,300 wer-risk defendants through pretrial
services, savings would total in than $6.1 million annually. If they lso released the 2,400 higher -risk
defendants through pretrial rvices, taxpayers would save an additi al $6.4 million annually. She
recognized Edmonds did n have a formal process but the Court currentl squeezed pretrial services out
of the existing one probat' n officer position. She asked if another probation o icer was needed to assist in
providing those service . Judge Coburn said she could always use a second pro tion officer. As the Court
transitions to paperl s and as staff s duties change, that is the time to analyze t\apb
possibly devote
more time to pre ' services. She will always do the maximum with what she hjail budget is not
in the Court's b get. Although she does not consider jail costs in sentencing, thes those are costs,
and the Court eeds to be thoughtful in making decisions that are practical, bend the most cost
effective.
Counci ember Mesaros commented pretrial services have economic benefits for as we as society
atlar e. Keeping someone in their jobbenefits that individual as well as their emptraining meone
to o their work is a cost to employer, a cost to the employee, a cost to the Citin total is large
cietal cost. Investing in more staff support for the Court could be beneficial to
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Kari Marino, Bellevue, representing Verizon Wireless, commented getting this right is critical for citizens
and businesses. Small wireless facilities are the basis for allowing wireless data service to expand where
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 257
8.2.d
and when it's needed. Wireless data service is the way Smartphones provides critical services such as
Goggle Maps navigation, video doorbell applications, wireless credit card payments, and personal
conveniences such as fast video downloads, medical monitoring and ready access to the internet. It is also
the foundation for 5G technology as it evolves and is deployed. She appreciated the Planning Board's
careful deliberation and clear guidance to mitigate the risk related to the hierarchy suggested for small
wireless facilities deployment locations. Small wireless facilities are generally designed to be deployed in
the right-of-way and other locations are generally not feasible. Verizon will never consider installation of
small wireless facilities on single family homes for both safety and logistical reasons. The Planning Board
brought a common sense perspective to the possible negative community reaction to new poles in residential
front yards. Staff has done extensive investigation on many aspects of small wireless facilities. Verizon is
ready to work together to finalize a code that allows a clear path forward that's FCC compliant and that
reflects the aesthetic values of Edmonds. She looked forward to collaborating on a deployment plan that
serves citizens and businesses. She was available to staff for any necessary support to ensure a mutually
beneficial outcome.
'chard Bologna, Edmonds, commented Edmonds' population is approximately 41,500 with an avera
hou hold size of 2.25, and the median annual household income is $76,000. Edmonds needs mor, ow
incom\workforce.
ng as evidenced by the homeless, mentally ill, drug addicts and others that can be se on the
Hwy dor. In Edmonds, it is a supply and demand issue. Many people are moving into nohomish
Counnumber of housing units is not increasing which has led to steep hikes in re prices. The
rent forb oom 1 bathroom apartment in Edmonds increased from $975/m th in 2017 to
$122. The olution is to increase low income housing. The cost of housi in Edmonds has
outpaes; to a rd the rent on an average 2 bedroom apartment in Edmon , one needs to earn at
least r. The frail, isabled, elderly, drug addicts and chronic alcoholics ill never get back into or
compis workforce. ople without housing are more likely to com crimes, which requires the
City tmore in the crime 1 justice and hospitals.
Wendy Shaw, Edmonds, read a 1 er
Housing Commission that was signed b
Council's current intent to create a Citizen Nous
March 19' City Council meeting agenda c:
commission one of its top priority this spring
establishing this commission in order to capitalize
generated by this important citywide issue. It is cl
participate in developing housing policy optiop/1
the process,
including a
in providing
while main
commission
recommend
the City's i
outreach se
selected be
years. We al
to complete
facilitator.
an
\rtle
it is our hope the commission w' include a comp hensive cross section of Edmonds
ratio of owners to renters w ' h reflects the current the City. Hopefully thisthe Council with realistic ousing policy options thaxpand the supply of housintaining Edmonds' cha cter and quality of life. encourage Council toto considerall th infrastructure and needed sermp ' ations of any housiation it creates i ddition to being informed of curusing ock. We are encountent to have a commission report progress to il quarter and host regulsions. In er to broaden the pool of participants commissio we recommeresident not currently serve on any City boards or issions and hav of for theso r ommend the Council select alternates from eae in case those se ted areeir term of service. Regarding the outstandingtions of whether to e ae recommend the Council first try to recruit a localrienced person who is c
process. We also encourage the Council and Mayor to underwrite the postcard mai
in Edmonds. The mailer should be unbiased and encourage open, thoughtful and
sent to the Council0 residents. As resi
yest day regarding the proposed Citizen
del
e s of Edmonds we are encouraged by the
mmis on as outlined in the agenda packet for the
We quest that the Council make creating this
al of having it in place by June. Do not delay
momentum, public interest and input that has been
ncEdmonds residents are interested and willing to
consideration. By including more residents in
residents
ill result
g options
direct the
ng policy
raged by
ar public
nd those
last two
not able
noutside
itted to
r to all
Edmonds City Council Approved MinutesMarch 19, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 258
8.2.d
now t via larger pipes and conveyance structures so it does not stay on the streets. The projec es not
include an ' filtration galleries in the street.
Councilmember Mes asked if the Council was authorizing the 15% C struction Management,
Inspection and Testing tom Mr. English answered it is part of the bud , awarding the contract tonight
includes construction manaaemen .
Councilmember Mesaros asked what the scop the bud would be if sidewalks and underground wiring
were included. Mr. Williams answered it wou e a very sizeable amount. Undergrounding of
approximately 100 feet on each leg of the ' rsection 76t' and 212" 100 feet cost approximately
$750,000. Sidewalks cost at least $3 oot; the length o e project is 3,800 feet x $300 x 2.
Councilmember Mesaros summar' it would more than double the dget.
COUNCILME R TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROV AYTON STREET UTILITY PROJECT AS PRESENTED. ION CARRIED
UN OUSLY.
Earling declared a brief recess. Councilmember Johnson discontinued her participation by
1. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SMALL CELL UPDATE TO THE WIRELESS
REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Planner Mike Clugston reviewed:
• Project timeline:
o January 15t' — Council introduction
o February 12' — Public hearing, approved interim ordinance
o February 13' — Planning Board reviewed interim ordinance
o February 27t' — Public hearing at Planning Board, forwarded recommendation to Council
o March 19t' — Council discussion of Planning Board recommendation
o March 26t' — Council public hearing on updated regulations
o April 2" d — Updated ordinance on Consent for approval or sooner: Hearing before City Council
o April 14t' — Local jurisdictions to have small cell aesthetic rules in place
• Small Cell is ... Antennas, Equipment & Support Structure
o What?
■ Height — 50 ft +/-
■ Each antenna — 3 ft3 max
■ Equipment — 28 ft3 max
■ 4G now, 5G in future
o Why, Where, How?
■ Off load macro service (capacity) & provide new coverage in some areas
■ Need to provide siting options across the City
■ Minimize visual impact
- Appearance (camouflage, concealment)
- Location (ROW, zoned)
How to do Small Cell in Edmonds...?
o Residential Areas with underground utilities
o Commercial areas with underground utilities
o Areas with existing air space clutter
Interim Ordinance Location Priorities (Ord. 4141, February 12, 2019)
Locate Outside the Right -of -Way
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 259
8.2.d
1. Existing building
2. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole (not on BD -zoned property)
Locate Within the Right -of -Way
3. Existing or replaced Street Light Pole or Utility Pole (hollow poles)
4. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole or Street Light
5. Existing PUD Power Pole (installation on top of pole)
6. Existing PUD Power Pole (installation in communication space)
7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space)
Staff Recommendation at Planning Board (February 27, 2019)
Locate Outside the Right -of -Way
— locations are generally not technologically feasible
2. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole (not on BD -zoned property)
Locate Within the Ri t-of-Way
3. Existing or replaced Street Light Pole or Utility Pole (hollow poles)
4. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole or Street Light
5. Existing PUD Power Pole (installation on top of pole)
6. Existing PUD Power Pole (installation in communication space)
7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space)
Planning Board Recommendation (February 27, 2019)
Locate Outside the Right -of -Way Optional
1. Existing building
2. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole (not o BD zoned p pefty)
Locate Within the Right -of -Way
3. Existing or replaced Street Light Pole or Utility Pole (hollow poles)
5. Existing PUD Power Pole (installation on top of pole)
4. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole or Street Light
6. Existing PUD Power Pole (installation in communication space)
7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space)
Planning Board Recommendation — February 27, 2019
o Locate small cell on zoned properties as an optional choice
o Install antennas on top of wood poles prior to installing new freestanding small cell poles
o Incorporate a public notification process if possible
o Incorporate additional discretion for Director to approve innovative solutions of a similar scale
and character
Public Input Received
o Two 5G-health comments at Planning Board public hearing
o No studies have been done by FCC or other agencies on 5G-health
o City of Portland passed resolution on March 13, 2019 asking FCC to consider 5G-health
impacts
o Existing FCC guidance applies and prohibits jurisdictions from regulating based on health if
wireless providers comply with the guidance — staff verifies compliance during permit review
New Information from Wireless Providers and Concealment Vendors
o Preferred small cell height is 20' - 40'
o Locating on SF residential structures is technologically impractical
o Small cell on zoned property can be effective where buildings are close to ROW
o Technology exists and/or is being developed to fully conceal 4G and 5G small cell installations
(multiple providers and technologies in one structure)
Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell explained in addition to meeting with wireless providers
and concealment vendors, staff also met with PUD. The preferred location for wireless vendors is to locate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 260
8.2.d
on existing PUD poles. PUD has received applications and has developed policies. Ms. McConnell
reviewed:
• New information from PUD
o Currently allow only one wireless provider to attach to a wood utility pole
o Many wood poles in Edmonds are `full' and prevent installation of a wireless facility
o Replacement of a wood pole with a new hollow pole (allowing for full concealment) could
open up opportunities for small cell installations
o Only qualified PUD line workers can perform work in supply space
o PUD work on poles requires de-energization of cell equipment
o Power shut down required for some work on cell facilities
o PUD Engineering working on street light/small cell design
• Wood Pole Replacement Option
o Photograph - existing wood pole on Main Street
o Photo simulation - Replacement with Steel pole (photo simulation)
• Wood Power Pole vs Hollow Power Pole
o Photograph - Small cell on wood power pole
o Photo simulation - Small cell within a hollow power pole
• Light Pole - Full Concealed
o Photograph of small cell fully enclosed in a street light pole (Market Street in Kirkland)
o Photograph of standard light pole (no small cell)
• Camouflage on Existing Wood Utility Pole
o Photographs of existing site and proposed site
o Antennas visible on pole, conduit running up the side, equipment box on exterior
o Painted brown to match wood pole
• Small Cell Facility Options
1. Hollow Power Pole - full concealment
2. Freestanding Small cell - full concealment
3. Wood Power Pole - installation on top of pole
4. Wood Power Pole - installation in communication space
5. Stand Mount - attachment to wires
Mr. Clugston reviewed:
• Next Steps
o Council to provide guidance on Location Priorities
■ Follow Planning Board guidance?
- Remove Zoned Properties from the priority list and establish as Optional Only?
- Swap #4 (freestanding small cell) and 45 (install on top of PUD wood power pole)?
■ Provide new ranking for location priorities?
o Staff to update Interim Ordinance 4141 based on Council guidance
o Council Public Hearing on March 26
o Local Jurisdictions to have aesthetic regulations in place by April 14, 2019
City Attorney Jeff Taraday emphasized the Council giving direction regarding their aesthetic preferences
does not mean they are a fan of small cell. Councilmembers can be concerned about certain aspects of small
cell, but an aesthetic choice needs to be made tonight. If the Council does not make the aesthetic choice, it
will be made by the industry. The Council can give staff direction for drafting an ordinance the Council is
comfortable with aesthetically; absent an ordinance, the industry will decide what the City looks like with
regard to small cell.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the FCC's aesthetic requirements: reasonable, no more burdensome than
those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and published in advance. With that in mind, the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 261
8.2.d
options are not as crucial compared to how many small cell facilities there will be and how big they will
be. He referred to page 35 of the interim ordinance, Location Preference #2, Dimensional Requirements, a)
a free-standing small cell may not exceed 30 feet in height from the top of foundation to top of the cantenna.
The presentation indicated the preferred height was 20-40 feet. He asked if 30 feet was selected as an
average. Mr. Clugston agreed it was at that time. Councilmember Nelson said if the industry's preferred
height is 20-40 feet, he recommended 20 feet.
Councilmember Nelson referred to placement requirements. Freestanding small cells shall be located as
follows: Item I states no two freestanding small cell poles may be located within 300 lineal feet of each
other as measured along the right-of-way line. He asked how that differed from the City of Denver that has
a radius requirement versus the proposed lineal requirement. If two streets were parallel or crossing each
other, he asked if there was a possibility they would be within 300 feet of each other. Mr. Taraday explained
that placement requirement was drafted that way because it was staff's understanding small cell signals are
weak enough they will not wrap around corners. To the extent a provider is trying to provide coverage
within a right-of-way corridor, the relevant spacing is within that corridor. Whether it was possible at an
intersection that one pole would go one way and another the other way, he agreed that was true and staff
could tweak that in the code. Councilmember Nelson relayed Denver has a 250 foot radius requirement.
Councilmember Nelson hoped in exchange for the use of the public right-of-way, the City was considering
negotiating free or discounted service for schools, library, the ECA and other public entities that benefit the
community.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the free-standing small cell full concealment because it looks better.
She recalled an issue with the master service agreement that allowed only one wireless provider per pole.
She asked if it had been determined that all wireless providers could be located in one hollow pole. Mr.
Clugston said in speaking with concealment providers, multiple providers can fit in some of concealment
solutions and multiple 4G and 5G technology.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Verizon stated they would not share their siting information. She asked
if master agreements and mapping would be provided by all providers in order to determine how many
poles will be deployed. She anticipated it would be more than 1,000. Mr. Taraday said no applications have
been submitted and none of the three carriers have asked for a master use permit for the entire City; he
suspected they were waiting until the ordinance is final. With regard to the number of poles, it depends on
the timeline. In 50 years, the number could be huge.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the current timeline is the next 3-5 years. Mr. Taraday said there was not a
good way to estimate the number poles but no applications have been submitted. He approached this from
the assumption that someday there would be small cell facilities on every block; 5G technology will be
used to power self -driving cars; that will not work unless the service is everywhere. He said it should be
assumed at some point they will be everywhere.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why rooftop pods or cupolas or wall mounted galleries have not been
considered, noting the discussion has primarily been about hollow poles other than building near the post
office with multiple antennas. Mr. Clugston agreed the Harbor Building was not a good look. The Planning
Board's recommendation is to remove zoned property from the first choice, but it is still an option. Where
buildings are close to the right-of-way, mounting antennas close to the roof edge or the side of building
may be option in some areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the reason the Planning Board recommended removing locations
outside of the right-of-way was because wireless providers would have to pay a fee to the property owner.
Mr. Taraday said the pole owner will still be able to charge a modest fee. With regard to eliminating the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 262
8.2.d
on -the -building option, the City hired its own RF engineer and learned that because of the way antennas
transmit, if an antenna is mounted on a building, the residents of the building would not benefit from the
signal. The assumption in the interim ordinance was property owners may be interested in hosting an
antenna to have better access/coverage. That still could be true with the free standing pole in a front yard
but the more staff talked to the RF engineer, they realized the people inside the building where an antenna
is mounted will not benefit from it and the amount of money they can charge is probably very insignificant.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked who will pay for the pole, whether it would be PUD and passed on to the
ratepayer. Mr. Taraday said that is between PUD and the carriers to figure out but it won't be the City.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification why the Planning Board recommended removing
locating on an existing building on private property. Mr. Clugston said staff learned from the City's wireless
consultant that that was not feasible given the technology and strength of wireless signal in areas where
there are setbacks. Where buildings are closer to the right-of-way, that could still be an option.
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed questions at the Planning Board such as what happened if there
was an antenna on a building and the property was sold. She summarized not all the answers are available.
Mr. Clugston agreed not all the questions have been answered, but with the information available, having
zoned property as an option would work in some instances but would not be appropriate for all. That was
why the Planning Board moved it out of the "required to look at places." The Planning Board's focus was
on solutions within the right-of-way. Council President Fraley-Monillas preferred carriers be required to
first look at private property. She agreed in many instances, that would not be an option. If she had to choose
between the freestanding small cell facility options, she preferred 1 and 3. She found it presumptuous of
the Planning Board to assume the facilities would be located in the public right-of-way considering there
could be thousands of poles.
Councilmember Teitzel said as an elected official, one of his primary responsibilities was the safety and
well-being of his constituents in Edmonds. That is not necessarily the FCC's responsibility; they regulate
communication technologies.. He asked the legal effects of the resolution that Portland passed regarding
the potential health effects of small cell and whether Portland halted any deployments until that was
resolved. Mr. Taraday explained Portland's resolution (8.1.k in the Council packet) is basically asking the
FCC to update studies on potential health concerns arising from RF wireless emissions and to make their
findings publicly available and to send the resolution Oregon's congressional delegation. Edmonds could
adopt a similar resolution. There is nothing illegal about the resolution but it does not change the way small
cell is regulated. It would just express concern about the health impacts and ask the FCC to pay attention
and study it further.
Councilmember Teitzel summarized Portland's resolution had no immediate effect relative to the April
deadline to enact code changes. Mr. Taraday agreed it did not. Councilmember Teitzel asked if any other
cities in Washington had raised the same health issue. Mr. Taraday said a number of cities in the United
States have sued the FCC to challenge the order; some of those petitions raised health as basis for the
concern. That lawsuit is pending in the 9t1i Circuit. There is some potential the court could order some relief.
He was uncertain if any other Washington cities had adopted a resolution similar to Portland's.
Hypothetically if the FCC paid attention to Portland's resolution and commissioned a study that determined
5G technology has a human health risk, Councilmember Teitzel asked if the FCC would halt further
deployments or reverse those that had been installed. Mr. Taraday said what the FCC would do with that
type of information would be speculation. He would like to think they would act responsibly and regulate
in a way that's appropriate given whatever the health impact might be because they are statutorily charged
with protecting the public from RF emission, but it does not appear they are that concerned about public
interest.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 18
Packet Pg. 263
8.2.d
Councilmember Teitzel was interested in at least making an attempt to raise that issue and get on record
that Edmonds has a concern.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
DEVELOP A RESOLUTION SIMILAR TO PORTLAND'S EXPRESSING EDMONDS' CONCERN
WITH HEALTH EFFECTS OF 5G WIRELESS AND ASK THE FCC TO COMMISSION STUDIES
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS HARM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many existing power and street light poles there were in the City.
Public Works Director Phil Williams said there are approximately 6,000 poles. Councilmember Mesaros
asked how many existing cell towers there are. Mr. Clugston said there are 24 cell sites. Councilmember
Mesaros referred to the freestanding small cell facility options, commenting there was one that looked like
#2 in his neighborhood in Arizona. Scottsdale will be one of the pioneer cities for 5G for Verizon; option
2 is the primary one they use. His neighborhood in Scottsdale is newer and has underground wiring and the
only poles are street lights which makes it easier to erect freestanding small cell poles because there is not
the clutter of utility poles. He preferred options 1 and 2. Although many are interested in undergrounding
utilities, the cost is prohibitive.
With regard to Councilmember Nelson's suggestion to limit poles to 20 feet, Councilmember Mesaros
preferred the flexibility of 20-25 feet. In a particular location with an obstructive view, 25 feet may be the
appropriate height. Mr. Taraday assumed the height limit was related to free standing small cell poles.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed. Mr. Taraday said part of the thinking of the 20-40 foot height limit was a
pole at 30 feet would likely be tall enough to contain two carriers. When carriers share poles, they share it
vertically; the taller a pole is, the more carriers can share one pole. A 20-foot pole would likely be a one
carrier pole. He was not certain how tall a pole for two or three carriers would need to be but there is a
relationship between height and the potential to share.
Councilmember Mesaros summarized the shorter the pole, the more poles there would be. Mr. Taraday said
that would be his assumption. Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was a way to get that data in order to
make a good choice about pole height. Mr. Taraday said the more carriers that locate in one pole, the wider
the pole also needs to be. Councilmember Mesaros asked if was two inches or two feet wider. Mr. Clugston
did not know. He pointed out the FCC has said small cell could be up to 50 feet.
Councilmember Mesaros asked the typical height of a utility pole in Edmonds. Ms. McConnell said an
average of 45 feet. Councilmember Mesaros asked the approximate height of the poles in option 1 and 2.
Ms. McConnell said while graphically they look about the same height, option 1, the hollow power pole, is
approximately 40-45 and the free standing small cell is approximately 25-30 feet. Councilmember Mesaros
observed the freestanding small cell is being used as a street light as well as a utility pole and the light
shouldn't be at 20 feet. He summarized there are too many unknowns.
Councilmember Tibbott said he and Councilmember Teitzel took a field trip to Seattle to look at
installations and found it very instructive to see how they are set up. Of the three sites they visited, two had
new poles, in one case there was a new pole next to an existing pole and both were full of utility equipment.
One of the conclusions he reached was whenever utility companies are putting up new poles, the City should
require it be a hollow pole. He liked the order of the poles on the small cell facilities options slide. The
illustration with a cantenna on the top is better than what they saw in Seattle which looked more like option
4. He was not certain what language to include in the ordinance to require a hollow pole when a pole is
replaced.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed he also noticed 3-5 different strands of conduit on a single pole such as is
illustrated on option 3 and actually option 3 is a minimalistic compared to what they saw in Seattle. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 19
Packet Pg. 264
8.2.d
summarized if there was conduit, he preferred it be in one bunch versus individual strands. Councilmember
Tibbott asked if the five photos on the Small Cell Facility Options page was the proposed order in the
ordinance. Ms. McConnell answered yes, and those are focused on installations within the right-of-way and
as recommended by Planning Board locations outside the right-of-way would only be an option. Mr.
Taraday said staff s current recommendation is the order shown on the Small Cell Facility Options page in
the presentation. The order in the Planning Board's recommendation, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, is slightly different.
Councilmember Tibbott said option 2 could potentially be on private property. He noted there are examples
in the Pt. Edwards neighborhood where there are free standing poles and underground utilities. With regard
to the Sternberg lighting on Main Street, Councilmember Tibbott was adamantly opposed to adding
anything to those whether it was a cantenna on top or a box the outside. He did not see that restriction in
the ordinance. The exception would be if all the Sternberg were replaced with a new standard that facilitated
5G installations and all were identical.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to option 2 and asked if that was for a single small cell carrier. Ms.
McConnel assumed the graphic was only one but that did not mean a freestanding small cell would be
limited to one carrier. Councilmember Teitzel asked how it would look if two other carriers wanted to share
that freestanding small cell, whether there would be boxes on the pole. Ms. McConnel said the intent for a
free standing small cell, whether one carrier or multiple, would be concealment within pole.
Councilmember Teitzel asked how the cantenna worked with more than one carrier using the freestanding
pole. Ms. McConnell said vertical height is critical to allow stacking of multiple antennas on top.
Councilmember Teitzel asked where the small cell equipment box was in option 2, noting he and
Councilmember Tibbott saw rectangular small cell equipment boxes approximately 1 % x 3 feet on the poles
in Seattle. Ms. McConnell did not know where it was located in that graphic; that is an image found on the
web. It was her understanding freestanding small cells can be designed to house the equipment on the
interior of the pole.
Councilmember Nelson was reminded of a Donald Rumsfeld press briefing where he talked about known
unknowns. He noted there was nothing in the materials about fees and he hoped there would be a cost study
that included the City's costs for reviewing applications, field inspections, installations, repair,
administration, public notification, etc. especially when there was a very limited timeframe to comply and
it was unknown/unclear how many applications there would be and whether the City would need to hire
additional staff. He said Denver's guidelines were very helpful in that they included a lot of visual
explanations versus Edmonds' written explanation in the ordinance. He suggested having more visuals so
it is clear what the City's wants esthetically.
Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized there did not seem to be resolution among Councilmembers
and there were still a lot of questions. She asked what staff planned to return with next week. Mr. Clugston
said staff will try to incorporate the guidance Council provided into an updated ordinance for public hearing
next week. Mr. Taraday invited the Council to make motions to clarify the drafting of an ordinance, noting
the Planning Board's recommendation is different than the Small Cell Facility Options slide. His request
for a motion was not to bind the Council to ultimately adopt that ordinance but to provide staff some
direction regarding drafting the ordinance.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested staff return with answers to the Council's questions next week
and the Council could make motions then. Mr. Taraday said there are several questions staff is unable to
answer, such as how many poles there will be. With regard to aesthetics, the Council can choose the ranking
on the Small Cell Facility Options page or the Planning Board ranking. What staff learned from the
concealment vendor is that most of the facilities will be designed to the City's standards not vice versa;
there is not a pole manufacture that has just what the City is looking for. The City is giving the providers
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 20
Packet Pg. 265
8.2.d
an idea of what they want to see and they will design a pole that works for that. For example, the wood
replacement pole in option 1 does not exist now but can be designed and manufactured. He summarized it
is a complex ordnance and needs to be adopted by April 2' to have any validity. He was not happy to put
the Council in this position but it is the FCC's order. He wanted to put the City in a position to actually
regulate small cell instead of allowing small cell to regulate itself.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS OUTLINED ON THIS PAGE (SMALL CELL
FACILITY OPTIONS) FOR THE AESTHETIC ELEMENT IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification. Councilmember Buckshnis said there are so
many unknowns but she wanted the best aesthetics for the City and felt the order on the Small Cell Facility
Option page was better than the Planning Board's recommendation.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT FOR FREE STANDING SINGLE CELL TOWERS WHICH MAY HAVE MULTIPLE
ANTENNAS (FREESTANDING MEANS DO NOT HAVE STREET LIGHTS AND ARE NOT
UTILITY POLES) BE LIMITED IN HEIGHT FROM 20 TO 25 FEET UNTIL MORE SPECIFIC
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ABOUT MULTIPLE TOWERS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE
THAT PROVIDERS LOOK AT USING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IF THAT IS NOT
WORKABLE, GO TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
04
Councilmem Teitzel asked whether the formation of a Citizens Housing Teitzel should be done
via ordinance or olution, noting the intent is for a temporary commission that h sunset date. It was
drafted as a resolutio but he was open to an ordinance if that was preferab .Development Services
Director Shane Hope sai 'ther an ordinance or resolution was workable ' en that it is intended to be a
short term commission. The a ntage of an ordinance is it is codified e advantage of a resolution is it
provides more flexibility. Counci mber Teitzel asked if there w any legal reason for an ordinance to
establish the commission. Mr. Tarada id not think so; it h een the City's norm, but this could be
distinguished on the basis of it being tempo
Councilmember Teitzel read the following statem
"Council has heard significant input from ou onstitue over the past year —in town halls, workshops,
public hearings, task force working ses ' ns and via e ma' and telephone calls —that the process for
establishing an expanded array of ho g options should include • ect public input from across Edmonds.
Our citizens have demanded to directly involved in city decisio regarding how best to reasonably
accommodate expected gro while preserving the charm and charact of Edmonds. Three recurring
themes have been clearly -heard: eard: 1) a Citizens' Housing Commission should ormed via an application
process to allow int sted citizens an opportunity to participate, 2) enough time s Id be allowed for the
Commission to ughtfully work through the process of developing housing policy re mendations for
Council to sider (completing this process by the end of 2019 is not viewed as attaina and 3) the
Commi on should consist of resident representatives from across Edmonds and that resi s of the
E nds Bowl should not be over -represented.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 19, 2019
Page 21
Packet Pg. 266
8.2.e
verhanging the sidewalk. Citizens' constitutional rights are being violated by these publi/thave
nd safe
is es. While she is a compassionate person, the law-abiding, taxpaying citizens' rights neefen d.
She id not want what is happening in Seattle to happen in Edmonds. A bill in the leg591
woul llow/make legal what is happening in Seattle. She wrote to the Governor, the Male and
the Sea e City Council to make her voice heard. If that bill passes, the homeless ands can be
wherever t ey want in parks and on sidewalks. It is tragic to see; the Seattle Police Depave saidthe people 1 ing on the streets are drug addicted and criminals hiding in plain sigited the
importance of taining the integrity of parks and streets.
Tony Warren, Ed onds, referred to the resolution requesting the FCC conduct a s ety study on 5G that
has been essentially m dated by the FCC. Although he liked the overall intent of t resolution, he objected
strenuously to requestin the FCC to do anything with regard to safety and alth. The FCC and other
regulations related to imp t on the human body talk about ionizing radiatio radiation, which causes
thermal heating. It is fairly ell known that health effects occur at levels hich are orders of magnitude
less than the ionizing radiation. He compared asking the FCC to do this ind of safety analysis to asking
the fox to guard the henhouse.
7.
1.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the commit a dis
• New Budget in Brief
• Waterfront Center Financial Update
o Committee requested assumptions f proj
• November, December and January nthly/Qua
o Yearend 2019 financials will b presented to
Fund Balance / Reserve Policy
• Parks Impact Fee Annual Fin cial Report
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Teitzel reaorte the committee discussed:
and signed contracts
Financial Reports
Council
• Arts Festival and Ma et Event Contracts
o Added langua regarding ban of single use plastics
• Report on Bids r the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project
o Rebuilds ayton 3rd to 9' and replace sewer, water and stormwater
o Low bi as $6.14M and engineer's estimate was $6.77M
• ILA Verddht Health Commission
o OuAoor fitness zones
• Envi nmental Works/Barker Landscape Amendment #2
o ecoupled from Ebbtide walkway project
lir,Safety, Personnel and Planning Committee
cilmember Nelson reported the committee reviewed:
• Urban Forester Job Description Approval
ACTION ITEM
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE FCC STUDY HEALTH IMPACTS OF 5G
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 4
Packet Pg. 267
8.2.e
City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday explained at last week's meeting, the Council expressed interest in
considering a resolution that expressed concern about the health impacts of small cell on the community.
Although the City clearly cannot regulate that, the Council wanted to express concern and urge elected
officials to take action. The packet includes two resolutions; the first is similar to Portland's resolution and
the second resolution adds a request to Congress to review the FCC's actions in other regards that go beyond
health such as taking away local control.
Councilmember Nelson referred to a congressional bill introduced by Congresswoman Eshoo, H.R. 530,
the Accelerating Wireless Broadband Development by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019, that
would basically rescind the FCC's order. There are 126 mayors, city councils, town halls, county
executives, board of supervisors as well as 132 public utilities that have signed onto the legislation including
Snohomish County, Seattle, Tacoma, Kent, Everett, Renton, Federal Way, Kennewick, Auburn, Pasco,
Redmond, Bremerton, Oak Harbor, Poulsbo, Normandy Park and Yarrow Point. He suggested separating
the topics of health effects and the request to Congress into separate resolutions.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the 3' Whereas in the second resolution that states, WHEREAS the
Federal Communications Commission is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to
evaluate the effects of emissions from FCC -related transmitters on the quality of the human environment.
It was his understanding that the FCC had taken no position with regard to whether 5G wireless is harmful
to human health. Mr. Taraday said as 5G wireless does not exist yet, it was unlikely the FCC had
meaningfully studied the health impacts.
Councilmember Teitzel clarified the FCC has taken no position yet that small cell wireless transmissions
are harmful to human health. Mr. Taraday agreed the FCC has not said its harmful. Councilmember Teitzel
asked how that squared with the Whereas clause he cited and whether the FCC had taken any action to
determine if small cell wireless transmissions were harmful or not. Mr. Taraday said the intent of the
language in the resolution was while the FCC is preempting jurisdictions from regulating health, the FCC
has not meaningfully determined that small cell is safe and doesn't allow anyone else to make that
determination. The resolution is taking the position that the FCC has not adequately done that.
Councilmember Teitzel again referred to the 3' Whereas clause, concluding the FCC had not evaluated the
effects of emissions. Mr. Taraday said he and staff were focused on drafting the City's code and did not
independently verify the statements that Portland made when adopting its resolution regarding human
health. He knew that could not be regulated so he did not focus on what the FCC has or has not done with
regard to human health and focused on what the City can regulate. These statements were primarily taken
from Portland's regulation that the City Council requested staff provide.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was concerned about aesthetics but was more concerned about public
health. He referred to an article in last week's packet about Petaluma, California, who voted to restrict small
cell installations to 500 feet from homes and asked whether the wireless industry had taken action to block
that action. Mr. Taraday answered not to his knowledge. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether Edmonds
could pursue that same restriction. Mr. Taraday said Petaluma took a number of steps that in his opinion
were probably not defensible. With regard to imposing a 500 foot setback from any residence, he said 500
was a considerable distance and in Edmonds, where the vast majority of the city residential, it would make
a huge majority of the City off limits to deployment of small cell. He did not recommend the Council adopt
a similar regulation.
Councilmember Teitzel supported Councilmember Nelson's suggestion to sign onto the action other cities
have taken and of the two resolutions, he prefer the second one.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why two separate resolutions were needed when only Sections 3 and 4
would be removed to create a new resolution. Councilmember Nelson said the cities should be able to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 5
Packet Pg. 268
8.2.e
regulate wireless not the federal government. One of the resolutions would be related to health effects and
the other related to the ability to regulate and having two resolutions would be cleaner. Councilmember
Buckshnis agreed they were two different ideas.
Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for the second resolution. One of issues is interstate commerce
and the City's role as one municipality is very limited which he acknowledged was difficult to accept. He
found merit in Councilmember Nelson's comments about joining with other cities in Washington related
to the legislation in Congress.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
AMEND SECTION 4 OF THE RESOLUTION TO REFERENCE H.R. 530.
At Councilmember Teitzel's request, Councilmember Nelson read the bill:
A bill to provide that certain actions by the Federal Communications Commission shall have no force
or effect. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the "Accelerating Broadband Development by
Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019".
SEC. 2. Preservation of rights of State and local governments.
Actions by the Federal Communications Commission in "Accelerating Wireless and Wireline
Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment" (83 Fed. Reg. 51867) and
the Federal Communications Commission's Declaratory Ruling in "Third Report and Order and
Declaratory Ruling" (FCC 18-111) shall have no force or effect.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADOPT THE SECOND RESOLUTION AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON SMALL CELL UPDATE TO THE WIRELESS REGULATIONS
IN CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Planner Mike Clugston reviewed:
• Why Small Cell
o Industry responding to increased demand — Internet of Things...
o Off-load macro service (capacity)
o Provide new coverage in some areas
0 4G now, 5G in future
• What are small cell deployments?
o Small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed coverage and
capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather
■ Antennas connected to nodes receive and transit wireless signals to and from mobile devise
■ Optical fiber connects to other nodes and carries data to and from communication hubs
operated by wireless carriers
■ The cabinet holds equipment that process wireless signals for multiple wireless carriers
• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)Small Wireless Facility Rules
o FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018
■ The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat
applications for the installation of small wireless facilities
Limited local permit review fees and review timelines
Can regulate aesthetics (location and appearance)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 6
Packet Pg. 269
8.2.e
■ January 14, 2019 — The Order went into effect
■ April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic rules in place
What we know about small cell
o Antennas are smaller and lower power than existing macro
o Need more antennas to cover the same area
0 20'-40' ideal height (-50' allowed by FCC)
o Taller support structures provide opportunity for more collation (leading to fewer site overall
o Complete concealment is possible
o Many jurisdictions have sued FCC for Order overreach
What we don't know
o When and how lawsuit will be resolved
o How many small cell sites there will eventually be
o How build out will occur
o Any connection between 5G and health impacts
o How future technologies will look
Project timeline:
o February 12' — Council approved interim ordinance
o February 27' — Public hearing at Planning Board, forwarded recommendation to Council
o March 19t' — Council discussion of Planning Board recommendation
o March 26' — Council public hearing on updated regulations
o April 2" d — Council approve updated ordinance
o April 14t' — Local jurisdictions to have small cell aesthetic rules in place
Council direction on March 19
o Focus location in the right-of-way, zoned property as an option
o Prefer concealment vs. camouflage
o Encourage collation to minimize total number of sites
o Establish a 25-foot height limit for freestanding small cell poles that do not include street lights
o Requested resolution asking FCC to study 5G health impacts
Small Cell Facility Location Preferences (photographs)
1. Hollow Power Pole — full/partial concealment
2. Freestanding Small Cell — full concealment
3. Wood Power Pole — installation on top of pole
4. Wood Power Pole — installation in communication space
5. Strand Mount — attachment to wires
Revised small cell regulations
o Permitted locations
o Location preference hierarchy
■ Application requirements for infeasibility
o General design standards
o Specific design standards for facilities in the ROW
o Specific design standards for facilities outside the ROW
Permitted locations (20.50.130.A)
o In BD zones — building attachment and hollow utility pole only
o Where utilities are underground — building attachments, new or replaced street lights, and
freestanding facilities only
o May not locate on existing Sternberg lights, historic properties, or wood poles that contain a
street light
o Freestanding poles allowed in any zone (not BD), subject to dispersion
0 300' radial dispersion requirement
■ Not for building -mounted
■ Not for small wireless facilities located in hollow poles
Location Preference Hierarchy (20.50.130.B)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 7
Packet Pg. 270
8.2.e
#1 -Hollow utility pole
#2 - Freestanding small wireless facility of new street light
#3 - Existing wood utility pole (on top)
#4 - Existing wood utility pole (on side)
#5 - Strand -mounted (on wires)
Application requirement for infeasibility must be met before moving down the list (20.50.070.G)
• Design Standards (20.50.130.C-E)
o Concealment
o Camo
o Collocation - new pole, at least two providers
• Comments received
o AT&T
o Verizon
o T-Mobile
o PUD
• Further changes anticipated
o Based on comments received
■ Update location preference #1
- "The antenna shall either be fully concealed within the pole or placed on top of the
pole, based on technical feasibility"
■ Other changes as needed
• Future work
o Add graphics to ordinance
o Refine fees and permit administration
o Revisit possibility of a new lighting standard for downtown which would allow small cell
location
• Next steps
o Direct staff to prepare a final ordinance for approval and adoption on April 2
o Local jurisdictions to have aesthetic regulations in place by April 14, 2019
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 20.50.020C, Master Permit Agreements, and the removal of
paragraphs 2d, e, f, g and h related to submitting maps of provider's current coverage area, existing macro
facilities, etc., all the things she felt the City needs to know to prevent duplication. Mr. Clugston explained
the FCC order eliminated the need to prove a coverage gap. A number of the paragraphs addressed the
coverage gap concept; the City cannot require the industry to prove a gap. Mr. Taraday explained companies
will do what is profitable and will not install small cell in areas where they do not need to. Their profit
motive will cause them install in areas where the service is needed. He summarized the information
requested in those paragraphs was not needed from a regulatory standpoint.
If the City will be charging for and issuing Master Permit, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether
the City would want to know the location and the number. Mr. Taraday said the City is only allowed to
charge for review costs. Councilmember Buckshnis said Seattle plans to charge $18.74 per pole. Mr.
Taraday said Seattle has an electric utility that owns the poles.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the City could just blindly allow a Master Permit without any
map to identify the location. She suggested Verizon could install a small cell pole and T-Mobile could
install one across the street. Mr. Taraday said the coverage maps in paragraphs d and e is information the
City does not need from a regulatory standpoint. Paragraph f, a map showing provider's proposed new
macro and small cell wireless facilities over the next two years, could be useful information in sequencing
other infrastructure. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to keep paragraphs d-h but at least paragraph f so
there was some sort of tracking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 8
Packet Pg. 271
8.2.e
Councilmember Teitzel said he was uncomfortable with where this process is. He referred to the letter from
Snohomish County PUD submitted late today and their concerns with the proposed regulations. For
example, the number 1 location in the proposed hierarchy is hollow power poles. He read from Snohomish
PUD's letter, "Snohomish PUD understands the City of Edmonds prefers the pursuit of hollow steel utility
poles with all cell equipment concealed. Currently there are designs for collocated street light poles that
conceal most of the equipment for cell phone apparatus. However at this time there is no available design
for utility power poles with concealed small cell equipment." He was surprised the Planning Board
reviewed this without PUD input and that the Council was unaware of this until tonight.
Councilmember Teitzel said the third option in the location hierarchy is cantennas on top of existing wooden
poles which PUD states in their letter they will not allow as that equipment cannot be installed above the
lowest level of power lines on the pole. It would require PUD to come out with a bucket truck every time
work needed to be done on the cantenna. He summarized two of the options were not viable and therefore
did not support moving forward until all the players could be assembled to identify and work out all the
issues. Public Works Director Phil Williams said staff had those conversations with PUD on the phone
today; neither has all the answers, yet the City is required to adopt regulations. He agreed no one is currently
selling hollow utility poles. A company whose business is building concealment wireless facilities has said
they can build it. Conceptually there is nothing wrong with that option but it is not available at this time. A
provider would currently be unable to meet the requirements for #1 but because technology, equipment and
performance is changing so fast, that option should be retained due to the likelihood it will be viable at
some point. With the hierarchy, providers would need to prove the infeasibility of an option before moving
to the next option.
Mr. Taraday explained the reason for the ranked list of options was in recognition that there will be
circumstances in which one or more of the options will not be available. As PUD noted, if an application
were submitted today, there may not be a product to satisfy #1. The problem is the City is being told by the
FCC if the City does not have an ordinance adopted and in effect by April, the City loses the right to regulate
indefinitely. If the City ever wants to regulate the aesthetics of small cell facilities, the Council must act by
next week. As a result staff is forced to develop an ordinance that looks far forward into the future to
envision what technologies might exist or become available and are reasonably feasible. The FCC has not
said the City will be allowed to update the ordinance in five year; as far as anyone knows, what the Council
adopts next week will be in effect indefinitely. He would like to think there will be another opportunity to
refine the aesthetic regulations in the future, but that has not been clarified. The FCC has said what is not
adopted by next week is preempted. He agreed it was problematic but it is important to move forward. In
addition, although the PUD says they will not approve it now, that does not mean they will not approve it
in five years as their policies change, as Department of Labor and Industries' policies change, etc.; however,
the City may not have another opportunity to regulate.
Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell said installation of a hollow pole is the #1 priority, the
application requirements state if the #2 priority is proposed, it is based on the grounds that no such
replacement pole is available on the market or due to other reasonable insoluble problems expressed in
writing by the pole owner. For installations on top of a wood power pole, the code also includes a provision
if the pole owner does not allow that installation, the provider can move down on the hierarchy list.
Councilmember Tibbott said it appears under the current conditions Options 1, 2 and 3 are not viable now.
Mr. Taraday said #2 would be viable and it is believed #1 could become viable this year. The City needs to
work with PUD and the concealment company to better understand each other's needs. Councilmember
Tibbott referred to option #4, commenting nearly every pole on his street has a transformer on it and there's
no space available. He asked if that would then leave option #5. Mr. Williams said the pole could be
replaced with a taller wood pole, an additional five feet would add communication space and the equipment
could be added in the comm space but not on top of the pole until technology and regulations allow that.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 9
Packet Pg. 272
8.2.e
Councilmember Tibbott said if a taller wood pole could be installed to accommodate #4, why not require a
hollow pole. Mr. Williams said it was hoped this ordinance would accomplish that; if the pole was replaced,
it would be replaced with a hollow pole with the conduit inside the pole. Councilmember Tibbott supported
having providers adhere to that regulation, recalling when he and Councilmember Teitzel looked at poles
in Seattle, there was a new pole to accommodate telecommunications equipment next to an existing pole
that housed the utility equipment. He did not want to see two poles in a space where there was previously
one pole in Edmonds. Mr. Williams said that will be addressed in the next agenda item.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said if PUD power poles are off limits at this point, that leaves options
#2 and #5 in most cases. She referred to the preference to have equipment be less intrusive in BD zones and
asked why that was not considered in other areas of Edmonds. Mr. Clugston answered in BD zones the
primary location will be on buildings which can happen where buildings are close to the right-of-way where
there are no or very small setbacks. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there are currently wooden
power poles in the BD zone. If small cell facilities can be less intrusive in the BD zone, she suggested the
same in other areas. Mr. Williams said it is possible the current restrictions for locating cantennas on top of
PUD poles may be overcome in five years which is the reason that option is being included although it does
not currently appear to be plausible. The comm space is available in many circumstances on PUD poles to
mount equipment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the requirements in PUD's letter regarding wood poles,
observing it does not appear location on a wood pole will be feasible in the near future. Mr. Williams said
it could be if the pole does not have a transformer but if the pole was 45-feet, there likely would not be
room to mount equipment on pole. Replacing it with a 50-foot pole would create additional space. A lot of
poles do not have not have transformers where the comm space could be used. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked whether the wireless companies would pay for the increased height of the pole. Mr.
Williams said the cost to modify the system to accommodate the technology would be borne by the
company asking for it.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Greggory Bush, Wireless Policy Group, representing AT&T, expressed support for the City's efforts to
update its wireless code to conform with federal law and reflect the latest in wireless technology. AT&T
also supports the decision to remove private property from the hierarchy preference for small cell facilities.
However, the City's newly proposed hierarchy establishes a preference for hollow utility poles which raises
additional significant concerns. Many design standards are not technically feasible for AT&T's equipment.
The FCC recently adopted an Order addressing local jurisdictions' regulation of small cell wireless facility
deployments. The aesthetic regulations apply to the extent that they are reasonable, technically feasible,
objective, no more burdensome than applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and are published
in advance. These regulations must be feasible for all carriers. He summarized AT&T's primary concerns
outlined in a letter dated March 25':
1. To justify a lower ranked location on the hierarchy, the code does not consider whether the higher
ranked location is feasible for the wireless provider. Only the pole provider is considered in the
reason for a lower ranked location
2. Inconsistent with the FCC Order because while the carrier's facilities are required to be concealed,
Snohomish PUD's are not required to be concealed. Inconsistent with the no more burdensome
requirement
3. Hierarchy establishes unreasonable expectations about pole availability on the market for the
hollow utility pole. They do not currently exist and results in a preference for freestanding small
wireless facilities which will lead to more new poles in the right-of-way and more clutter.
4. Additional cost for hollow utility poles may materially inhibit deployment by imposing excessive
costs on pole design.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 10
Packet Pg. 273
8.2.e
The code contains provisions that are not consistent with AT&T's preferred deployment for canister
antennas.
Jason Zyskowski, Snohomish County PUD, said City staff worked with PUD in developing the
ordinance. With regard to antennas on the pole and the height, location preference #1 and #3 have the
antenna located in the electrical supply space above the power lines. This is not a feasible option for PUD.
A power pole is divided into two areas, the comm space (lower) and the electrical supply space (upper).
Any work done in the electrical supply space must be done by a qualified electrical worker for safety reasons
and it is an L&I requirement. It is anticipated that thousands of small cell antennas will be installed across
PUD's territory; PUD does not have the resources to support this infrastructure. PUD is a power company,
responsible for supplying power to its customers, not a telecom company and does not have the resources
to install and maintain a small cell network. Small cells need to be installed in the comet space so
communication companies can install and maintain the equipment. Additionally, any small cell installed in
the electrical supply space would further encumber the space PUD workers need to perform their work
safely. With regard to options #1, PUD supports concealment but would like the antenna to be located in
the comm space. Even if concealed, PUD workers would be required to do any modifications. PUD is
required to make frequent visits to the current 120 macro sites installed in PUD's service territory for
maintenance which takes time. With the scale of small cell, PUD does not have the ability to do that work.
There is equipment on the hollow poles that PUD would need to have ready access to such as a disconnect
switch for workers to shut off power to the antenna.
Kari Marino, representing Verizon Wireless, referred to a letter submitted this afternoon from Kim
Allen, Wireless Policy Group, representing Verizon Wireless, summarizing significant concerns about
the drafted code being FCC compliant and that they would appreciate taking additional time to get it right.
In the seven- step hierarchy, it is premature to mandate the hollow utility pole as it is not currently available.
At this point Verizon's 5G millimeter wave spectrum antennas cannot be concealed or covered. They are
working with technology to cover or paint, but they cannot be enclosed. She cited the need for shot clocks
and rates to be FCC compliant and to allow for flexibility of small cell as defined by the FCC. They are
committed to working with the City to develop an FCC compliant code that supports Edmonds' aesthetic
requirements.
Alan Bar, Network Engineering Group, representing Verizon, commented many peoples' livelihoods,
education, etc. are dependent on mobile data usage. 5G offers exciting new innovations but the need now
is 4G capacity. Verizon is struggling to meet the needs of the community. Mobile data usage has increased
seven times since 2015, new app based economies depend on 4G technology, people are using more and
more data, and machine data is also a large demand. Small cells in the public right-of-way on existing utility
are needed to meet the demand. He summarized the need for quick review timelines to allow deployment,
presumptively reasonable fees and reasonable design standards; concealment and collocation don't
necessarily allow them to locate on utility structures in the right-of-way.
Ken Lyons, representing AT&T, said the way people and businesses communicate has changed. Nearly
two-thirds of Washington residents do not have home phone and rely on wireless networks. Society was
effectively land lined for 100 years and have gone wireless in the last 15 years. The data demand on AT&T
network has grown by 4070% since 2007 and the advent of Smartphones. Over 70% of 911 calls are over
the wireless network. Although there are public policy implications, people depend on this technology and
need access to the infrastructure that provides this backbone that the world depends on. Quality wireless
services within the community have tremendous economic and public safety benefits. He acknowledged
there are concerns about the FCC's order; his primary concern as a representative of AT&T was a code that
works, that provides a reasonable way to deploy small cell facilities in a manner that integrates well with
the infrastructure but allows them to meet the needs of their customers. The biggest challenge with the
proposed standards is the way they will work. PUD has indicated hierarchy #1 and #3 are not feasible; he
did not believe #1 would ever be feasible, especially for location in comm space. Significant barriers are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 11
Packet Pg. 274
8.2.e
being erected for deployments in way that is unrealistic and require them to effectively vary the
requirements every time they want to deploy a facility. The FCC order does not prevent the City from
updating its aesthetic regulations over time; they can be updated at any time as long as they are published
in advance. The City has interim regulations; if it took an extra 3-4 weeks to adopt aesthetic regulations,
that is allowed under the FCC order.
Adriane Martinez, Edmonds, noted one of the comments in the newspaper was how Edmonds isn't
providing funding for basic human services including public health. Public health could be a resource that
could consider systems that cause public harm. She used to be a public health nurse but was laid off in 2009
due to funding and now works as a home health nurse. Although the technology is progressing, most seniors
have land lines not cell phones. She commented on her cell phone usage report of 2:30 minutes/day and
people's disconnect with living. She preferred the City fund public health and other human services and
acquire more information regarding health effects.
Susan Paine, Edmonds, a former Seattle City Light and Seattle Department of Transportation working
exclusively in the right-of-way and permitting in the right-of-way, found the Council's discussion last week
very thought provoking. Her condominium HOA on 5t' Avenue has a small cell facility that provides some
revenue for the HOA. She anticipated having numerous such facilities would create visual clutter and poles
that interfere with the right-of-way. Edmonds does not have space for double poles. A few years ago, Seattle
City Light tested hollow fiberglass poles; there are restricted spaces due to public safety issues. She
suggested the Council consider allowing privately property owners to install freestanding small cell in areas
that can be concealed by taller trees and that the fee be similar to poles in the right-of-way. Other options
include utility boxes.
Cindy Sjoblom, Edmonds, after listening to comments about structures, location and camouflage, she
recommended talking about the elephant in the room, cell towers emit radiation causing health effects. The
closer the cell tower is, the more dangerous they are. Mobile towers are especially dangerous as they emit
massive amounts of radiation. Cell phone tower microwaves have significant higher frequency than radio
waves, the more powerful the wave, the more powerful the effect on biological organisms within one square
kilometer. The data and research is there, the City cannot blindly move forward due to the FCC and a time
crunch. Even though there are numerous people here representing cell companies, someone needs to
advocate for citizens and their health and safety. There needs to be further research before putting residents
at risk. She did not want one of the facilities in front of her house but acknowledged they emit energy for
miles and can even alter birds' flight paths. She recommended the City be smart about its regulations before
blindly allowing big corporations to do what they want.
Brian Thompson, Edmonds, referred to 20.50.050.E regarding mandated safety signage, recalling
cigarettes were hazardous before the surgeon general mandated a warning label on the package. Just because
the FCC or FDA does not mandate safety signage does not mean what is in the package of a small cell site
is safe. In 2014 a report by the Washington Department of Health (DOH) presented its finding of an
evaluation of a comprehensive review of the literature on the health effects of radio frequency (RF)
radiation. DOH was able to justify allowing Wi-Fi to remain in schools while recognizing articles that state
the science is not settled and suggesting health risks of stronger RF radiation could exist. In 2016 the
National Toxicology program released results of a $25M study on cell phones and cancer. The study
focused on the risks of 2G and 3G cell phones and found evidence of a link to cancer. A peer reviewed
study published last summer found an increased instance of tumors in the brain and heart in RF radiated
exposed rats. Last month during a U.S. Senate hearing, while the FDA has publicly encouraged wireless
companies to support 5G safety studies, industry representatives stated no such studies have been supported.
Less than two weeks ago, a Newsweek article identified an elementary school in California where a cell
tower is located on the campus and 4 of the 400 students were diagnosed with cancer in the last three years.
He summarized there is no doubt that RF radiation poses health risk and no dispute that small cell sites emit
radiation and no debate that safety of 5G is unquantified. Therefore, while the overall aesthetics may be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 12
Packet Pg. 275
8.2.e
consistent with current thinking, he requested safety signage in an approved, visible location to increase
public awareness and to hold wireless companies accountable.
Tony Warren, Edmonds, agreed with the last two speakers' comments about public health. He explained
existing cell towers have been using a 2-8 GHz frequency band and the health risks are well known. The
situation is entirely different in 20-60 GHz and the health impacts are not only unknown but are potentially
more dangerous because the higher frequencies interfere with electrical systems in the body. For example,
a study at 40GHz showed millimeter waves at that frequency could generate signals that were damaging to
the eyes. He recommended a mandatory prohibition on high frequency bands until sufficient safety studies
have been done to verify the safety and validate it with the newly emerging equipment.
Lee Vimmelman, Edmonds, relayed his understand the City need to develop regulations for the placement
of 5G and 4G antennas and whether the City wanted them or not, they were coming. As has been found
time and again, necessity is the mother of invention. The cell providers have indicated the proposed
solutions are not feasible or practical, however, if they are requirements, they will have to find a way to
make them work. He asked who determines that the options are not practical or possible and suggested
adding language in the ordinance regarding the due diligence required to prove the preferred option was
not possible. With regard to the request for the FCC to do a study, he did not agree the FCC was biased but
suggested requesting the FCC sponsor a third party independent study.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments that the City was not locked into the timing, that the Council
could adopt interim regulations and revise them in the future. Mr. Taraday read from the FCC Order, "Based
on our review and evaluation of commenters' concerns, we anticipate that such publication [publication of
aesthetic regulations] should take no longer than 180 days after publication of this decision in the federal
register. He clarified out of an abundance of caution, he was advising the Council to adopt an ordinance
next week because that would meet the FCC's timeframe and he would not have to worry that the
regulations would be preempted for being adopted too late. If the Council decides to wait and not adopt an
ordinance next week, he could not ensure that that ordinance would have any effect.
Councilmember Mesaros clarified he was in favor of adopting the ordinance. His question was whether the
Council could revise the regulations at a future date. Mr. Taraday said if the Council did that, the ordinance
would need to have a savings clause that ensured if the new ordinance was invalidated because it was too
late, the City could return to the timely ordinance. He could not ensure that an ordinance revising the
regulations at a future date would be an effective ordinance.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if any thought had been given to working with neighboring cities such as
Woodway, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Bier, Mukilteo, Snohomish County, etc. and adopting
regulations that all agreed upon. Mr. Clugston said there were no conversations with neighboring
jurisdictions; the short timeframe did not allow that discussion. There have been discussions with the
wireless industry, PUD and concealment providers. He assumed other jurisdictions were working in parallel
or may be taking a more hands off approach.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the suggestion to include signage regarding potential health and safety
issues and asked if that requirement could be included in the ordinance. Mr. Taraday did not believe that
would be a preemptive regulation. If it turned out to be preemptive, the signs could just not be installed.
Councilmember Mesaros asked him to research that and if the Council was agreeable, to include that in the
draft ordinance the Council will consider next week.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed it was Verizon's suggestion to remove the maps from the Master
Permit Agreement Needed section. As a former regulator, she did not think big business should be allowed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 13
Packet Pg. 276
8.2.e
to put small cell anywhere without the City having mapping of where the cells will be. She objected to the
removal of paragraphs 2d, e, f from 20.50.020C, Master Permit Agreement Needed. She objected to code
amendments being suggested by big business. Mr. Taraday explained the wireless industry asked the City
to do a lot of things that staff has not done. With each of those items, staff was trying to identify how the
City would use the information to regulate carriers in way that is allowed. He was unable to immediately
identify a need for coverage maps as a prerequisite to approving a master permit. He agreed paragraph f, a
map showing a provider's proposed new macro and small cell wireless facilities over the next two years,
could be useful information but he did not see a need for coverage maps. Mr. Williams recalled to providers,
coverage is a proprietary issue. If there are gaps in their coverage, that is a likely place where they will
install this technology.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled testimony from AT&T that full concealment would not work for them
because it shields their RF transmissions and T-Mobile stated something similar in their letter with regard
to their side -mounted technology. In places in Edmonds where there are no poles such as Emerald Hills, he
noted options 1, 3, 4 and 5 would not be viable. Where underground utilities exist, a freestanding small cell
full concealment (#2) would also not be an option for carriers. At a minimum AT&T and T-Mobile would
be out of the game which he did not believe was what the FCC intended. He was concerned with the City
enacting an ordinance with unforeseen problems that Mr. Taraday has indicated cannot be changed. Mr.
Taraday was certain the industry would welcome loosening the requirements in the future. He referred to
the photograph on the "Further Changes Anticipated" slide of a pole in Las Vegas, that could be located in
a neighborhood where there are no utility poles. Staff is planning to modify #1 to allow that type of
installation in the comm space of a hollow utility pole.
Councilmember Nelson said the wireless providers are planning for the roll out of technology that does not
currently exist and the City also needs to plan. Mr. Taraday said this is all about meeting a federal deadline.
If the City cares about aesthetic regulations, regulations need to be adopted today. The City may be able to
adopt other types of regulations in the future but this deadline is related to aesthetic regulations.
Councilmember Nelson referred to pending lawsuits regarding the FCC order that were originally in the
10t'' Circuit Court and now are in the 9t' Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, commenting there was a
possibility the order could be overturned. If the FCC standards were incorporated in local ordinances, he
asked if the City would be bound by them if the FCC order was vacated. Mr. Taraday assumed if the FCC
order was vacated, the Council could adopt another ordinance at that time. Councilmember Nelson said the
Council could include language that the permit would be null and void if the FCC order was overturned.
Mr. Taraday pointed out if the FCC order was overturned, subsequent applications would need to be
processed according to some regulation. He wanted to ensure there were regulations in place so there was
not a regulatory vacuum.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was disturbed by, 1) the industry does not seem to be bothered by the fact
that utility poles in the City are full and they want to add more equipment and conduit to those poles, and
2) the industry has not proposed any alternative to a cantenna on top of the pole in view of PUD's comments
He agreed with the hierarchy and including a warning statement on poles. The photograph of the pole in
Las Vegas appears to be an alternative. He suggested the ordinance state a preference for antennas to be
concealed in a decorative way.
Regarding Councilmember Nelson's comments about the pending lawsuits regarding the FCC order,
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the remedy being sought was to stay the date the regulations must be
adopted. Mr. Taraday explained the lawsuit sought a stay to the effective date which the 10' Circuit Court
denied and transferred the case to the 9t' Circuit so there will not be a stay of the effective date. The FCC
order is in effect which gives the City until next week to adopt regulations. Councilmember Mesaros asked
what prohibited the 9t' Circuit Court from issuing a stay. Mr. Taraday said that has already been adjudicated.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 14
Packet Pg. 277
8.2.e
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Petaluma, California, ordinance also included a safe distance from
schools and asked if that could be included. Mr. Taraday said from the standpoint of an effective prohibition,
there aren't that many schools in Edmonds so he could envision there would be plenty of places left to place
an antenna. He could look into that if the Council was interested.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the order could be unconstitutional after it was implemented. Mr. Taraday
agreed the FCC order could be overturned. The cities that sued were trying to keep it from going into effect.
It was the consensus of the Council to include language regarding safety signage and distance from schools.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
10. STUDY ITEM
1. DISCUSSION ON UPDATES PROPOSED FOR EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.05 —UTILITY WIRES
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained Chapter 18.05 is an adjunct and logical extension of the
discussion regarding wireless facilities. Although it is more about wires, it involves the same poles and the
same aesthetics issues and cleaning up clutter in the right-of-way. He reviewed:
• ECDC 18.05 — Utility Wires
o Previous Code Updates
■ July 2011 -
- Revisions/references related to new code section: ECDC Chapter 20.50 — Wireless
Communication Facilities (WCF)
■ November 2008 -
- Revisions related to WCF's (removed and / or amended by July 2011 updates)
■ January 2006 -
- Revisions related to WCF's (removed and / or amended by July 2011 updates)
• Code Update Goals
o Incorporate aesthetic standards to minimize clutter in the right-of-way
o Address removal of old poles and restoration
o Clarify utility wire undergrounding requirements
o Clarify and / or add definitions
• ECDC 18.05 — Clutter in the Right -of -Way
o Photographs
• ECDC 18.05 — Conduit
o Limit number of conduits
o Require camouflaging — paint to match
• ECDC 18.05 — Split Boxes, Over -lashing
o Replace utility poles with hollow poles for full concealment
o Restrict over -lashing of existing utility wires
• ECDC 18.05 — Looped Wires and Fiber Storage
o Replace utility poles with hollow poles for full concealment (wire storage)
o Restrict size of loops or require wire storage
o Establish requirements for excess wires — neat and clean
• ECDC 18.05 — Pole Replacement
o Replace utility poles with hollow poles for full concealment
o Add penalties for failure to remove old poles
o Move wires to PUD poles on one side of the street
o ADA and Clear Zone Requirements
o ROW Restoration
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 15
Packet Pg. 278
8.2.e
o Photographs
■ Pole Replacement Back of Ramp
■ Restoration not complete
■ Old pole in sidewalks
Mr. Williams said the small cell regulations need to be incorporated into this section of the code; the above
are other issues that need to be addressed.
Development Program Manager Jeanie McConnell referred to the photographs illustrating clutter in the
right-of-way, staff is seeking direction from Council whether this is an important issue for the community
and that staff should pursue code updates to address clutter in the right-of-way with regard to wired
infrastructure and consistency with the aesthetic regulations related to small cell.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to suggestions made by the industry representatives during the public
hearing on small cell wireless that the City would be discriminating against them by requiring things that
other users of the right-of-way are not required to do. He did not comment on whether that was a valid
opinion under the law, but it appeared to be a position the industry was taking so anything to close that gap
would make the small cell regulations easier to defend if they were challenged.
Councilmember Tibbott said one design flaw he did not see illustrated was wires from a pole to a house
that are no longer in use and a technology that was no longer available. Mr. Williams said the hope is to
include language to address that, recalling the comment that 63% of homes no longer have wired phone
service and it would be nice if the old wires were removed when new technology becomes available.
Councilmember Tibbott said because Edmonds has so many wood poles, it is convenient for utilities to add
wires and conduit. That has basically reached the point of overload and a way needs to be found to deal
with the overabundance of conduit and the poor craftsmanship of wires. He supported moving forward with
developing language to clean that up. Mr. Williams recalled in the past the PUD pole had distribution wires
and a small wire for phone service. The rapid rate of change in the past 15 years has result in a great deal
of equipment on the poles. Councilmember Tibbott suggested another issue is sagging cable wires that
obscure traffic signals.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to poles on opposite sides of the street, one carrying electric and the other
carrying communication, and wires crossing the street. He suggested regulations that require poles on one
side of the right-of-way to control the amount of wire pollution. Mr. Williams commented that is a
complicated issue.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agree with proposal, especially tidying up wires, get rid of old poles,
color matching, etc. to reduce visual pollution. Mr. Williams clarified he was not attacking the industry,
acknowledging their primary was reliable service at a fair price.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the proposal. He asked the cost differential between a wood
pole and a hollow pole. Mr. Williams said a hollow metal pole does not exists. Staff has been told they can
be manufactured and there may be places where hollow metal poles are used for other purposes.
Councilmember Teitzel observed any increased cost would be passed to the rate payer. He asked if
replacement of utility poles with hollow poles with full concealment would be a widespread program or
only as poles needed to be replaced. Mr. Williams said if there is limited space in the comm section, the
pole may need to be replaced. That would be an opportunity to replace it with metal pole instead of wood.
Councilmember Nelson thanked staff for bringing this to the Council's attention and expressed his support
for reducing the clutter.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2019 Q
Page 16
Packet Pg. 279
8.2.f
MAY 25, 2021
c
N
•L
O
t
7
R
E
L
(D
d
L
d
C�
G
oa
Q
V
U
U
T"
N
O
N
LO
N
LO
O
r
E
L
0)
CL
Y
CR
LG
r
Q
Q
Packet Pg. 280
8.2.f
New Cingular Wireless seeks permission to place small wireless
facilities in Edmonds
► A Master Permit (aka a franchise) provides general authority, subject to
site specific permits of ECDC 20.50, to place its facilities in the City's
right-of-way.
► Issued under authority of RCW 35.99
c
N
•L
O
t
7
R
E
L
(D
d
L
d
C�
G
Q
Oa
a
U
U
N
O
N
LO
N
LO
E
L
0)
L
d
CU
a
w
w
a
Packet Pg. 281
8.2.f
Master Permit
► Issued under authority of RCW 35.99
► Provides general authority to all site -specific locations
► Currently under review by City Council
Site Specific Permits (Wireless Facility and/or Right -of -Way Permit)
► Regulated by ECDC 20.50 -previously approved by Council April 2019
► Location preference and site specific design requirements
► Administrative Staff Approval
Packet Pg. 282
8.2.f
A combination of State and Federal Laws
RCW 35.99
► State statute allowing cities to issue "master permits" (also known as
franchises) for use of the city's rights -of -way for placement of facilities for
communications service.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
CU
d
► The federal law that LIMITS state and LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' ABILITY TO
REGULATE telecommunications.
FCC Orders
► Orders promulgated under the authority of congressional statute SPELLING
OUT LIMITS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
telecommunications providers.
Packet Pg. 283
► FCC Orders Withstand Recent Challenge in the Ninth Circuit
► Competing objectives: protecting the public health and safety while
ensuring the rapid development of a telecom network
► Local governments can manage ROW (examples below):
• Coordination of construction schedules
• Determination of insurance, bonding, and indemnity requirements
• Regulate time or location of excavation, preserving traffic flow
• Keeping track of the various systems using the ROW
c
N
•L
O
t
7
R
E
L
(D
d
L
d
C�
G
Q
0a
a
U
U
T"
N
N
LO
N
LO
E
L
0)
CU
a
w
w
a
Packet Pg. 284
8.2.f
► General permission given to place small wireless facilities and associated
equipment in the City's rights -of -way
► Requires site specific permit in accordance with Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
► Five-year term, subject to renewal by the city council
► Other providers may obtain master permits or franchises as well.
► City can require relocation of the facilities at New Cingular's expense
► New Cingular shall reimburse the City for its actual administrative costs
incurred. No franchise fee is charged as dictated by RCW 35.21.860.
w
w
► New Cingular will indemnify the city, maintain specified insurance,
and assume risk of damage to its facilities.
Packet Pg. 285
8.2.f
► Inventory of facilities to be maintained with a copy to the City and
provide updates.
► New Cingular agrees to comply with all applicable laws, standards, and
regulations relating to its facilities and at all times will maintain them in a
safe condition in good order and repair.
► Procedures are specified in the event of a breach
New Cingular will establish a permanent security fund in the amount of
$50,000 to guarantee the performance of its requirements under the
Master Permit and payment of sums due the City.
► Certain provisions survive expiration
or termination
of the Master Permit
for
the protection
of
the City,
e.g.,
the
indemnity
and
insurance provisions
I Packet Pg. 286
8.2.f
► What it is. An indemnity is a promise to protect the City. A commitment to
take financial responsibility for compensating someone if someone gets
injured as a result of the provider conducting its business in our streets.
► The disagreement: The City Attorney's Office and staff are recommending
very broad indemnity that specifically addresses RF emissions, whereas New
Cingular wants an indemnity that does not specifically address RF emissions.
► Why do we care? It could be expensive for the City to defend such a suit,
even a meritless one. Expert witness fees alone could be expensive, for
example. Defending and satisfying any lawsuits resulting from their
operations should be their responsibility, not paid by the public purse. This is
a cost of running their business.
Packet Pg. 287
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that NO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MAY PROHIBIT OR EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT the provision
of telecommunications service.
CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS from enacting laws or ordinances that conflict with
this mandate.
c
N
•L
O
t
7
R
E
L
(D
d
L
d
C�
G
,Q,�((
0a
V
U
U
N
O
N
LO
N
LO
O
E
L
0)
L
CU
a
E
a
Packet Pg. 288
8.2.f
Master Permit does not:
► Specify any particular generation of services or technology
► Regulate RF Emissions
The federal government,. NOT THE CITY,. has authority to
regulate RF Emissions
c
N
�L
O
E
L
L
d
C�
G
a
0a
a
U
U
N
O
N
LO
N
LO
E
CU
a
w
w
a
Packet Pg. 289
8.2.f
The FCC is obligated to evaluate the potential impacts of human exposure
to radiofrequency emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Over the years the FCC has adopted radiofrequency standards which limit
the amount of radiation that can be emitted from wireless transmitters and
has created a framework to ensure compliance with those limits.
In December 2019, the FCC issued an order finding its existing RF exposure
limits should remain unchanged.
Packet Pg. 290
8.2.f
What can I do if I still have concerns about RF emissions?
► Compliance and Information Bureau (888) CALL -FCC
► Concerns about RF emissions exposure at a particular site: Office of
Engineering and Technology, RF Safety Program, phone (202) 418-
2464; rfsafety@fcc..gov
► Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless
Telecommunications Services, Wireless Communications Bureau,
Commercial Wireless Division (202) 418-0620
► You can also contact your federal elected officials.
Packet Pg. 291
8.2.f
► Chapter 20.50 ECDC regulates small wireless facilities
► City Council passed amendments to Chapter 20.50 ECDC in
April 2019
► Chapter 20.50 requires a Master Permit as a condition in
addition to the other permits
Packet Pg. 292
8.2.f
THANK YOU!
c
N
�L
O
r
r
E
L
L
C�
G
Q
06
V
U
U
r
N
O
N
N
LO
O
r
E
L
w
a.
L
d
C�
G
Q
E
m
u
Q
Packet Pg. 293
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Process for Reviewing Housing Commission Recommendations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: City Council
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The Housing Commission, an appointed group of local residents, submitted 15 housing policy
recommendations at the end of January, 2021, for City Council consideration. (See first attachment.)
The recommendations followed from one -and -a -half years' of extensive work. They were intended to
meet the following mission, as assigned by Council Resolution # 1427:
"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."
At the City Council's February 2, 2021 meeting, the submittal of the Housing Commission's
recommendations were acknowledged. At its March 16 meeting, the Council considered the
recommended policies as an introductory overview, with the intent to consider each of the policies in
more detail later.
A meeting on May 11, 2021 was scheduled to clarify the process the City Council would use for
reviewing the policy ideas. (See the 5-11-21 agenda memo, attached.)
Staff Recommendation
1. Approve Option 1 or 2 to guide the review process.
2. Select the first two "General" recommendations for the City Council to begin working on.
3. Select the first two "Planning Board -Related" recommendations for the Planning Board to begin work
on.
NARRATIVE
At the City Council's May 11, 2021 meeting, the Council recognized that the Housing Commission
recommendations were essentially comprised of two basic types: (a) those that affect the City's
Comprehensive Plan or development regulations and therefore require Planning Board review if they
are to be considered much further; and (b) those that are more general and, given that they do not
require Planning Board review, may be addressed primarily at the Council level. Note: Nine of the
Housing Commission recommendations fall into the "Planning Board -Review" type and six fall into the
"General" type.
Two tables were presented at the meeting to compare key features of the recommendations from a
process perspective. (See the attached Policy Implementation Methods table and Policy Aspects table.)
Packet Pg. 294
8.3
Actual substance of the policy recommendations would be discussed during the Council review process
as it proceeds.
Council Review Process Options
During the May 11 meeting, the City Council also discussed two process options for its review of the
Housing Commission policy recommendations. (See the 5-11-21 agenda memo, attached). Because of
two member absences, the Council chose to postpone a decision on the process until the May 18
meeting when all members will have had more opportunity to consider the information.
The two basic Council review process options are:
--Option 1: "Divide the Work First"
--Option 2: "Start Simple"
These options are described in much more detail in the attached May 11 agenda memo.
One of the main differences between the two options is that in "Divide the Work First", the Council
would look at the nine Planning Board -related items in a broad (not detailed manner) over perhaps two
public meetings in the near future before assigning them to the Planning Board, with any direction, for
more specific work. (Of course, all such Planning Board work would still come back to the City Council
for further consideration over the next year or two.) Meanwhile, the Council would begin work on the
remaining General policies (those not requiring Planning Board review).
The "Start Simple" option would start during this year with a phased approach that first reviews the
recommendations that are fairly simple but waits until 2022 to review the more complex
recommendations. Specifically, two of the General recommendations and two of the Planning Board
Review recommendations would be considered by the City Council, starting this spring/ summer. For
the two Planning Board Review items, the Council would have specific discussion about the policies
before assigning the Planning Board to work on them and propose more detailed options for Council
consideration. Also, one or two General recommendations would be considered in the fall. Remaining
policy recommendations would be considered, starting in 2022, using a similar phased approach. Those
recommendations that overlap with or closely relate to each other would be considered, at least partly,
together.
NOTE: With either option, it is projected that full review and City Council decisions about
implementation of the Housing Commission policy recommendations could go well into 2023.
Recommendations to Be Reviewed First
At the May 11 meeting, the Council had some discussion of which Housing Commission
recommendations should be tackled first. This would mean selecting two General recommendations
and two Planning Board -Related recommendations
The six General recommendations comprise the following by short title:
8 Multi -Family Tax Exemption
d Use of Existing Sales Tax Revenue
d County Sales and Use Tax
6 Edmonds-HASCO Interlocal Agreement (NOTE: The Council recently took action on this item.)
6 Community Housing Partners
6 Discriminatory Provisions in Covenants and Deeds.
The nine Planning Board Review recommendations are as follows, by short title:
d Missing Middle Housing in Single -Family Neighborhoods
6 Equity Housing Incentives
6 Medium Density Single Family Housing
d Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning
d Cluster/Cottage Housing
Packet Pg. 295
8.3
8 Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
6 Inclusionary Zoning
6 Multi -Family Design Standards
8 Update Comprehensive Plan to Include "Parking Solutions" as a Goal in Transportation Element.
At the May 18 meeting, the City Council will select two General recommendations and two Planning
Board Review recommendations that will be scheduled for more detailed Council review prior to next
steps. Staff may provide an exercise to help with the prioritization.
Attachments:
POLICY PACKAGE FOR COUNCIL -Corrected 2.1.21
5.11.21 Agenda Memo
Policy.Implmtn.Method.Updated
HC.PolicyAspectsTable
Packet Pg. 296
8.3.a
■ CITIZENS'
HOUSING
,,COMMISSION
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION
Date: January 29, 2021
Corrected: February 1, 2021
Acknowledgements:
Citizens' Housing Commissioners
Alena Nelson-Vietmeier
Bob Throndson
George Keefe
Greg Long
James Ogonowski
Jess Blanch
Judi Gladstone
Karen Haase Herrick
Keith Soltner
Michael McMurray
Nichole Franko
Tana Axtelle
Tanya Kataria
Weijia Wu
Will Chen
Citizens' Housing Commission Alternates
Eva -Denise Miller
Jean Salls
Kenneth Sund
Leif Warren
Rick Nishino
Wendy Wyatt
City Council Liaisons
Luke Distelhorst
Vivian Olson
City Staff
Shane Hope
Amber Groll
Brad Shipley
Debbie Rothfus
Jerrie Bevington
Scott Passey
Consultant Support
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.
Gretchen Mueller
Jasmine Beverly
Packet Pg. 297
8.3.a
January 29, 2021
To: Edmonds City Council and Mayor Mike Nelson
From: The Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
RE: Submittal of Final Housing Policy Recommendations from the Edmonds Citizens' Housing
Commission
Council members and Mayor Nelson, you gave the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission this mission:
"Develop diverse housingpolicy options for (City) Council consideration designed
to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in
Edmonds; options that are irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation,
physical disability or sexual orientation " — City Council Resolution No. 1427
Our mission has set this Commission on extraordinary path. Our community has been through a pandemic
and the Housing Commission has suffered the loss of one of our members. For the past 17-months,
Commissioners have solicited public input from diverse communities throughout Edmonds; researched
current, and future population growth and housing needs; examined city codes and state law; studied what
works and why; and worked to create new opportunities for all residents. We believe our ideas can enhance
our unique city to keep Edmonds a vibrant, diverse and welcoming community for all.
Community engagement has been a top priority. Early outreach included `in -person' events. After COVID-
19 struck, most events happened online. We live -streamed all our meetings and community outreach
seminars with diverse groups city-wide. We have conducted online community surveys; sent out extensive
news releases updating the community and flyers encouraging public involvement, as well as hundreds of
post card notifications and survey invitations.
The Commission believes that the set of policy ideas we are submitting is consistent with your Resolution
#1427. Additional support material is outlined in each proposal and the Commission would be happy to
provide any further input required.
Each Commission member appreciates the opportunity to serve the people of Edmonds. Each member
brought commitment, passion and vision to this process. We had frank and robust discussions among
Commissioners that reflected our wide range of opinions. Our considerations included whether proposed
ideas fit with our mission and whether they could achieve the intended results. We offer opportunities to a
broad section of diverse groups. We believe this city and our city leaders can fulfill these proposals to
benefit all of Edmonds. Attached to our report is a short list of proposals the Commission feels strongly
about, but that we agreed did not seem to fit the mission we were given. We hope you give them the close
scrutiny they deserve for the people of Edmonds.
We profoundly appreciate the expertise, the insight and the patience of Development Services Director
Shane Hope, Associate Planner Brad Shipley, Planner Amber Groll and so many others on city staff who
helped us navigate the complexities of Edmonds housing needs. Our grateful thanks to Councilmembers
Vivian Olson and Luke Distelhorst, our Council liaisons, for their commitment and support. To Gretchen
Muller and her colleagues at Cascadia Consulting, we are grateful you were our guides and helped to keep
us on task and moving forward.
Packet Pg. 298
8.3.a
Our final Commission report is dedicated to the memory and public service of Commission member John
Reed who passed away during his tenure on the Housing Commission. John was a friend and a public
servant who gave himself, his ideas and his hard work to the efforts of this Commission. He cared
passionately about the people of Edmonds and the city's future.
The Housing Commission voted on each draft recommendation we developed. Those with majority
approval are now brought together for your consideration. There remain many other ideas worthy of future
discussion.
Submitted by all members of the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission
Packet Pg. 299
8.3.a
Recommended Policies
of the
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
The following is a list (by title) of the policies recommended by the Citizens' Housing
Commission at its January 28, 2021 public meeting. Each policy recommendation is included in
its full form in this section.*
1. MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING in SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS
2. EQUITY HOUSING INCENTIVES
3. MEDIUM -DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING (SR -MD)
4. NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE SUBAREA PLANNING
5. CLUSTER/COTTAGE HOUSING
6. DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
7. MULTI -FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION (MFTE)
8. INCLUSIONARY ZONING
9. USE of EXISTING SALES TAX REVENUE FOR AFFORDABLE AND
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
10. COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION OF SALES AND USE TAX FOR HOUSING AND
RELATED SERVICES
11. EDMONDS-HASCO 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
12. DEVELOP COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERS
13. MULTI -FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS
14. UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE "PARKING SOLUTIONS" AS A
GOAL IN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT SECTION
15. ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS IN COVENANTS AND DEEDS
*The Additional Information language for each policy was provided by the committee that initially developed the
policy.
Packet Pg. 300
Policy Recommendation
8.3.a
Short Name of Policy: MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS
Policy:
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.
Neighborhoods with significant tree canopy (pocket forest) should be considered exempt from being
included in SF zone augmentation (Pocket Forest could be identified by the Tree Board with help from
the local Sierra Club and assimilated into this zoning recommendation).
Additional Information:
Two attached single family homes, otherwise known as duplexes or two -unit townhomes, offer an
alternative to typical detached single family homes. They help to address the need for smaller, more
affordable housing choices in neighborhoods characterized by single-family homes. Over the past fifty
years, the median square footage of new single family units has increased from about 1600 to 3100. This
policy would allow two units within the same square footage. Structures containing two dwelling units
designed to look like a detached single family home can have the exact same footprint as one single
family home, and isn't much different than having a single family home with an attached accessory
dwelling unit. More and more cities across the country are allowing two attached single family houses in
traditional single family residential areas to address the need for more affordable housing. One example
locally is the City of Kirkland.
This policy also helps to balance out the housing unit types available with the household size need. Data
provided to the Housing Commission in its early days showed that one or two person households'
account for 69% of the households in the city, yet only 37% of the housing is one or two bedrooms. At
the same time, four person households make up 12% of the households and 21% of the housing are four
bedroom units. Only 2% of the available housing is duplexes. Scaling housing to the demographics offers
more affordable options for those who want to own a smaller house, such as seniors who want to
downsize and first time homeowners.
Allowing two attached single family homes in single family areas would be considered up zoning. That
term, however, is often associated with the image of allowing large apartment buildings. The Housing
Type Committee considered the possibility of including triplex and four-plexes in earlier versions of this
policy, but we narrowed it to two units based on feedback from the commissioners and the community
This policy does not include more than two attached single family units like the ones in the photos
below located in the Edmonds/Lynnwood area. Allowing smaller homes in our single family
neighborhoods makes them more affordable and accessible to middle income households that are
seeking the amenities that we enjoy in Edmonds, i.e. excellent public schools and low crime. Not
allowing smaller homes into our neighborhoods helps to create housing scarcity which in turn
contributes to the continued high cost of housing.
Packet Pg. 301
8.3.a
This policy represents incremental change to increase the stock of missing middle housing in our city to
more closely align housing needs with household size. With appropriate design requirements we can
increase housiig availability and help stabilize housing prices with changing the character of single family
neighborhoods. (See graphics below.)
In addition, in Years 1 through 5 only 25% of Single-family zones in Edmonds receive augmentation.
Years 5-10, another 25% of Single-family zones receive augmentation. Each 5 year milestones public
engagement anbd assessment is revisited, facilitated by City Council, Planning Department and maybe
also the Planning Board to see if policy change has been well received by our community, successful and/
or if adjustments or expansions of policy need to be made at those milestones.
r
N
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: EQUITY HOUSING INCENTIVES
Policy:
Develop incentives that apply to "missing middle" housing types city-wide that allow home -ownership
for those at or below average median family income.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. "Missing Middle Housing" types provide diverse housing options such as duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, and cottage courts. These house -scale buildings fit seamlessly into existing
residential neighborhoods.
2. This policy is designed to promote homeownership of smaller homes for people who
would not otherwise be able to afford purchasing a home in Edmonds.
3. The policy encourages racial equity housing options by allowing ownership of smaller type
housing in neighborhoods where households that may occupy those homes were excluded from
in the past.
Additional material to be made available.
Packet Pg. 303
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: MEDIUM -DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING (SR -MD)
Policy:
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
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This policy acknowledges the value of single-family housing in Edmonds and recognizes a lack of
attainable single-family housing options across the city. By providing additional single-family
housing types the policy aims to increase housing opportunities for a more diverse group of
individuals and families within the community, while preserving the existing neighborhood
characteristics.
• SR -MD Key Facts:
o Opportunity for smaller attached single-family housing by removing side setbacks.
o Houses would be on a separate lot with a zero -lot line construction but sharing a
common wall
o Each individual home would have a front and back yard
SR -MD Key Features:
o Locates single-family housing in a manner that increases access to essential services
o Would create housing at a lower cost per square foot than an individual single-family
home and likely at a lower expense than larger multi -family buildings.
o Encourage new residents to utilize nearby transit options.
o Level -entry single story homes increase the opportunity for active mobile seniors.
o The combination of attached and individual single -story homes provides visual interest
by modulation and flexibility for seniors and people with special needs.
o An important purpose for attached single-family homes is to specifically offer "missing
middle" housing options that foster community cohesion, livability, and character.
Packet Pg. 304
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE SUBAREA PLANNING
Policy:
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.
Additional Information:
The Neighborhood Village [NV] concept includes key features:
1. A focal point of the village should be a plaza for socializing and promoting local community
activities, creating a path to grow the city economically, environmentally, and residentially.
2. The NV concept includes small commercial and mixed -use [live -work] buildings, in designated
neighborhoods, often in the current BN zoning.
3. NVs are accessible by vehicular traffic, bike lanes and connected walkways.
4. These NVs would offer unique areas of Edmonds that are on or close to transit lines.
5. NV areas would include a variety of housing option segments, such as Medium Density Single -
Family, cluster housing and artist housing, apartments, or condominiums, creating diverse
housing and business opportunities. Development of these segments could be incentivized so
that nearby single-family neighborhoods have separation from thriving business hubs.
6. These NVs would have comprehensive design guidelines to ensure they are developed in a
planned and disciplined manner to enhance and reinvigorate the surrounding communities.
7. Businesses should be clustered independently and on the ground floor of multiple residential
buildings, with the following features:
a. Multiple residential buildings may include duplex, triplex and four-plex buildings which
would be limited to two stories above commercial spaces.
b. Multiple residential units of larger capacity, not to exceed 20 units in two stories above
commercial spaces could also be a part of the NV. Modulation of these buildings should
meet current and revised design standards.'
c. Parking should be landscaped at the perimeter and between rows of parking. Capacity could
be determined by a percentage of the total lot area. Parking for NVs could be separate
from, but integrated into, the residential parking area.
d. NV development should accommodate site conditions such as but not limited to site
contours, existing natural vegetation such as large trees.
1 Revised design standards are developed by the zoning committee as a separate standard summary.
Packet Pg. 305
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: CLUSTER/COTTAGE HOUSING
Policy:
Add Cluster/Cottage housing as an option within single-family or multi -family housing in Edmonds.
Additional Information:
Cluster/Cottage housing is a flexible approach to land development that can provide more
affordable homes, especially to those in middle -income ranges. Currently, for Edmonds, clustered
or clustering of housing is mentioned primarily in ECDC 20.35 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT [PRD]. The policy idea being proposed would allow Cluster/Cottage housing
options within single-family or multi -family zones for certain Edmonds areas where site conditions
permit.
1. Small homes are clustered together in ways that can maximize open space, create common
areas, limit traffic flow to ensure safe play areas for children, and encourage the walkways
through the cluster development. These walkways can link to off -site trails and walkways
and to off -site activity centers. Cluster housing offers an alternative to conventional lot -by -
lot development that is achieved by allowing departures from lot dimension and setback
requirements.
2. Housing units are often one-story units, but can be two-story units, and are smaller in size
(650 to 1500 sq. ft.). One-story units can also be developed in ways to support independent
living for seniors or individuals with unique mobility needs.
3. Allowing site development in clusters may also allow for less infrastructure development
thus lowering costs. This will minimize stormwater run-off and erosion which also lessens
the burden on the City Storm Sewer system.
4. Offering the Cluster/Cottage housing option would allow developers a more direct
permitting process rather than solely through the more costly PRD process. This may lower
overall costs for the housing. Density bonuses could incentivize builders by allowing them to
build more small and affordable homes in these cluster communities.
5. Additionally, cluster housing could be used in proximity to Neighborhood Villages to
increase the housing capacity, enhance the livability, and encourage walking between the
housing and the Neighborhood Village. As an example, cluster housing could be developed
near Swedish Edmonds medical complex to offer smaller, relatively more affordable housing
for seniors and/or employees.
Packet Pg. 306
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Policy:
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.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. This policy does not limit the detached accessory dwelling to any specific zone(s) within
the City.
2. This policy allows the City to generate its own development and design requirements,
and codes. These can be guided by existing standard for ADU's in Edmonds and may
reference the standards already adopted by other neighboring cities and reclined as
needed speciifcally for the current needs of Edmonds based upon on favorable
community feedback. Examples of requirements include: limitations on floor area
based on lot size, yard setbacks, height limitations, and off street parking specifications,
and ownership stipulations are some of the requirements the City should consider.
3. This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the
added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit.
Additional material to be made available.
Packet Pg. 307
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: MULTI -FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION (MFTE)
Policy:
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*
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Increase affordable rental housing opportunities for low/moderate income tenants
• MFTE can increase low/moderate/missing-middle/senior and special needs housing in Edmonds
• This can increase housing options for people discriminated against in the past.
• It will not reduce property values in the long term.
• It may or may not increase tax burden on residential and property owners for the term of the
exemption.
• It may reduce tax revenues for the city for the period of years a property is certified as MFTE.
• It may increase business opportunity as commercial space (taxable) may be built on ground floors.
• These units, built in 'residential target/urban zone areas' take into account accessibility to transit,
shopping, parks, the environment, parking and other services.
• In properly zoned areas, MFTE will not affect community livability or neighborhood character.
• The city has authority to offer MFTE to smaller developments (less than the 20 minimum now set.)
• Lynnwood, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Everett have MFTE programs.
• Affordable housing research urges that rental costs exceed 30% of a tenant's monthly income.
• There are no 2-3-bedroom units in Edmonds only MFTE property at Westgate.
• 75% of all MFTE units built in the state are studios or 1-bedroom.
• Only two areas in Edmond (Westgate and the Highway 99 subareas) are designated for MFTE
properties.
• State law already allows Edmonds to create incentives for renovation of existing properties for
M FTE.
*For additional information on the citations above, please see these research reports:
■ The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee — 2019 report on MFTE.
■ The Puget Sound Regional Council — Housing Innovations Report.
Packet Pg. 308
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: INCLUSIONARY ZONING
Policy: 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.
Additional Information:
Overall purpose of policy is to leverage profitability of new developments to increase supply of
affordable housing units and funding for affordable housing development; to create more inclusive
and economically diverse communities.
Specific policy proposal includes:
• Applicable to residential developments with more than 10 units and commercial spaces larger than
4,000 sf (chargeable at 5-10% of floor area based on location, zoning, etc.).
• Developments must provide 10-20% affordable units on site or pay an in lieu of fees.
• Rental units must serve households that earn below 60% AMI. Ownership units must serve
households that earn 80-100% AMI. Units must remain affordable for 50 years.
• Projects that do not build affordable units on site must pay 'In Lieu of fees that will go towards an
Affordable housing fund. The 'In Lieu of fees will be calculated based on the use and square footage
of the building. The 'in lieu of fees should be set high enough that motivates developers to build
units on site.
• The Affordable Housing Fund can be used to build new affordable housing, renovate existing units,
offer landlord protection or assurance, or used by the city to sub -contract with housing agencies,
social service or religious agencies, or Community Land Trusts to build new affordable housing.
• Participation in this program would be mandatory and can be offered along with incentives such as
density bonus increase, parking ratio reduction and expedited processing. It can be applied to
geographically targeted areas within Edmonds, such as areas where zoning increase is proposed, or
in transit -oriented areas.
• Inclusionary Zoning is a great tool to provide housing for the missing middle in Edmonds.
• Research shows that inclusion of mixed income housing can provide for increased community
livability or neighborhood character and provide better outcomes for children and families.
• There are over 900 inclusionary housing programs in 25 states. Several of our neighboring cities such
as Federal way, Redmond, Issaquah, Sammamish, Seattle and Portland utilize this program.
Packet Pg. 309
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: USE OF EXISTING SALES TAX REVENUE FOR AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING
Policy:
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.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Under RCW 82.14.540, housing and services may be provided only to persons whose income is at or
below 60% of the median income of the city or county utilizing the tax revenue.
Counties over 400,000 population and cities over 100,000 population may use the revenue for only:
a. Acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing, which may include new units
within an existing structure or facilities providing supportive housing services under RCW
71.24.385 (behavioral health organizations);
b. Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or supportive housing.
For counties under 400,000 population and cities under 100,000 population, the revenue may be used
for the purposes above AND for providing rental assistance to tenants. The estimated population is over
800,000 for Snohomish County, and 42,000 for City of Edmonds.
The bill sets a maximum tax rate of 0.0146%. The County is eligible to receive the maximum tax rate of
the taxable retail sales (TRS) in unincorporated Snohomish County and could potentially receive
0.0073% or 0.0146% of TRS in individual Cities. The amount the County could potentially receive through
TRS in Cities is dependent on each individual City and if they choose to participate or not. WA
Department of Revenue currently sets maximum annual capacity at $1,343,274.79 for Snohomish
County, and $71,931.05 for City of Edmonds.
Jurisdictions may bond against the revenue that would be produced over a period of 20 years to
provide an up -front investment. Under this revenue source, Edmonds' 20-year bond revenue would be
$1,438,621.
Packet Pg. 310
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION OF SALES AND USE TAX FOR HOUSING AND
RELATED SERVICES
Policy:
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.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
RCW 82.14.530 (otherwise known as HB 1590) allows cities and counties to adopt a 0.1% sales tax (or 10
cents for every $100) for affordable and supportive housing, facilities, and services that benefit people
earning less than 60% of the area median income of the county, and who are persons with behavioral
disabilities, veterans, senior citizens, families who are homeless or at -risk of being homeless,
unaccompanied homeless youth or young adults, persons with disabilities, or domestic violence
survivors.
The Metropolitan King County Council voted on October 13, 2020 to implement a 0.1% sales tax to fund
housing for people who have been chronically homeless.
Packet Pg. 311
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: EDMONDS-HASCO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Policy:
Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO)
allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Housing Authority of Snohomish County is the public housing agency of Snohomish County and
receives federal funding to acquire, develop, and operate low-income housing. To do so, HASCO must
have an agreement with each city in which it operates.
HASCO owns three properties in Edmonds. Some areas of the city are not currently covered by an
agreement with HASCO, so the agency cannot acquire property there without an extensive process
involving the City Council. This policy would allow HASCO to better compete in the market to
purchase property to build and preserve affordable homes in Edmonds.
While an ILA would reduce red tape and timelines for property acquisition, HASCO would still be
required to meet all permitting and development requirements.
Packet Pg. 312
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: DEVELOP COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERS
Policy:
• Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for:
o low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AML)
o special needs residents
o seniors
o veterans
• Construction and land costs make building low income housing economically challenging.
• This policy establishes community partnerships with for-profit/non-profits to build affordable
housing:
o public agencies
o neighboring communities
o housing/for-profit/non-profit groups
o 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
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Edmonds should develop community partners throughout South Snohomish County to create/build
affordable housing options for low/moderate income residents.
• Potential partnerships already exist in South Snohomish County.
o The cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier
o 'Homes & Hope' Community Land Trust in Lynnwood
o Housing Authority of Snohomish County
o The Alliance for Housing Affordability
o Habitat for Humanity
• Partnerships can seek private grants/state/federal funding.
• Create incentive opportunities for land donation from private owners.
• Explore 'surplus' property of the School District, PUD, other entities.
• Existing agencies can be contracted to manage projects.
• Apply for Washington State Housing Trust Fund monies.
• Some funding from existing sales tax revenue is already dedicated for low income housing.
• Work with the county to create additional sales tax revenue as authorized by state law.
• Satisfy all zoning criteria for housing/apartments/MFTE renovation properties.
• Meet needs for services, parking, access to transit, green space, environmental impacts.
• Additional community resources available from Appendix E. Edmonds Housing Strategy (2018)
• Our Community I Verdant — representing Public Hospital District #2/Swedish-Edmonds
Packet Pg. 313
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: MULTI -FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS
Policy:
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.
Additional Information:
This policy creates design standards to achieve an end solution that is visually appealing and
reflects a human scale, resulting in compatibility with the City of Edmonds neighborhoods. This
summary is a supplement to current zoning design standards.
1. Building visual interest:
a. Vertical and horizontal modulation. This condition is important for larger scale buildings.
b. Site and building landscaping, ground level: At entry and in courtyards.
c. Landscaping integrated into the building where stepped modulation on decks of units
and common area decks occur shall be enhanced with free-standing or hanging pots
and/or built-in platforms or planters.
d. In common areas, roof decks and modulation step -back decks enhance livability.
2. Step-backs/Incentives: Street and alley sides
a. Maintain the current 3-story height limit. Step -back the upper floors. Stepping back the
3rd Floor provides the developer the opportunity to increase income from creative use
of space that may increase building costs. The higher income from the use of creative
space will help offset affordable housing income on the lower floors.
b. Further incentives would include a partial 4th Floor (not within view corridors). Step -back
all sides to provide a combination of common and private areas for the 4th Floor. This 4th
Floor reward provides a developer another opportunity to increase income from the
above items that will result in building cost increases and to offset affordable housing
loss of income.
c. Height exception: Elevators and Stairwells
d. Color and material variations should be used to complement modulation.
Packet Pg. 314
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE "PARKING SOLUTIONS" AS A
GOAL IN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT SECTION
Policy:
Adopt LANGUAGE that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation Element
under the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Current traffic impact fees assessed by the City to new traffic contributing developments to our
community currently do not allow these fees to be allocated to solve parking solutions in our
community. The Irony of imposing fees calculated on the anticipated traffic impact to our community
by newly established development then consequently not allowing parking solutions to be one of
current possible uses of these funds collected is a flawed policy. Simply updating language in our
Comprehensive plan would allow flexibility for some of these traffic impact fees to be allocated for
parking solutions more efficiently (examples of parking solutions: leasing parking lots, shuttle services,
trolley services, purchasing land for parking lots, and low profile parking structures).
Packet Pg. 315
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy:
ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS IN CONVENANTS AND DEEDS
Policy:
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.
ADDTIONAL INFORMATION
Historically, many parcels of property in Edmonds had legally binding language prohibiting the sale of
said property to individuals based on their race, religion, sex or other discriminatory provisions.
Covenants restricting ownership by race were ruled unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948,
and housing discrimination was made illegal by Congress in 1968 under the Fair Housing Law. While
today enforcing these documents is illegal, none -the -less they still exist and are passed down to
successive property owners at the time of sale. This policy is targeted to break that cycle. State
legislation (SHB 2514) has recently been enacted with provisions to modify these documents through
a "restrictive covenant modification" document filed with the county that legally strikes and voids the
unenforceable provisions from the deed. This policy would mandate that property owners file a
restrictive covenant modification document with the county (at no cost) prior to the sale or transfer
of said property.
While this doesn't erase history, it does provide a means to state our values for future Edmonds
residents and property owners.
Packet Pg. 316
8.3.a
SUPPLEMENTAL SET OF POLICY PROPOSALS
This section provides a set of seven policy proposals that the Edmonds Citizens' Housing
Commission found worthy of the City Council's consideration but that did not necessarily fit
within the Commission's specific mission, as identified in Resolution # 1427.
The policy ideas in this section have the following short titles:
• 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
The City Council is encouraged to explore this supplemental set of policy ideas at the
appropriate time.
Packet Pg. 317
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: IMPROVED TENANT PROTECTIONS
Policy: Adopt measures to improve residential tenant protections, such as:
• Just Cause Eviction Ordinance: limiting the grounds upon which a landlord may evict a tenant to
a "just cause" or valid business reason
• Prohibiting arbitrary of retaliatory evictions
• Prohibiting evictions based upon the tenant's status as a member of the military, first
responder, senior, family member, health care provider, or educator
• Prohibiting retaliation and discrimination in lease renewal actions
• Adopting penalties for violation and procedures to protect the rights of landlords and tenants
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Seattle has had a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance since 1980. Federal Way and Burien have more recently
enacted eviction protection legislation, and a statewide bill was proposed in the 2019-2020 legislative
session.
More information about just cause eviction protections can be found at Local Housing Solutions and
PolicyLink's All -In Cities Initiative
The City must determine what types of rental properties and landlords (e.g. small vs. large) should be
regulated in this way. The City must also determine what reasons would constitute a just cause eviction.
Examples can be found in the links to other communities' approaches, above.
Packet Pg. 318
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: CHILDCARE VOUCHER PROGRAM UNDER THE DIRECTION OF NEWLY
ESTABLISHED HUMAN SERVICE MANAGER
Policy:
Recommend Council explores Childcare Voucher program for people who work and/or live in Edmonds
under the direction of the City's newly established Human Services manager.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Not everyone who works in Edmonds can afford to live in Edmonds, that's just the facts of life, and the
geography constraints of a small seaside town of just 8 square miles. We as a community can be more
creative and make Edmonds more desirable to work in and perhaps make it more achievable to afford
to live in for some in Edmonds by offering Childcare subsidize voucher program.
Packet Pg. 319
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Title of Policy Proposal: RENTER'S CHOICE SECURITY DEPOSIT
Specific Policy Proposal: Reduce the up -front cost of security deposits for renters while keeping
landlords whole for costs that are normally covered by such deposits. The policy may be
implemented through the following steps:
• Allow tenants of all income levels choices in how to pay those security deposits.
• Allow tenant applicants to pay by:
o Buying rental security insurance
o Installment payment of security deposits - at least six equal monthly payments.
o Pay 'reduced' security deposit of no more than 50% of one months' rent.
• All rental properties of 25 or more units will offer the Renter's Choice program.
• Before signing a rental agreement, the landlord provides tenant written notice of the Choice plan.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Purpose of policy proposal: remove a rental barrier for all tenants regardless of income.
Key Factors Considered:
• Landlords charge prospective tenants security deposits which may be as high as two months' rent.
• Renter's Choice eliminates a barrier to rentals for all tenants regardless of income.
• It is likely to increase housing options for people who have been discriminated against in the past.
• Changing the way security deposit fees are paid can save significant money for all tenants.
• That puts money back into the local economy.
• Security Deposit insurance is available from a number of companies.
• The proposal is based on a unique policy developed for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio in 2020.
• Cincinnati got 'buy in' from landlords who helped develop the policy.
• It provides landlords with protection for any damage to their property.
• There are also legal remedies for landlords, if tenants violate the terms of the agreement.
• The policy can be expanded to cover all landlords, regardless of the number of units they control.
• Edmonds has the authority to regulate rental fees, though it has not done so in the past.
• State law recognizes that "...certain tenant application fees should be prohibited". *
• State law recognizes that "...guidelines should be established for the imposition of other tenant fees"
* Contained in findings to Washington State law - RCW 59.18.253.
Additional research Information:
• Hard copy attached of City of Cincinnati Renter's Choice Law.
• Hard copies attached of media articles on the Cincinnati Renter's Choice Law.
• Virginia, New Hampshire, New York City and Atlanta are considering this policy.
Packet Pg. 320
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: LOW-INCOME EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR PROGRAM
Policy:
Fund a program, or contribute funding to an existing program such as Homage, to assist low-income
homeowners with emergency home repairs.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Emergency home repair programs correct housing conditions that threaten low-income homeowners'
safety, such as failing plumbing or heating systems, rotten floors, or a leaking roof. Beyond home
insurance coverage, home repair costs can typically be covered by a bank -issued home equity loan or
line of credit. However, banks may reject loan applications due to bad credit or lack of income. With the
assistance of these repairs, residents are better able to remain safely housed for as long as possible.
Other emergency home repair models offer financial assistance, in grants or below -market -rate loans,
for emergency home repairs to low-income homeowners. Homage's Minor Home Repair program
serves low- and moderate -income elderly and special needs homeowners in Snohomish County.
Funding for this program is provided by the Snohomish County Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, the City of Everett CDBG Program, the City of Marysville CDBG Program, city funding
from City of Bothell, and other private donations. Edmonds' participation could better fund this
program, or potentially help expand it to serve more low-income homeowners.
Other local example programs imay be seen in the following webpages:
• Sound Generations
• City of Renton
• Rebuilding Together
• City of Seattle
Packet Pg. 321
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Policy:
Extend the property tax exemption program currently available to seniors and the disabled to low
income households.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This policy would mirror the current property tax exemption available to qualifying seniors and
disabled households. Those homeowners with an AMI below TBD would be eligible subject to
a qualifying criteria similar to what's currently defined in:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1387/Senior-Citizen-Disabled-Person-
Exemption-Program-Publication?bidld=
This policy results in a direct benefit to qualifying households, thus fostering home ownership with
its associated wealth creating opportunities.
Packet Pg. 322
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: SIMPLIFY ZONING CODE LANGUAGE
Policy:
Use diagrams, pictures, and tables in place of text where applicable. Use plain language where
text is necessary.
Packet Pg. 323
8.3.a
Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Policy: STREAMLINE PERMITTING PROCESS
Policy:
Reduce the number of conditional uses to streamline the permit process.
Packet Pg. 324
8.3.b
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/11/2021
Process for Reviewing Housing Commission Recommendations
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Jana Spellman
Background/History
The Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission was tasked by a City Council resolution with developing
"diverse housing policy options for Council consideration designed to expand the range of housing" in
Edmonds. This work was due January 31, 2021 and the Commission was slated to sunset one day later.
The Housing Commission's 15 policy recommendations (attached) were submitted to the City Council on
January 29, 2021. This milestone was publicly acknowledged at the Council's February 2, 2021
meeting. The recommendations were not discussed in any detail.
On March 16, 2021, the City Council meeting featured an "introductory Overview of the Housing
Commission Recommendations". This was a longer session but still recognized that each policy
recommendation, perhaps one or two at a time, would come back in more detail to the City Council
during the next year.
Since then, one of the simpler housing recommendations --to establish an interlocal agreement with the
countywide housing authority --came to the City Council for further review and action as part of two
public meetings.
Council members have also expressed interest in a more specific process to review the remaining
recommendations.
Staff Recommendation
Approve Option 1 or 2 to guide the review process.
NARRATIVE
In planning for the process to review the policy recommendations of the Edmonds Citizens' Housing
Commission, it is important to keep in mind several things, including:
1. What is a policy recommendation?
2. What can the City Council do with the Housing Commission's recommendations?
3. If the Council wants to pursue implementing a recommendation, what tool/method would be used?
4. What is the difference between "general recommendations" and "recommendations subject to
Planning Board involvement"?
5. How do you know whether a policy recommendation is fairly simple vs. fairly complex?
6. What should be done with overlapping or closely related recommendations?
7. What is the relationship between housing and the environment?
8. What are the options for City Council review of the housing policy recommendations?
9. Will community engagement be part of the decision process?
10. How should the City approach the Housing Commission's "supplemental policy proposals"?
Packet Pg. 325
8.3.b
Each of the above questions are addressed below.
What is a policy recommendation?
Let's start with defining a policy. Basically, a "policy" is a statement that is intended to guide future
actions about something. It is not nearly as detailed as a regulation --but may provide guidance for
developing more detailed regulations and programs.
Furthermore, a "recommendation" is simply advice that follows from a deliberative effort.
For the Housing Commission, each recommendation reflects a policy proposal that the majority of
Commissioners voted to recommend to the City Council. The proposed policies are not necessarily
meant to be adopted "as is" but to guide more specific actions.
What can the Council do with the Housing Commission's recommendations?
After reviewing each policy recommendation, along with public input and additional information, the
City Council may choose to:
(a) Take no action to move the recommendation forward
(b) Send the recommendation (or a set of recommendations) to the Planning Board for more
review, research, and the development of any options for Council consideration
(c) Direct that a more detailed study and/or possible options be developed for further Council
consideration (without Planning Board review); and/or
(d) Direct that specific action be taken toward implementing the recommendation in some form.
If the Council Wants to Pursue Implementing a Recommendation, What Tool or Method Would Be
Used?
To implement a selected amendment, the City Council could choose from several different
tools/methods, including:
o Voting on a motion to follow a particular course of action
o Authorizing an interlocal agreement
o Authorizing a budget amendment
o Adopting a resolution about key findings or intentions
o Adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment
o Amending the City's development regulations
o Adopting a change to the municipal code (outside of the development regulations)
A table has been prepared to illustrate how some of these tools could apply. (See "Policy
Implementation Methods", attached.)
What is the Difference between "General Recommendations" and "Recommendations Subject to
Planning Board Involvement"?
Of the Housing Commission's 15 policy recommendations, 9 affect the Comprehensive Plan and/or
zoning regulations. These 9 are subject to Planning Board review before final action is considered more
deeply by the City Council. The other 6 recommendations are distinct from the first type because the
City Council may take any final action on them without Planning Board input. From this perspective, the
15 recommendations break into 2 primary categories. (See the attached "Policy Aspects Table"for a
summary view of this.)
The first category is: Recommendations Subject to Planning Board Review. (NOTE: Planning Board
review would include gathering of additional public input, analysis of detailed information, and
development of very specific recommendations/options for Council consideration). The 9 policies (by
Packet Pg. 326
8.3.b
short title) in this category are:
6 Missing Middle Housing in Single -Family Neighborhoods
6 Equity Housing Incentives
6 Medium Density Single Family Housing
6 Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning
6 Cluster/Cottage Housing
6 Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
6 Inclusionary Zoning
6 Multi -Family Design Standards
6 Update Comprehensive Plan to Include "Parking Solutions" as a Goal in Transportation Element.
The second category is: Recommendations Not Requiring Planning Board Review before the City
Council takes any final action. These recommendations do not affect the comprehensive plan or
development regulations. The 6 policies (by short title) in this category are:
d Multi -Family Tax Exemption
d Use of Existing Sales Tax Revenue for Affordable and Supportive Housing
6 County Implementation of Sales and Use Tax for Housing and Related Services
6 Edmonds-HASCO Interlocal Agreement
d Develop Community Housing Partners
d Eliminate Discriminatory Provisions in Covenants and Deeds.
How Do You Know whether a Policv Recommendation is Fairly Simple vs. Fairly Complex?
Different people may have different opinions about whether something is fairly simple or complex. For
purposes of this process, we are assuming that an item is "fairly simple" if it can be understood or
implemented in a relatively short time and without extensive technical analysis. On the other end of the
spectrum, an item is very complex if it would require a great amount of study or the development of
entirely new regulations or programs that are very different from those that exist now.
Whether something is fairly simple or complex makes a difference in planning the schedule for
considering that item.
What is the Relationshio between HousinLy and Environment?
All development, including existing and future housing, is to be considered in relationship to the rest of
the environment. That implies that, as we think about the need for housing across our region and how
Edmonds is able to meet its fair share of housing needs, we also understand that providing for open
space, trees, walkability, good schools, etc., is an integral part of providing for housing. In other words,
as a community and part of bigger region, we take a balanced and thoughtful approach to achieving
both housing and environmental goals-- recognizing no one will ever have all the answers but our
community can continue to make progress. It does not mean that all environmental issues must be
tackled before one can do anything about housing. In fact, this relationship is at the heart of
"sustainability" -- the idea that achieving a healthy environment, economic vitality, and social well-being
is an ongoing, integrated process.
For example, this relationship aligns with several sustainability goals in our Comprehensive Plan,
including:
Sustainability Goal A: "Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support
and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase
accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing."
NOTE: A policy under that same goal goes on to say "Holistic solution should be
Packet Pg. 327
8.3.b
developed that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), transit -
oriented development, "complete streets" that support multiple modes of travel, and
other techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances
Edmonds' character and charm for future generations to enjoy."
Sustainability Goal G: "Develop housing policies, programs and regulations designed to support
and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which
provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in lifestyle...."
So how are environment and housing considered together as development occurs? One important way
is by ensuring that development regulations are designed to incorporate both environmental needs and
housing opportunities, for example, through good stormwater management. In addition, the City can
take steps to encourage or acquire open space, to retain trees, and to protect critical areas and the
shoreline.
What Should Be Done with Overlapping or Closely Related Recommendations?
Some of the housing policy recommendations overlap each other and should be considered
concurrently, at least in part. The two sets of recommendations that are subject to Planning Board
review and have overlap with each other are:
1. "Missing Middle Housing in Single Family Neighborhoods" with "Equity Housing Incentives";
and
2. "Medium -Density Single Family Housing" with "Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning".
Policy recommendations that are closely related -but not requiring Planning Board review --are:
o "Use of Existing Sales Tax Revenue for Affordable and Supportive Housing" with "County
Implementation of Sales and Use Tax for Housing and Related Services".
What Are the Options for the City Council's Review Process?
Below are two options for a City Council review process.
Option V'Divide the work first"
In this option:
For the 5 remaining policy recommendations that do not affect the Comprehensive Plan or zoning
regulations, the City Council would consider 4 of them in 2 or more batches between late spring and fall,
2021. [Note: the 5t" recommendation, regarding Multifamily Tax Exemption, is technically complex and
better to consider in early 2022, given that non -housing topics (including tree programs, budget, etc.)
will take plenty of agenda time before then.]
For all 9 policies affecting the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations, the City would conduct brief
initial review in 2 or more batches during summer/fall of 2021, then assign the batch (in whole or part,
with any additional direction) to the Planning Board for further work and recommendations. Sometime
later, after the Planning Board prepares its recommendations for each assigned policy (or group of
related policies), the City Council would have a more extensive review and public process, probably
beginning in early 2022 and extending through fall 2022 or later.
Option 2 - "Start simple"
In this option:
Between this spring and late fall (i.e., prior to the rush of budget and other year-end work), the City
Packet Pg. 328
8.3.b
Council could start reviewing policy recommendations that are relatively simple and do not need
significant research before the Council begins considering them. This includes initial review of: (a) one
or two policies that do not need Planning Board review; and (b) one or two policies that may then be
forwarded to the Planning Board for more work (and possible options) before detailed consideration by
the City Council. Thus, review of several policies could be started this year, with exact dates to be
determined per the extended agenda and any necessary updates. For example, this could mean:
Late spring --Consideration of one or two relatively simple policies that do not need Planning
Board input (such as: "Use of Existing Sales Tax Revenue"; and "County Implementation of Sales
& Use Tax");
Summer --Consideration of one or two relatively simple policies that could be assigned
to the Planning Board for additional work/options during 2021 (and come back to the Council
later), especially regarding Detached Accessory Dwelling Units;
Fall --Consideration of two other recommendations that do not require Planning Board input,
such as: "Develop Community Housing Partners" and "Eliminate Discriminatory Provisions in
Covenants and Deeds").
Then in early 2022, the City Council could begin considering the remaining, more complex
recommendations in a logical order. For example:
VY Quarter 2022-
(a) Consideration of any remaining policies that are not subject to Planning Board
review (such as "Multi -Family Tax Exemption"); and
(b) Consideration of 2 or more policies that may be complex and related to each other -
AND that could be sent to the Planning Board for further review and options before
final Council consideration.
2nd Quarter 2022-
(a) Consideration of any recommendations or options that have come back from the
Planning Board's 2021 assignments
(b) Preliminary consideration of remaining policies that could be sent to the Planning
Board for review and options before final Council consideration
3d Quarter 2022 (and possibly beyond)-
6 Consideration of any additional recommendations or options that come back from
the Planning Board's 2021 or 2022 assignments.
Will Communitv Engagement Be Part of the Decision Process?
Additional community engagement will be sought in making decisions about housing policies. (Note:
That does not mean that every public opinion can or will be automatically followed but rather, that
everyone is welcome to share their perspective and to know that the City Council will thoughtfully
consider it.) Furthermore, every Council decision will be made in a public meeting. If the decision is part
of an amendment to a development regulation or to the comprehensive plan, it will also require a public
hearing, which provides another opportunity for community input. To go forward, many of the
recommendations would also trigger Planning Board review and a whole set of additional public
engagement opportunities.
How should the City Council approach the Supplemental Set of Policy Proposals?
The Housing Commission offered 7 additional policy ideas that did not necessarily fit within the
Packet Pg. 329
8.3.b
Commission's mission or timeframe but might be worth exploring later. These were:
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.
The first of these (Improved Tenant Protections) relates closely to legislation that has been moving
through the state legislative process. If this legislation is signed into law, it may have local implications
that the City Council should consider later this year.
The other 6 ideas above could be addressed in 2022/2023, after all or most of the Housing Commission's
official policy recommendations have been considered.
Attachments:
POLICY PACKAGE FOR COUNCIL-02.01.21
Policy.Implmtn.Method
HC.PolicyAspectsTable
Packet Pg. 330
8.3.c
5/11/2021 KEY: "DC" means "Development Code"; "MC" means Municipal Code
"Other" means some other action, such as an interlocal agreement
"Budget" means it would need some budgetary admendment or direction from Council
HC Policies: Methods to Use for Any Type of Implementation
Housing Commission Policy
Consistent
Variations
CP Amdmt
Other
By Brief Title
w/Exist'g
Possible
Needed
Impl'tn
CompPln
Method
Missing Middle Housing in SF Neigbhorhoods
Generally
Yes
Possibly
DC
Equity Housing Incentives
Generally
Yes
Possibly
DC
Medium -Density SF Housing
Generally
Yes
Maybe
DC
Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning
Generally
Yes
Depends
Budget; DC
Cluster/Cottage Housing
Generally
Yes
No
DC
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
Generally
Yes
No
DC
Multifamily Tax Exemption
Generally
Yes
No
MC
Inclusionary Zoning
Generally
Yes
Possibly
DC
Existing Sales Tax for Affordable Housing
Generally
Yes
No
Budget
County Sales Tax for Affordable Housing
Generally
Yes
No
Other
HASCO Interlocal Agreement
Generally
Yes
No
Other
Development of Housing Partners
Generally
Yes
No
Other
Multi -family Design Standards
Generally
Yes
No
DC
Parking Solutions as Comp Plan Goal
Probably
Yes
Yes
TBD
Discrimatory Provisions in Covenants & Deeds
Generally
Yes
No
MC
Packet Pg. 331
8.3.d
HOUSING COMMISSION POLICY ASPECTS TABLE
Housing Commission Policy
Subject to
Level of
Need for
Est. Min. Time for
PB Review
Complexity
Outside Consultant
PB consideration*
Missing Middle Housing in SF Neigbhorhoods
Yes
High
Probably Not
4 -6 mo.
Equity Housing Incentives
Yes
High
Probably Not
4-6 mo.
Medium -Density SF Housing
Yes
High
Probably Not
4-5 mo.
Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning
Yes
High a
Yes
8-9 mo
Cluster/Cottage Housing
Yes
Moderate
Probably Not
4 mo.
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
Yes
Low
No
3 mo.
Multifamily Tax Exemption
No
Moderate
Probably Not
Inclusionary Zoning
Yes
High Jr
Probably Not
4-5 mo.
Existing Sales Tax for Affordable Housing
No
Low
No
County Sales Tax for Affordable Housing
No
Low
No
HASCO Interlocal Agreement
No
Low
No
Development of Housing Partners
No
Low
No
Multi -family Design Standards
Yes
Moderate
Probably Yes
4-5 mo.
Parking Solutions as Comp Plan Goal
Yes
Moderate
No, not at this stage
2-4 mo.
Discrimatory Provisions in Covenants & Deeds
No
Low
No
*NOTE: "Est. Min. Time for PB Consideration" is for the Planning Board process only.
Some of the policies, such as items 6 and 7 above, could be considered together.
Packet Pg. 332
8.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
Stage 2 Tree Issues
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) in July 2019 which included
goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City of Edmonds. Goal 1.A of the UFMP is to:
Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts of the urban forest and
consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The City of
Edmonds began an update of the City's tree regulations in 2020 with the primary focus of having
requirements for development that will result in more trees being retained when properties are
developed and to require replanting for trees that are removed.
The Planning Board reviewed draft tree code regulations throughout the final quarter of 2020, holding a
public hearing on the draft regulations December 9, 2020 and forwarding a recommendation to the City
Council following the January 13, 2021 Planning Board meeting. The City Council began reviewing the
Planning Board's recommendation at the January 26, 2021 Council meeting and adopted a version of the
tree regulations on March 2, 2021 under Ordinance No. 4218. Throughout March and April, the Council
continued to make amendments to the tree regulations adopted under Ordinance No. 4218 and
adopted the amendments on April 13, 2021 under Ordinance No. 4220.
Staff Recommendation
Provide guidance on the scope of Stage 2 tree regulations.
Narrative
During the review of the tree regulations, several comments were received on the limited scope of the
tree regulations. When the Planning Board forwarded their recommendation on the regulations to the
City Council, the Planning Board wanted to acknowledge the public comments received during in
Planning Board's review and recommended that the Council continue with a Stage 2 of tree regulations.
The City Council also expressed a desire to expand the scope of the regulations and explore other
actions that can help the City achieve the goal of no net loss of canopy coverage and also provide net
ecological gain. Several tree related actions have been identified for Stage 2 tree actions, which include
further regulation updates that apply to developed properties, conducting a tree canopy assessment,
updating the City Street Tree Plan, and other tree related activities. Stage 2 topics and estimated
timelines are provided in Exhibit 1.
A few of these identified actions could pertain to subsequent code development including tree retention
on private property (not related to development), view corridors, wildlife & habitat corridors, and a
Heritage Tree Program. Before embarking on the next stage of tree code development, staff and the
Packet Pg. 333
8.4
Planning Board will need some direction from the Council on the potential approaches to pursue during
code development. Exhibit 2 is a memorandum that outlines some options and issues for developing
Stage 2 tree regulations for Council consideration.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Upcoming Tree Actions
Exhibit 2: Stage 2 Tree Code Considerations
Packet Pg. 334
8.4.a
Proposed 3/2/20
UPCOMING TREE -RELATED ITEMS & TIMING
ITEM Q2 2021 Q3 2021
Inventory of downtown street trees
Inventory of other public trees
Street Tree Plan update
Tree canopy assessment
Heritage Tree Program
Tree Canopy goal
Assessment of staffing & other resource needs
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
Exploration of other incentive programs
Open space acquisition
Tree retention on private property (not related to development)
Partnerships with other organizations
Annual reports on City tree activities
Tree give-away program
View corridors
Wildlife & habitat corridors
Expanded public education & information
Stormwater & Watershed Analysis
Other tree -related issues
Q4 2021 2022 or TBD
Q
Packet Pg. 335
8.4.b
Edmonds City Council
Agenda Memo
`11C. 1 gy-
Meeting Date: May 18, 2021
Agenda Subject: Tree Code Stage 2
m
a�
Staff Lead / Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Author:
a�
a�
Cn
c
Introduction .°
During review of the development related tree regulations update in the first half of
2021, the City Council expressed a desire to expand the scope of the tree regulations.
Staff identified a number of Stage 2 tree related actions (Exhibit 1). A few of these
identified actions could pertain to subsequent code development including tree
retention on private property (not related to development), view corridors, wildlife &
habitat corridors, and a Heritage Tree Program. Before embarking on the next stage of
tree code development staff and the Planning Board will need direction from the
Council on the potential approaches to pursue during code development.
Tree Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development
The Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) notes that about 83% of the City's canopy
is located on private residential properties. Given that the preponderance of the City's
urban forest is located on private property, these properties are critical in meeting a
goal of no net loss of the City's urban forest canopy. Goal LA of the UFMP provides:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on
the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
penalties for code violations
Stage 1 one of the tree regulations update focused on this first goal in the UFMP.
Interest was expressed from members of the Planning Board, City Council, and public in
expanding tree regulations to address trees on private property that is not being
developed and does not have critical areas present. Some options for tree retention
code on private property include those below. Note that most, if not all, of these
options would require more resources (staffing, consultants or both).
City of Edmonds caR City Council
Packet Pg. 336
8.4.b
1. Require a fee permit for removal of any significant tree (6 inch or larger DBH) on
private property. This option would require additional staff resources.
2. Allow the removal of a certain number of significant trees on a given property
over a certain time period. For example, two significant trees may be removed
from a property per year. This option does not require a paid permit but would
require submittal and approval by the City to track tree removal to ensure more
than the allowed number of trees are not removed. This option will require
additional staff resources.
3. Allow for the removal of a certain number of trees with a diameter of less than
24 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) to be removed on a given property
over a certain time period. Similar to number 2 above, but only allows the
removal of smaller trees without a paid permit. More documentation will need
to be provided to the City with this option to review the diameter of trees
proposed for removal.
4. Require a paid permit for removal of more than the allowed number of trees
over a certain period of time or trees with a 24 inch or great DBH. For this
option and number 1 above, criteria will need to be established for the permit
review. When would the City deny a requested tree cutting permit? Or is it just
allowed with a permit? Do the permitted tree removals require replanting
where the allowed tree removals do not, thus a fee is required for the additional
review?
5. For all of the above options, review could include a review of tree retention as in
Chapter 23.10 ECDC. Does a property need to retain at least 30% of the trees
with the allowed removals in Options 2 and 3? Or only when a permit is
required?
6. Consider whether all residential properties should be required to have a
minimum number of trees or tree coverage, perhaps with certain exceptions.
Heritage Tree Program
Goal 1.D of the UFMP is to develop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program. A Heritage Tree
Program is a way to recognize unique or special trees and to recognize stewardship of
the urban forest by local property owners. While the UFMP notes a voluntary Heritage
Tree Program, the level protection provided to designated heritage trees is not noted.
Below are some options for consideration with a Heritage Tree Program.
1. A completely voluntary program where a property owner must sign a
nomination form for a specific tree and provide protection of the tree while it is
designated as a heritage tree. However, if the property owner so desires, the
heritage tree may be removed from the heritage tree program and removed
consistent with the City's adopted tree regulations. This is similar to the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places where the property must sign a nomination
Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 337
8.4.b
form and follow certain rules while a property is on the register, but the property
owner also has the option to remove a register property.
2. A voluntary program where a property owner must sign a nomination form.
Then once a tree has been designated as a heritage tree, that tree must be
protected and could not be removed unless the tree became a hazard or
3. Another less voluntary option would be to allow tree to be nominated as a
heritage tree and protected without the owner signing a nomination consent
form. There are some serious property rights issues that would need to be
evaluated if this option were pursued.
View Corridors
During review of the tree regulations, several comments were submitted concerning
trees obstructing views. The UFMP recognizes views are an important aspect of living in
Edmonds (at least in some areas) but does not provide any specific goals related to view
protection.
The City's Comprehensive Plan and policies recognize the protection of public views
(views from parks or view corridors down streets and street ends) but does not
specifically address private view protection. View protection may be established
through private view protection easements limiting the height of vegetation and
structures on one property to protect views on another. Private view easements may
be purchased and are sometimes set up during a subdivision or before a person sells a
piece of property. These easements are private easements however and not regulated
or enforced by the City of Edmonds. Enforcement of view easements is a civil matter
between the property owners to which the easement applies.
Should the City pursue regulations regarding trees and views, it should be noted that
the City would then become an arbitrator between two (or more) property owners. To
some people, trees are the view while to others trees block the view. Below are some
options for consideration in incorporating some view aspects into the tree regulations.
Furthermore, Washington State has very strong protections granted to private property
rights, and the City will have limited ability to enforce restrictions on one property to
protect the view afforded another.
1. Not all areas of the City are blessed with views. The City may consider
establishing "view sheds" or "view areas" within the City where views are given
extra consideration when a tree planting plan is being developed. Options for
the "view areas" may include:
a. Limiting the mature height of trees being planted to the allowable height
of the zone in which the tree is being planted. In single family zones, this
would mean that trees planted in a "view area" could not be taller than
25 feet when that tree reaches maturity. This is a blanket approach which
Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 338
8.4.b
may have unanticipated down -sides, such as not allowing for native
species that grow taller.
b. Require a "view corridor" over a percentage of the property line where
trees could not be planted. For comparison, the Shoreline Master
Program requires a view corridor be maintained across 30 percent of the
average parcel width. This would not result in an unobstructed view, but
will preserve some view while allowing the planting of trees that reach a
taller mature height.
2. Establish "view areas" where trees may be removed if they grow up into a view.
The City could establish a process where a property owner who has lost views
that once existed when they purchased the property to require the trees on their
property that have grown into their view to be removed or trimmed to
reestablish the view.
If the City pursues developing regulations with regard to private views, other factors
such as critical areas must also be taken into consideration. For example, north
Edmonds view shed is associated with significant slopes (potential landslide hazards are
slopes 40% and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that has specific regulations
that apply to development in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC — Earth Subsidence and
Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical area regulations. The mechanical and
hydrogeological benefits which trees and other vegetation provide to maintain slope
stability and reduce erosion are well documented.
Equity Issues
Edmonds is a varied city that has developed over many years. In some areas, large
swaths of native trees have been cut — as part of intense urban development or
sometimes to afford maximum views. Elsewhere, many trees remain, due to limited
incentives to remove them or perhaps the landscape did not encourage their removal
(e.g. steep slopes or stream corridors). If the City pursues regulating trees on private
property beyond what is already done through the critical areas code, equity concerns
should be considered. For example, is it fair to insist that those property owners who
have large stands of trees remaining be solely responsible for the continued cost of tree
maintenance and upkeep while those who have already cleared their property (whether
for view or other considerations) do not bear any costs? A balancing of private property
rights with public benefit and an equal sharing of related costs needs to be part of the
discussion.
Wildlife & Habitat Corridors
Protection and enhancement of wildlife & habitat corridors was raised during review of
the tree regulations. While tree retention is important everywhere, it is particularly
Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 339
8.4.b
critical in the stream and wildlife corridors. These areas are largely protected by the
City's critical area regulations. However, much of the City was developed prior to the
establishment of critical area or other environmental regulations.
One option to improve wildlife and habitat corridors would be to work with landowners
to improve the quality of the City's stream and wildlife corridors. Currently, the City's
stormwater crews are the primary contact with streamside landowners and have been
providing landowners with best management practices such as the information
provided on the City's stormwater website. The City could also partner with
organizations like Stream Keepers to help educate streamside property owners. Over
the past several years the City has been supporting Students Saving Salmon which has
been doing excellent documenting the state of the City's streams and working with
y
property owners and streamside maintenance and planting. A percentage of the tree
vouchers from the Tree Fund program could be targeted for planting within stream and
wildlife corridors.
N
The City's critical area code has regulations regarding corridor protection in the wetland
a�
section (ECDC 23.50.040.F) and the 30% native vegetation requirement in ECDC
23.90.040.0 is intended to help protect wildlife and habitat corridors.
_
If the intent is to protect, enhance, expand, or establish wildlife corridors in upland
areas not associated with critical areas more information and criteria for the type of
habitat we are trying to protect or establish needs to be determined. For instance, the
critical area code defines "habitats of local importance" as:
areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species
has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the
species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of
high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and
movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability
or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas
like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas and
corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which
provides the physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to
survive in a human -dominated landscape.
These habitats of local importance are usually associated with a "species of local
importance" which the critical area code defines as:
those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity
to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species.
No species of local importance or habitat of local importance has been identified in the
City of Edmonds. If the City wants to pursue establishing wildlife corridors beyond those
currently described in the critical areas regulations and best available science report,
additional studies will be required.
Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 340
8.4.b
Other information that will be important for improving wildlife and habitat corridors will
be the canopy assessment the City will be conducting. The canopy assessment could
identify existing corridors and areas where planting should be a priority for providing
connections that may have been lost.
Incentives
No net loss cannot be achieved via regulation alone. Apart from Goal LA of the UFMP
which relates to developing regulations to retain trees during development, there are
no goals in the UFMP that address developing regulations for private property that are
not being developed. Rather the UFMP Goal 3 discusses developing incentives for
private property. Goal 3 provides:
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary
public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this
objective.
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore
establishment of:
A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes;
and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree
planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners
that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
Rather than pursing the regulations for tree retention on private property not related to
development, the City could focus its efforts on developing incentive programs for
protecting and planting trees on private property. Even if the City pursues tree
regulations for private property not related to development, it should be combined with
incentive programs.
Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 341
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2021
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 Olson
and Buckshnis.
Attachments:
Port Minutes April 21
WRIA 8 Minutes
Packet Pg. 342
9.1.a
PORT
OF
EDMONDS
PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
(Via Zoom)
April 26, 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
President Harris announced that the Commission would have an executive session at the end of the regular meeting.
Commissioner Orvis requested that Item B (Approval of April 12, 2021 Meeting Minutes) be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
CONIMISSIONLR FATRC5 'MOVED THAT THE' REMAiNI)ER OF TfIL; CONSENT AC ENI)A 13E;
. 1 I'T ROVL1) TO 1NCl,IIDE TI1.E FOLLOWl\G IT NIS:
A. APPROVAL Or' AGi"NDA.
C. 1T'L'l�[)1�A L OF Pr�l'i*T EaN'I S iN 1IIC :�IIIOUN I' Cll 51:�?,'3{l,3ll
C('};1T:��QN1;121'Rl:ti'i'[]Lti SI-C'()N!)1'T) 1�1-[I` �TtiT1i.��, li'IliCl! C1121Z1I.D I- ti.ItiI�TOlr5L1'.
APPROVAL OF APRIL_ 12, 2021 MEETING_ MINUTES {Item B on the Consent Ap-enda)
�. R.IDIINST0N MDV'r-0 TO ACCEPT THE _NTINC TES OF AI'RIL 12, 2021 AS ANI.ENDED.
I'"`ILESTON SECONDED THL A3OTION, WI-RC-14 CARRIED UINANINOUISLY.
Packet Pg. 343
9.1.a
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ANNIE CRAWLEY'S 2021 UPDATE
Ms. Williams introduced Annie Crawley, a local scuba diver, film maker, environmental activist, educator,
photographer, dive instructor, author, field biologist, all around ocean lover, and a great friend to the Port. She has
inspired many to embrace, love and care for the ocean and all those that call it home. She advised that Ms. Crawley
led her scuba diving team in a marina cleanup dive on April 18', and she is present to report on how that went and
tell the Commission about her recent endeavors, including her new film titled, "Our Underwater Backyard," a short
film featuring the Edmonds Underwater Park. She commented that, not only does Ms. Crawley's scuba diving team
help the Port keep the marina clean, but these adventure seekers help inspire the community through their commitment
to the environment.
Ms. Crawley introduced the leadership members of the dive team and reported that the event was very successful. It
was the team's first group event since the pandemic, and they had 53 volunteers fill out paperwork to participate.
There were 27 divers and the dive was a huge community -building event for all who participated. She shared
photographs from the event, and explained that the team worked to be extraordinarily safe because they knew the
boats moored on the docks they were working on were quite expensive. For example, rather than working from the
middle of the docks, they made sure everyone entered and exited the water from the very end of the docks. No garbage
came up in the middle to avoid the risk of damage to boats.
Ms. Crawley shared photographs and described some of the complications that were found during the pre -dive. She
explained that the environment is very silty, and a lot of growth happens on the docks. She advised that divers were
instructed not to remove bottles if there was marine life living in them. There were huge trash piles under some of the
boats, and divers can only go under the docks to get the larger pieces so many times before getting silted out. She
reported that much of what was recovered was the usual trash that happens wherever there is people, and some likely
blew in off of the dock. There was a lot of single -use plastic, and the dumpsters provided by the Port were filled to
the brim.
Ms. Crawley advised that, as the team has grown, so have the people who have become involved in the events,
including local businesses and community groups. Team members came from as far away as Whidbey Island to help
clean up the Port and it has become an event to raise awareness about ocean pollution. The event was featured in My
Edmonds News. Planet Ocean launched in March, and the Port's cleanup events and the dive team were both featured
in the book. In addition, a short film and a website about the park was created during the pandemic to celebrate the
5011 anniversary of the City's Marine Preserve. The intent is to create awareness about what lives just below the
surface of the Salish Sea. She recalled the issues she first talked to the Port about many years ago regarding climate
change and its impacts on the world over, including Edmonds. She said she is grateful for the community partnerships
that are all engaged in the same mission and vision to have fun on the water, be safe and take care of it.
Commissioner Johnston thanked Ms. Crawley and her team for their fantastic work and stewardship of the very
valuable environment. It is great having her as a partner of the Port. He asked how long it takes for the silt to settle
before the divers can see well enough to continue cleaning an area. Ms. Crawley answered that it depends on how
much experience a diver has working in the silty environment. She said she went up and down 14 times during the
event, which lasted two hours. They only worked two of the three docks that were allocated for the event, and some
of the divers said they could have gone through the dock again. Based on the predive, the team targets certain areas.
Commissioner Faires said he was at the marina during the dive, and he complimented Ms. Crawley and her team for
their work.
Commissioner Orvis commented that, in addition to cleaning the marina and raising awareness, the event also provides
a marvelous way to help young people stay interested in diving. He said he would like to purchase copies of Ms.
Crawley's book, and she shared her contact information with the Commissioners.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 344
9.1.a
Ms. Crawley announced that, via a grant from a parent/leader group in Edmonds, she would be speaking to all of the
32 schools in Edmonds over the next few months about the "Underwater Backyard." The dream is to have community
engagement with the students from all of the schools. As the pandemic eases, she hopes the Port can learn more about
the community partnerships she is trying to forge. Commissioner Harris agreed to connect with Ms. Crawley to
discuss an opportunity for her to present at a Washington Public Port Association (WPPA) Environmental Committee
meeting. Ms. Crawley thanked the Port for its support and for being environmental leaders.
CONTINUATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 20-03 DECLARING LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Mr. McChesney reported that he has not taken any action under the temporary emergency authorities.
Commissioner Faires noted that Snohomish County may end up moving back to Phase 2 and suggested that the
resolution should remain in place for the time being. The remainder of the Commissioners concurred.
1 sT QUARTER 2021 PORT OPERATIONS REPORT
Mr. Baker presented the 1 S` Quarter 2021 Port Operations Report, highlighting the following:
Industry Context. Per the National Marine Manufacturer's Association, new boat sales reached a 13-year
high point in 2020, but inventory was down 20%. The average lead time for a new boat is six months. About
30% of the sales were to first-time buyers, which equates to about 100,000 new boaters entering the industry
over the last year. Commissioner Preston requested that Mr. Baker provide the numbers for Washington
State, and Mr. Baker agreed. Commissioner Orvis commented that the numbers are heartening because Paul
Sorenson has been forecasting lower boat sales for the past several years. Perhaps the long-term trend is
turning around. Mr. Baker agreed it will be interesting to review numbers for the 5-year cycle to see if people
stay interested in boating after five years. The Port will continue to focus on giving good customer
experiences and offering great facilities so that people are motivated to keep boating.
Operational Updates. The Operations Team devoted their project hours to dock roof and gutter cleaning,
cleat replacements and a lot of pressure washing. The wood railings on the south promenade and the
dumpster enclosures have been completed and look great. The Port purchased a new trailer dolly for Dry
Storage, which helps staff move trailers around the property safely and injury free. In addition, the Moorage
Team has worked to re -develop the reservation system to create a better customer experience. The new
procedure will offer email confirmations and Port information before arrival. The Destination Port of
Edmonds (DPOE) Program is also promoted in the new materials. Lastly, the cabling project at Marina
Operations resolved the network issues, and staff worked with Landau Associates to submit the Port's
renewal application for the General Boatyard Permit.
• Water Moorage. There were 17 terminations and 41 assignments during the V quarter. The waitlist has
251 total applications on file compared to 190 in the 15t quarter of 2020.
• Guest Moorage. The number of boats in Guest Moorage increased by 13% and the number of nights
increased by 29%. In 2020 there were 276 nights in the 1 st quarter compared to 357 in 2021. There were 27
more reservations, which accounted for 54 more nights. Commissioner Faires asked if staff has numbers for
the groups that chose the Port of Edmonds for their events. Mr. Baker responded that there was one in V
quarter 2021 versus three in 2020.
■ Document Compliance. The numbers for document compliance during the V quarter were 96% for
insurance and 90% for registration, 5-year highs in both categories. Commissioner Preston asked if parking
passes are withheld from tenants until they provide both registration and insurance documents, and Mr. Baker
answered affirmatively. He noted that registrations for federally -documented vessels now have the option to
renew for 5 year periods, but state registrations are only good for one year.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 345
9.1.a
• Dry Storage. Occupancy during I` quarter was 80% compared to 84% in 2020. All of the 51 trailer spaces
were occupied for the entire quarter. Launch activity was down 49% compared to the P quarter of 2020.
The washdown area was up 18%, total boat handling moves by forklifts decreased by 40%, and call -ahead
service usage was up 5%.
• Travelift and Boatyard. Travelift roundtrips increased by 88% and workyard stall usage was up 55%. Sling
time with pressure wash decreased by 30% and sling time with no pressure wash decreased by 24%. The
number of pressure wash treatments decreased by 5% compared to 2021. The Port offered the March Special
to tenants, and it was extremely popular this year.
Fuel Dock. Total gallons pumped decreased by 6%. Gasoline was down 22% and diesel increased by 39%.
Two main factors related to fuel sales is the lack of fishing opportunities and increased Puget Sound Express
activity. Pay -at -the -Pump usage accounted for 71% of the total gallons pumped in the 15t quarter of 2021
compared to 59% in 2020. The Port's average price for unleaded fuel was $3.49, which is just below the
area average. The average price for diesel fuel was $2.90 for diesel, which is slightly above. Commissioner
Faires asked how Puget Sound Express activity in 2021 compares to 2020, and Mr. Baker said that activity
appears to be slightly reduced (about 1 per day). However, he heard from the captain that the last trip that
went out was at capacity.
• Public Launch. There were 62 fewer round trips in 2021 and 20 fewer one-way launches. The lack of
fishing opportunities has a significant impact on the number of boats being launched.
• Events. The Seattle Boat Show was limited to a virtual event, with no in -person component. The Port had
a small presence during the event, with some general information about the marina. The Port co -sponsored
three safety seminars at the Edmonds Yacht Club. He attended all three, and they were very well organized
and participation was high.
0"' QUARTER 2021 HARBOR SQUARE REPORT
Ms. Williams presented the I't Quarter 2021 Harbor Square Report, highlighting the following:
• Accounting. Gross projected revenue was down 5.21% or roughly $27,000 over the same period in 2020.
Occupancy and Leases. The occupancy rate at the end of I" quarter was 89.63%, down 5.27% from the
occupancy rate of 94.9% in 2020. Two leases ended in Quarter 1. One was a business that shifted to working
from home rather than extending the lease, and the other was the brewery space that was turned over to a
new brewery tenant. There were two new leases, including the aforementioned brewery that did a 63-month
lease. There were also three lease extensions.
• Projects. Major projects for Quarter 1 included root removal from pavers outside of Building 1. The pavers
were pulled up, the roots were removed, and the pavers were reinstalled. The atrium windows on Building
4 are starting to leak, and they will eventually need to be replaced. To buy some more time, the windows
were resealed and a lip was installed over them so the water slides off rather than going into them. Sidewalk
grinding was done near Buildings 2 and 3, as well.
Ms. Williams shared that the Port received a nice note from the Edmonds Foodbank, thanking the Port for its
partnership. She said is she happy that the Port was able to partner with a local foodbank for the last food drive, and
she suggested they plan to do the same for the next one. Commissioner Orvis asked if the value of the Port's food
drive is such that it could occur more than just once a year. Could they have a continuous collection site? Ms.
Williams said she likes the idea of not just centering the event around the holidays since there is need throughout the
year. She agreed to discuss options with the Edmonds Foodbank, such as an official drop off site at a Port location.
Ms. Williams announced that the Port has signed on to become a partner collaborator with the Northwest Innovation
Resource Center and with a cohort, start-up accelerator they have planned with Maritime Blue. Maritime Blue is a
non-profit, strategic alliance for maritime innovation and sustainability that works to implement the blue economy
strategy delivered by the State's Maritime Innovation Advisory Council. As a partnership between industry, public
sector, research and training institutions and community organizations, the mission of Maritime Blue is to create a
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 346
9.1.a
world class, thriving and sustainable maritime industry through knowledge sharing, commercialization and business
and workforce development in Washington State. She explained that the Northwest Innovation Resource Center has
created a blue tech cohort comprised of partners across the state that can help entrepreneurs deployed by Maritime
Blue who are working on various innovative maritime projects. She advised that other ports nearby have joined, as
well, including the Ports of Everett, Skagit, Anacortes and Bellingham. The Port's involvement with entrepreneurs
and innovators could look like a number of different things. It could be a mentorship, providing an area at the marina
for a test project or simply referring potential participants to the cohort. A press release from the Northwest Innovation
Resource Center will go out shortly, and she will pass it along to the Commissioners.
IST QUARTER 2021 FINANCIAL REPORT
Ms. Drennan presented the 1" Quarter 2021 Financial Statements, providing a graph showing I` quarter revenues and
expenses for the past five years. She noted that revenues trended to approximately $2.2 million in 2019 and has stayed
there for the past few years. Expenses trended up to $1.7 million in 2019 and dropped to $1.5 million in 2021. She
advised that net income is generally trending upwards. Revenues were $47,000 less than budget, and expenses were
$234,000 less than budget. Gross profit for the 3-month period was $1.9 million, which was $37,000 less than budget.
Net income for the same period was $665,000. She highlighted the following:
Marina Operations Revenue Actual to Budget
• Net Fuel Sales were $27,000, which was $14,000 greater than budget. As fuel prices go up, the Port typically
does better as the Port is holding cheaper fuel in their tanks. As prices go down, the Port typically does worse
as the Port is holding more expensive fuel in their tanks. Prices are currently trending up.
• Net Guest Moorage revenue was $20,000 or $12,000 greater than budget.
• Permanent Moorage revenues was about $947,000, or $2,000 less than budget.
• Dry Storage revenue was $153,000 or $8,600 less than budget.
• Parking revenue was $10,500 or $14,000 less than budget. Due to the pandemic, there isn't a lot of parking
demand for the commuter parking area.
• Financial occupancy for permanent moorage was 96%, and 96% was budgeted for the year. Financial
occupancy for dry storage was 83% and 88% was budgeted for the year. Compared to the I" quarter in
previous years, Dry Storage revenue is higher than the past five years. It was down in the 1" quarter of 2020
because the Port decided to charge tenants the pay -per -move on their April statements due to limited hours
during the pandemic.
Rental Properties Revenue Actual to Budge
• Total Rental Property revenue was $650,000 or 4% less than budget.
Operating Expenses Actual to Budget
• Operating expenses before depreciation for the 3-month period were $1.1 million, which was $183,000 or
14% less than budget.
• Employee benefits were $177,000, or $12,000 less than budget.
• Repair and Maintenance expenses were $59,000 or $36,000 less than budget.
• Salaries and wages were $485,000 or $71,000 less than budget.
• Supplies were $48,000 or $37,000 less than budget.
• Utilities were $121,000 or $11,000 greater than budget.
Mari_na_Actual to Bud>ret
■ Revenues are trending upwards to a high of $1.4 million in 2021. Expenses trended up to almost $1.1 million
in 2019 and trended back down to $1 million in 2021.
• Net income is trending upwards.
■ Operating revenues were $5,000 less than budget and expenses were $181,000 less than budget.
• Operating revenues were $1,367,000, or $17,000 below budget.
• Operating expenses before depreciation and overhead were $611,000 or $104,000 less than budget.
• Net income was $377,000 or $177,000 greater than budget.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 347
9.1.a
Rental Property Actual to Budget,
• Operating revenues trended up to 2018, with a high of $738,000, and dropped to $649,000 in 2021. Expenses
don't appear to have a trend. However, 2017 through 2019 revenues are a bit misleading because rental
property was subsidized with property taxes during those years. If the subsidy is removed, revenues would
have been $624,000 in 2017, $695,000 in 2018 and $686,000 in 2019.
• Net income trended upwards to $345,000 in 2018, dropping to $288,000 in 2021. Without the property tax
subsidy, the net income would have been $174,000 in 2017, $302,000 in 2018, and $264,000 in 2019.
Actual to budget revenues were $30,000 less than budget and expenses were $41,000 less than budget.
• Operating revenues were $649,000 or $31,000 (5%) less than budget, and operating expenses before
depreciation and overhead were $147,000 or $13,000 less than budget.
• Net income was $288,000 or $10,000 greater than budget.
Ms. Drennan reviewed the investing summary, noting that as of March 31", the Port had 24 long-term investments.
The details of the Port's bond maturity and bond purchases was attached to the Staff Report. Cash and Investments
increased by $2.8 million in 2021. After calculating the other reserves, $1.7 million was added to the Capital
Replacement Reserve in the I" quarter of 2021. The Capital Replacement Reserve is currently $15.7 million, and the
Environmental Reserve is currently $1 million. The Public Amenities Reserve is $116,000. As bonds are being called
and maturing, the Port is retaining the funds in an interest -bearing account until the cost and funding for the
Administration Building and North Portwalk and Seawall Construction have been determined.
Commissioner Orvis requested more information about the interest -bearing account, and Ms. Drennan answered that
the interest on the account is low, but slightly better than the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), which is run
by the State Treasurer's office. They are currently getting .I I%, and the Port's account is currently getting .15% at
Washington Federal.
2020 ANNUAL REPORT
Ms. Drennan reviewed that staff presented the preliminary 2020 year-end financial statements at the February 22"d
Commission meeting. The financial statements attached to the Staff Report are presented in the format required by
the State of Washington and will be submitted to the State Auditor's Office in the week following the meeting. The
2020 Annual Report was provided to the Finance Committee on March 25", and it will be available on the Port's
website later in the week.
Ms. Drennan further reviewed that the 2020 Balance Sheet and Income Statement were presented on to the
Commission on February 22"d. She explained that the Statement of Net Position shows the same information as the
Balance Sheet, but may be presented a little differently. The Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund
Net Position shows the same data as the Income Statement, but is less detailed than the previous presentation. There
were no major changes to the Financial Statement numbers since the February 22nd meeting. However, minor changes
included moving an expense of $2,858 from 2020 to 2021 to match the warranty payment and reclassifying the
Building 3 construction rent abatement of $25,547 as an expense instead of a negative revenue. The total change to
net income was an increase of $2,858.
Ms. Drennan noted that one item that is not included in a typical financial statement is the Statement of Cash Flows.
This new document is presented on Page 12 of the Financial Statement and shows the sources and uses of cash (inflows
and outflows). Operating activities provided net cash of $3.4 million. She emphasized that it is important that
organizations regularly produce positive cash flows from operations because this is the daily activity.
Ms. Drennan reported that noncapital financing activities provided net cash of $406,000 and activities include
proceeds from property tax revenue and operating grants. Capital and related financing activities used net cash of just
under $1.5 million, and cash flows include purchases and construction of capital assets. Investing activities used net
cash of $1 million, and activities include the maturity and purchase of long-term investments and interest from the
Port's investments. Total cash increased by $1.3 million in 2020, as the Port increased its long-term investing. Total
cash and investments increased by $2.9 million. As per the Cash Flow Model, these funds were moved into the Capital
Replacement Reserve to pay for future capital maintenance.
Commissioner Johnston commended staff for an excellent result during a pandemic year.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 348
9.1.a
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. McChesney announced that the Port received a Letter of Completeness from the City of Edmonds for its
application submittal for the new Administration/Maintenance Building. This is a major milestone that takes the
project forward to the Architectural Design Board on June 2". The floor plan has been a bit of a problem, particularly
on the second floor where they have approximately 700 to 800 square feet of excess space. They are working to come
up with a configuration that is efficient and allows this space to be leased out. Three options will be presented to the
Commission for discussion at their retreat on May 121". He noted that most of the consultants will participate in the
retreat via Zoom.
Mr. McChesney reported that Earth Day was last week, and there was an event at the Edmonds Marsh on Saturday,
April 24".
Mr. McChesney said staff is working to re -energize the summer music program. They have met with Sea Jazz partners
and the School of Rock, and they are looking forward to coming alive on the waterfront this summer if the pandemic
has dissipated enough to allow it.
Ms. Drennan discussed the Port's redistricting program. Ms. Drennan advised that, typically, the Port receives
information in March, but the release date has been postponed until September because of the pandemic and anomalies
in the data. She said she doesn't anticipate the new districts will be in place for the fall election.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Preston said he looks forward to attending one of Ms. Crawley's Underwater Backyard presentations
at the schools in Edmonds. He also looks forward to the opportunities that might come from the effort.
Commissioner Preston said he attended the recent Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association (DEMA) meeting
where there was discussion about a variety of issues related to parking. He suggested that they think about the issue
differently, recognizing that it isn't likely that a parking garage will be built in Edmonds. Instead, they should consider
how to encourage other modes of transportation (bike, Uber, etc.). For example, he suggested that retailers take it
upon themselves to start training people how to use Uber and Lyft. The Port could do the same. He said he plans to
continue to push this idea with DEMA.
Commissioner Preston reported that he attended a recent Washington Public Port Association (WPPA) meeting, where
the State Auditor made a great presentation. He said he also attended an Edmonds Center for the Arts Finance Meeting
where they discussed a variety of funding options.
Commissioner Orvis said that, as he reviewed the payment activity, he noticed a bill for removing wildlife. He
requested more information about this expense. Mr. McChesney responded that the Port has an annual contract with
the Department of Agriculture to patrol the facilities and manage nuisance species that arrive seasonally (otters, birds,
etc.).
Commissioner Orvis announced that he would attend the virtual Washington Public Port Association's (WPPA) virtual
spring meeting.
Commissioner Orvis referred to an email from a tenant who was concerned about having to wait a long time at the
dock to purchase fuel for his boat. Commissioner Harris said she responded to the email and brought it to the attention
of staff. She noted that Mr. McChesney provided a written update for the Commission's information.
Commissioner Orvis provided a legislative report, specifically noting the following:
■ Anticipating tax revenue, federal aid and new taxes and fees, the legislature has a lot of money. They have
even swept the emergency reserve from the rainy -day fund, expecting it will be replaced by revenue from the
new capital gains tax.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 349
9.1.a
• Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) grants are now fully funded.
• The cap -and -trade bill is on its way to Governor Inslee. If signed, Washington and California will be the
only two states with a cap -and -trade.
• The low carbon fuel bill will require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by 2038. Both the cap -and -trade
and low carbon fuel bills are linked to a 5% gas tax. However, neither of the bills will go into effect absent
a major transportation package.
• The two-year transportation budget is quite lean, with little funding for new projects, and the Freight Mobility
Investment Board took some significant hits.
• The Boating Facilities Program received $14.8 million for grants to acquire and renovate boating facilities,
including upland boating support facilities.
• The budget includes $3 million for derelict vessel removal.
• There is $9.1 million available for projects located near state-owned aquatic lands. Mr. McChesney noted
that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) owns aquatic land under about half of the marina, and the
Port manages it under a Port Management Agreement.
• The house voted $40 million for CERB, the senate voted $25 million, and they compromised at $50 million.
Commissioner Faires reported on his attendance at the April 2111 Edmonds Economic Development Commission
(EDC) meeting where he learned that the City of Edmonds anticipates receiving approximately $10 million from the
American Rescue Plan. The criteria that will be applied by the Federal Government has not yet been published, and
the funds must be spent by the end of 2024. The funding primarily focuses on three infrastructure areas: water, sewer
and broadband. He asked if ports are included as potential beneficiaries of this plan, as well.
Commissioner Faires advised that Nicole Hughes, the president of the EDC, would like to meet with him,
Commissioner Harris and Mr. McChesney to discuss how the Port can be involved in the EDC's efforts to create a
waterfront development plan. He said he invited the EDC members to attend the Commission's retreat, where much
of the discussion will focus on the North Portwalk and Seawall and the Administration/Maintenance Building Projects.
Commissioner Johnston commended staff for another successful series of inspections from the Department of Ecology
(DOE) and the Snohomish County Health Department. Another clean bill of health is always welcome, and a sign
that the Port is doing what is should as good stewards of the environment.
Commissioner Johnston said he has participated in a number of the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County's
(EASC) Coffee Chats, and he particularly enjoyed the one that focused on the "Post Pandemic On -Line World." It
discussed how things will go forward as the area slowly recovers from the pandemic. It is anticipated there will be an
adjustment of office space and commuter travel for the mid to long term. An anticipated residual impact is that
approximately 25% of the population will no longer trust leadership's response to the pandemic enough and will likely
stay in a partial lockdown for a very long period of time.
Commissioner Johnston announced that he would attend the EASC's presentation relative to broadband access on
April 271h. Commissioner Preston advised that he would attend, as well. Commissioner Johnston advised that he
would attend the virtual WPPA Spring meeting, as well.
Commissioner Harris said she has also participated in a number of EASC Coffee Chats. She advised that she would
meet with Gayla Shoemake to brainstorm options to incorporate LEED Certification and solar into the
Administration/Maintenance Project. She also advised that she would meet with Council Member Buckschnis and
Daniel Johnson, CEO of the Waterfront Center, on Friday to discuss their experience with LEED.
Commissioner Harris advised that she has been working with the Sierra Club and the City regarding their land -
acknowledgement statements. She has been trying to connect with someone from the tribes to have some conversation,
as well. She hopes to present a recommendation to the Commission at some point in the future.
Commissioner Harris reported that she participated in the Waterfront Center's virtual grand opening event. She also
attended the Earth Day event at the Edmonds Marsh, where she had a good conversation with Greg Ferguson who has
done a lot of restoration at the Marsh. She was able to learn more about Safe Salmon's work with the City on
restoration efforts.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 350
9.1.a
The Commission cancelled the regular meeting on May 10". Instead, this meeting would be merged with the retreat
that is scheduled for May 121n
Council Member Olson announced that the City scored very well for two potential grants for the Marina Beach Park
Projects. It is likely that funding will be awarded for the projects if the City uses a more holistic, salmon recovery
approach.
Commissioner Faires asked if Council Member Olson could provide more information about the funding the City may
receive from the American Rescue Plan. Council Member Olson said she doesn't know the exact dollar amount, but
it will be significant, and multi -year. No decision has been made on how it will be spent, and she anticipates that City
stakeholders will have some input. She agreed to keep the Port advised.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Commissioner Harris announced that the Commission would recess into an Executive Session pursuant to RCW
42.30.110(l)(i) to discuss with legal counsel representing agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or
to discuss the legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing
body, or member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party. She advised that the Executive Session
would last approximately 30 minutes, and the Commission would resume the public portion of the meeting after the
Executive Session. She further advised that no action would be taken after the Executive Session, and the meeting
would be adjourned at the end of the Executive Session.
At 9:00 p.m., the Commission reconvened the regular meeting to announce that the executive session would be
extended until 9:45 p.m.
The Executive Session was adjourned at 9:45 p.m., and the business portion of the regular meeting was reconvened
immediately.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Johnston
Port Commission Secretary
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
April 26, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 351
9.1.b
,'s
AGENDA
Goo Lake Wash ington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
- WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council
* * Thursday, May 20, 2021, 2:00-4:15PM
W
M Virtual
x
Meeting Using Zoom
o
*See bottom
of agenda for meeting link and other
connection information
Meeting
Packet Page
1.
Welcome and Review Participants
John Stokes, Chair
2:00
Councilmember, City of Bellevue
2.
Public Comment
John Stokes
2:10
3.
Consent Agenda:
John Stokes
2:15
• Approval of Meeting Notes for March 18, 2021
3
4.
Updates & Committee Reports
7 Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz,
2:20
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager
5.
Letter on Proposed Asphalt Plant Along
Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
2:30
SR169 in Cedar River Basin (Decision)
Review and consider approval of draft letter from WRIA 8
Salmon Recovery Council to King County Department of
14
Local Services emphasizing consideration and avoidance of
potential adverse impacts to salmon and salmon habitat in
their review of permits for the proposed asphalt plant.
Cooperative Watershed Management 2021
Jason Wilkinson,
2:40
6.
Grant Round Funding Recommendations
WRIA 8 Projects and Funding
(Decision)
16
Coordinator
Review and consider approval of WRIA 8 Project
Subcommittee 2021 CWM grant funding recommendations.
7.
Draft 2022 WRIA 8 Budget and Work Plan
Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
3:20
(Information/Discussion)
31
Review and discuss draft 2022 budget and work plan
information, to inform Management Committee in
developing a recommendation for Council approval in July.
36
Affirm Management Committee membership.
a
1 of 43
Packet Pg. 352
9.1. b
8. Best Available Science Synthesis Report:
Lake Washington Ship Canal Temperature
and Dissolved Oxygen (Information/Discussion)
Hear a presentation on the recently completed report
synthesizing data and information on elevated temperature
and low dissolved oxygen in the Lake Washington Ship
Canal, which are known to adversely impact salmon
migration and survival. This report will serve as a scientific
foundation to support a roundtable process WRIA 8 is
convening with Long Live the Kings to engage entities with
jurisdiction in the Ship Canal to discuss and identify feasible
solutions to address these problems and improve conditions
for salmon.
Lauren Urgenson,
WRIA 8 Technical Coordir
9. I Adjourn I I All
Next Meeting: July 15, 2021, 2:00-4:15PM Virtual via Zoom
Link to join Zoom meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/e/82178356344
Meeting ID: 8217835 6344 / Or to join by phone, dial: 253-215-8782
TIPS FOR CONNECTING TO ZOOM
• Please arrive to the meeting on time, if not a couple of minutes ahead of the start time.
• Familiarize yourself with your computer's audio capability. If your computer has a
microphone, use it to connect with the Zoom audio. Otherwise, you will have an option to
call in using your phone after you enter the meeting. Even if your computer has a
microphone, have a phone handy and be prepared to use the call -by -phone prompts in case
the computer audio doesn't work. USE ONLY ONE AUDIO CONNECTION AT A TIME —
otherwise, feedback may result.
• To enter the meeting, click on the meeting links you received in the meeting invite (and on
the agenda). Your browser should prompt you to "Open Zoom." Chrome and Firefox are
preferred browsers for Zoom.
• Please remember to mute yourself when you are not talking (but remember to unmute
yourself when you do want to talk!)
• We encourage you to use your webcam and enable video so that we can see you and
connect with you as much as possible using this format.
• The chat function may be used to take questions during the meeting. Feel free to type
questions into the chat box.
2 of 43
Packet Pg. 353
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 Bruce Dodds
City of Clyde Hill
4)
CM Diane Buckshnis
City of Edmonds
5)
CM Victoria Hunt
City of Issaquah
6)
CM Melanie O'Cain
City of Kenmore
7)
CM Neal Black
City of Kirkland
8)
CM Lisa Anderl
City of Mercer Island
9)
CM Adam Morgan
City of Mill Creek
10)
CM Ryan Mclrvin
City of Renton
11)
CM Susan Boundy-Sanders
City of Woodinville
12)
CM Ted Frantz
Town of Hunts Point
13)
CM Carl Scandella
Town of Yarrow Point
14)
Corinne Helmer
Cedar River Council
15)
Larry Franks
Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH)
16)
Kirstin Haugen
King Conservation District
17)
Noel Gilbrough
Mid -Sound Fisheries Enchantment Group
18)
Tor Bell
Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
19)
Eric Adman
Sno-King Watershed Council
20)
Connie Grant
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
21)
Mary Shustov
Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts
22)
Cleo Neculae
Washington State Department of Ecology
23)
Stewart Reinbold
Washington State of Fish and Wildlife
24)
Jordanna Warneck
I Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Alternates
Present
25)
Jeanne Zornes, Deputy Mayor
City of Bothell
26)
CM Kim Muromoto
City of Clyde Hill
27)
CM Laura Johnson
City of Edmonds
28)
CM Lorri Bodi
City of Lake Forest Park
29)
Carol Volk
City of Seattle
30)
Josh Thompson
Snohomish County
31)
David Bain
Sno-King Watershed Council
Other
Attendees
32)
Cheryl Paston
City of Bellevue
33)
Christa Heller
City of Bellevue
34)
Janet Geer
City of Bothell
35)
Paul Crane
City of Everett
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 Coenen
City of Sammamish
44)
CM Tom Odell
City of Sammamish
a
3 of 43
Packet Pg. 354
9.1.b
45)
Diana Hart
City of Woodinville
46)
Kelly Steffen
Environmental Science Center
47)
Larry Reymann
Environmental Science Center
48)
Robin Kelley
Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH)
49)
Kayla Luft
Friends of North Creek Forest
50)
Eli Tome
Forterra
51)
Abby Hook
King County
52)
Denise Di Santo
King County
53)
Joan Lee
King County
54)
Judy Blanco
King County
55)
Sarah Heerhartz
Mid -Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
56)
Ben Saari
Mid -Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
57)
John Velimesis
NORFMA
58)
Hank Myers
Public
59)
Roger Urbaniak
Public
60)
Jim Vanden Brook
Public
61)
Alexandra Doty
Puget Sound Partnership
62)
Erika Harris
Puget Sound Regional Council
63)
Dani Kendall
Seattle Aquarium
64)
Ryika Hooshangi
Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts
65)
Whitney Neugebauer
Whale Scout
66)
Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager
67)
Jason Wilkinson
WRIA 8 Project Coordinator
68)
Lauren Urgenson
WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator
69)
Carla Nelson
WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator
1) Call to Order / Introductions
Councilmember (CM) John Stokes (Chair) called the March Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) meeting to
order at 2:02 pm. Chair Stokes welcomed everyone, conducted introductions.
11) Public Comment— No public comment.
III) Consent Agenda - SRC Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2021 were discussed.
Action: The Council unanimously approved the January 21, 2021 meeting minutes.
IV) Updates & Announcements
Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz (Jason M-K), WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager, highlighted the following updates
• Puget Sound regional update; new WRIA 8 logo; status of legislative priorities; four-year Work Plan
additions; 2021 grant round update; Lake Washington Ship Canal synthesis report on elevated water
temperature and low dissolved oxygen and next steps; and, Coastal watershed grant awarded to
Snohomish County's Meadowdale project.
At the end of the updates, CM Melanie O'Cain from the City of Kenmore addressed the Council to share that
the City has made salmon recovery and the environment a priority. She welcomes the opportunity to
partner with others to make significant improvements to conditions in the north end of Lake Washington.
Updates Discussion:
• CM Mark Phillips asked what determine the use of soft versus green shoreline armoring. Jason M-K
replied there are a gradation of soft/green shoreline alternatives that can be used as opposed to hard
armoring (i.e., bulkheads), and those are determined by site characteristics and conditions. Paul Crane
offered the term -living levees for armoring that uses riparian vegetation. CM Diane Buckshnis asked if
4 of 43
Packet Pg. 355
Jason M-K knew if ports commented on this issue, noting that the Port of Edmonds plans to build a
seawall. Jason answered that he is not aware of the ports' position.
• Chair Stokes asked for clarification of what it meant to be on the 4-Year Work Plan list? Jason M-K
clarified that the Work Plan is a near -term project list, which is used as an eligibility tool to help screen
projects seeking WRIA 8 grant funding.
CM Ted Frantz asked if there was more data available on the Ship Canal dissolved oxygen issue. Lauren
Urgenson replied that King County is monitoring the data made available by the Army Corps of
Engineers. She added that the report provides data that was not previously available on the biological
impact of dissolved oxygen.
CM Mark Phillips asked for more details on the Meadowdale Beach and Estuary Restoration project.
Jason M-K said the project received all permits and is set to begin construction in spring 2021. He added
how this project will get WRIA 8 close to its marine nearshore restoration goal. CM Diane Buckshnis
asked if Jason M-K could send the cost estimates and benefits on the project.
V) 2020 WRIA 8 Service Provider Client Survey —Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
Jason M-K presented the responses received on King County's 2020 WRIA 8 Service Provider Client
Satisfaction Survey, which is used to assess how the County performed as a Service Provider to WRIA 8
Discussion:
• Recognizing only 28 survey responses were received, Chair Stokes asked SRC members to send Jason
ideas to net more responses on future surveys.
VI) King County Clean Water Healthy Habitat (CWHH) Initiative — Abby Hook, King County
Abby Hook presented King County Executive Dow Constantine's Clean Water Healthy Habitat initiative. Abby
explained the importance for King County to create a central architecture to implement this work across
multiple departments and divisions, and expressed how the County is seeking opportunities where the
CWHH objectives, goals and measures will enhance work currently in place in watersheds, including salmon
recovery. She connected the key principles and strategies to salmon recovery, the importance of
partnerships and how CWHH focuses on centering people to benefit all marine species. She added that the
intent of the initiative is to shift how we work and invest resources to restore habitat and improve water
quality over the next 30 years.
Discussion:
• Noel Gilbrough asked why the tire residue contaminant poisoning fish via stormwater runoff was not on
the list of contaminants. Abby explained that the model used to inform the CWHH objectives was
released before the discovery of the tire contaminant impacted. She added more emerging chemicals
will be added to this list and will be published as the Plan is updated.
Susan Boundy-Sanders asked who is responsible for paying for repairs caused by septic failures? Abby
said those costs are a private landowner issue, but they are included since there is a regional need to
address this due to the bacterial contamination in waterways. Susan Boundy-Sanders asked if other
counties are in a similar position? Abby explained that there are large costs involved with some of these
water management issues. It is important for this issue to be widely discussed and the responsibility for
resolution will need to be shared. Abby articulated the importance of working through challenges to
determine net gain where you can.
CM Ted Frantz asked if it were possible to analyze the chemical components of runoff, adding that
environmentally friendly pesticides could be used in place of dangerous chemicals. Abby stated that the
focus of CWHH will be on source control to remove chemicals, so they do not get into stormwater. She
added that proper chemical disposal is a key message being communicated. CM Carl Scandella stated
that the chemical contaminants issue is an important one. He said that herbicides used to kill weeds
around Lake Washington should also be addressed. Abby agreed that there are numerous issues with
chemicals in the waterways; however, it requires state and federal intervention to remove these
5 of 43
Packet Pg. 356
contaminants from the shelves. She added that King County can provide the data to help push
legislation.
CM Tom Odell asked if King County could reinvigorate a public campaign about disposal?
Mary Shustov asked if a reduction of Nitrogen within Puget Sound would be a major benefit to salmon?
Abby said King County is looking at what kind of treatment can be done; however, there is a focus on
actions that have measurable dissolved oxygen outcomes. Chair Stokes noted it will be important for
the SRC to pay attention to these issues. Jason M-K concluded the discussion by stating that he is looking
forward to bringing emerging information regarding contaminants to the SRC later this year.
VII) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Strategic Plan — Lauren Urgenson, WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator and
Carla Nelson, WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator
Lauren Urgenson and Carla Nelson, WRIA 8 staff and Co -Chairs of the SRC's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Subcommittee presented the draft DEI Strategic Plan along with DEI Subcommittee members (Chairman
Stokes (Bellevue), Councilmember Buckshnis (Snohomish County), Councilmember O'Cain (Kenmore), David
Bain (Sno-King Watershed Council), Corrine Helmer (Cedar River Council), and Alexandra Doty (Puget Sound
Partnership). The Strategic Plan includes a vision statement, DEI goals, purpose and ground rules for the DEI
Subcommittee, DEI definitions and related terms, and an action framework.
The DEI Subcommittee's first action focused on strengthening DEI language and scoring criteria in the
Cooperative Watershed Management (CWM) and Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SFRB) supplemental
grant applications. Janet Credo, a member of King County's Equity and Social Justice Team, assisted the
Subcommittee in scoring the DEI criteria and provided feedback to project sponsors. The purpose of the
updated grant language and review is to advance our thinking on diversity and inclusivity in the review of
WRIA 8 projects to better reflect the watershed's diverse communities and support more equitable
outcomes for salmon recovery and people.
DitruSSinn -
• Using on-line survey technology, the SRC provided input on which goals in the strategic plan they are
most interested in working on and identified opportunities for advancing DEI principles in WRIA 8's
salmon recovery work.
Action: The SRC unanimously approved the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.
Vill) WRIA 8 Progress Report —Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
Jason M-K provided the SRC an overview of the 2020 Progress Report, produced as an online "StoryMap."
He described the content of the report and provided several highlights, including the next steps for WRIA 8
to advance salmon recovery efforts. The WRIA 8 team hopes the report format will enable partners to easily
review and use the information.
Ditrussinn-
• There were no questions or discussion.
IX) Next Meeting: Chair Stokes noted the next SRC meeting is May 20, 2021, 2:00 — 4:15 pm, via Zoom.
Meeting Adjourned at 4:11 pm.
6 of 43
Packet Pg. 357