2021-08-24 City Council - Full Agenda-2950Op E D
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
s71. ,HvREGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
AUGUST 24, 2021, 7:00 PM
THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN,
COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING REMOTELY, 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 REMOTELY 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*
THREE -MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS
CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 42.17A.555,
PUBLIC COMMENTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE STATEMENTS WHICH PROMOTE OR OPPOSE
CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OR BALLOT MEASURES, EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING SPECIFICALLY SCHEDULED FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 24, 2021
Page 1
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2021
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2021
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Gavin Hardwick
5. Resolution to Deny Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment Application
7. CONFIRMATION
1. Chief of Police - Appointment Confirmation and Employment Agreement (10 min)
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. Highway 99 Gateway Signs (30 min)
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Landmark Tree Ordinance Extension (45 min)
2. Continued Deliberation on the Planning Board recommendation to approve an amendment to
Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled "Outdoor Dining," and a related section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC (30
min)
3. Resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedure (30 min)
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min)
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 24, 2021
Page 2
6.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 17, 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:
08-17-2021 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
6.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
August 17, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (via Zoom)
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember (via Zoom)
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Council President Paine in
the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds and virtually.
2. INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION
1. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEW
Council President Paine explained this was an interview of an applicant for appointment Position #4,
Landscape Architect, on the Architectural Design Board. She introduced the applicant, Alex LeBouef
Brooks.
Ms. Brooks explained she is from the northwest but lived in the south for ten years. She and her husband
moved back in 2018. They moved to Edmonds to get away from the big city and they love the Edmonds
community. She works for the Artful Garden and has been on their design team for the last three years as
well as does some freelance work in the area. She would love to implement forward thinking, responsible
landscape design in the city she resides in. She was excited to see that the ADB recently approved a
project for a carbon filter for the municipal water facility by the ferry and she would like to be part of
projects like that in the future. Councilmembers interviewed Ms. Brooks (responses in italics):
Councilmember Buckshnis said a lot of issues can be handled with property planning. Tell me what you
think about small trees in view areas and design standards to help with the mitigation of stormwater. 1
specialize more in natives so would like to implement more natives. I like to stay away from small trees
that are more disease prone, choosing a more sustainable long term solution for small trees, desirably
natives in my opinion.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
6.1.a
Councilmember Olson thanked Ms. Brooks for extending her professional expertise to the City of
Edmonds and thanked her for volunteering.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not have any questions as Ms. Brooks looked well qualified
to serve on the ADB and the work she has done and her education will be quite beneficial.
Councilmember L. Johnson remarked Ms. Brooks' application indicated she was a former event planner,
something she has done as well. What stood out were her reasons for seeking this appointment, cleaner,
safer more sustainable and restorative She asked Ms. Brooks if she had three top ideas that the city or
individuals could do toward achieving those goals. Being more aware of all the hardscaping and parking
spaces and how much heat radiates off buildings. I live in downtown Edmonds on 5:h Avenue and there is
a lot of heat that radiates. Plantings that absorb heat would be one idea. Also with the recent heat waves,
implementing more ideas to combat that in a positive way and making it safer for people to work outside.
I also have an art background so I'm all about aesthetics. Edmonds is such as darling, beautiful little
seaside town and I would love to enhance the aesthetic of what we already have.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked Ms. Brooks to provide examples of forward thinking landscape
techniques from her previous work. In Nashville I focused on organic agriculture. When I moved to back
to the Northwest, I took on the ornamental horticulture role. Techniques would include implementing
more natives and drought tolerant plants that can withstand the heat and do not require excessive
irrigation.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the City will benefit greatly from Ms. Brooks' participation on the ADB.
She asked if she was a landscape architect. No, I am not a landscape architect; I am a landscape
designer. Councilmember K. Johnson said the position requires either a landscaper or a landscape
architect so Ms. Brooks qualifies as a landscaper.
Student Rep Roberts thanked Ms. Brooks for applying and her willingness to serve on the ADB.
Council President Paine commented she had reviewed the materials and believed Ms. Brooks would be a
terrific fit. The ADB does a lot of work for the City and she was grateful to have such an active group of
volunteers.
Council President Paine advised that Ms. Brooks' application was on the Consent Agenda for approval.
3. ADJOURN
With no further business, the special Council meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
6.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 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:
08-17-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 6
6.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
August 17, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (via Zoom)
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember (via Zoom)
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Whitney Rivera, Edmonds Municipal Court Judge
Uneek Maylor, Court Administrator
Dave Turley, Finance Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human
Services Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir.
Rob Chave, Acting Development Serv. Dir.
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection
with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present or participating virtually.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. JUNE FINANCIAL REPORTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 7
6.2.a
Finance Director Dave Turley reviewed:
• Summary of ARPA ordinance passed on July 20:
Account
Purpose
Destination
2021
2022
2023
2024
Amount
A
Edmonds Rescue
Expended by
$750,000
$--
$--
$--
$750,000
Plan City
the City
Expenditures
B
Household
Grants
1,000,000
1,000,000
500,000
500,000
3,000,000
Support
B
Utility Bill
Grants
150,000
--
--
--
150,000
Support
B
Housing Repair
Grants
$1,000,000
--
--
--
1,000,000
C
General Business
Expended by
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
200,000
Support
the City
C
Tourism Support
Expended by
75,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
300,000
the City
C
Small Business
Grants
500,000
125,000
--
--
625,000
Support
D
Edmonds Rescue
Grants
500,000
--
--
--
500,000
Plan Nonprofit
Org Support
E
Edmonds Rescue
Contracted
600,000
--
--
--
600,000
Plan Job
with Colleges
Retraining
Program
F
Edmonds Marsh
City Capital
--
190,000
491,157
--
681,157
Water Quality and
Expenditures
Flood Control
F
Lower Perrinville
City Capital
--
500,000
2,678,733
--
3,178,733
Creek
Expenditures
Realignment
F
Green Streets &
City Capital
--
400,000
508,209
--
908,209
Rain Gardens
Expenditures
Totals
$4,625,000
$2,340,000
$4,303,099
$625,000
$11,893,099
Items of note:
o General Fund Revenues are 3,244,011 ahead of this time last year and $2,085,728 ahead of
budget
o General Fund expenses are $65,592 higher than this time last year and $1,569,013 under
budget
o Sales tax revenue through July 1 is up $1,248,744 from the same point in time last year
o June REET revenues are $1,089,466 ahead of this time last year and $1,210,004 ahead of
budget
Sales tax revenues continue to exceed both 2020 actual receipts and 2021 budget receipts
o Graph of Sales and Use Tax - current year, budget and prior year
Sales tax update
o YTD July 2021 sales tax revenues of $5,699,002 are $1,248,744 (28%) higher than the YTD
amounts through July 2020
o Graph of change in sales tax revenue: July 2021 compared to July 2020
o After a year of severe reductions due to COVID 19 restrictions, taxable sales reported for
City of Edmonds bars and restaurants have shown drastic improvement in recent months,
with sales in March through May 2021 exceeding sales in those months during pre -pandemic
2019
o Graph of sales tax reported for sales made at "Food Services and Drinking Places" in the
months of November 2018 - May 2021
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 8
6.2.a
• REET Revenues
o In 2020 we received about $650,000 or 124% more in REET revenues than budget
o In 2021 we are on track to receive nearly $2 million or 175% more in REET revenues than
budgeted
o Graph of REET 2020 and 2021 cumulative amounts
Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Turley made a different presentation at the Finance Committee if
anyone wanted to watch that meeting. The financials are in the packet; she pointed out what a good job
staff is doing with the investment portfolio and the rate of return even in today's market.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments. In accordance with RCW 42.17A.55,
public comments shall not include statements which promote or oppose candidates for public office or
ballot measures except in the course of a public hearing specifically scheduled for such purposes.
Lynn Chelius, Edmonds, referred to the agenda item regarding returning to an all virtual meeting format
and urged the Council to retain the hybrid in-person/virtual meeting format. To vote otherwise is to annul
their responsibility at a time when Edmonds government needs to recapture transparency and
responsiveness to citizens' concerns. The Council needs to win back the public's confidence in their
ability to govern fairly and openly. Some sitting Councilmembers have struggled with and perhaps failed
to understand the reason for and importance of certain rules and procedures that serve to inform and
protect citizens. For instance, there were recently missing extended agendas, activities by some
Councilmembers serving on boards and commissions that are conflicts of interest, Councilmembers
abstaining from important but difficult votes, certain Councilmembers involved in serial meetings and
now a push to return to legislating in private. These long standing rules and procedures are extraordinary
important.
Ms. Chelius continued, rules and procedures give citizens notice of potential legislative action and time
for citizens to understand, research and discuss, provide transparency in government, protect citizens from
those on Council who promote their own personal interests ahead of Edmonds citizens' interest, give
notice of Councilmembers' positions which help citizens for whom to vote. Of all these long establish
protocols, perhaps the most important is the right of all citizens to stand in person in front of Council to
express their opinions and be present in Council chambers to actively observe Council in action as
codified in RCW 35A. Virtual Council meetings reduced citizen input to what are essentially voicemails,
routinely ignored. Safeguards are in place; masking, social distancing in seating and certainly
vaccinations. Whether the Council couches a return to all virtual meetings as an emergency or for public
health reasons, neither excuse justifies eliminating a process vital for honest and transparent government.
In about two weeks, she will return to a workspace filled with unvaccinated children; schools have taken
necessary precautions and will move forward because in -person school is so important. The citizens of
Edmonds expect no less from the Council.
Deborah Lobe, Edmonds, expressed her opposition to the portal. Reporting on a neighbor based on
political bias shows contempt and a lack of sense. A neighbor of understanding discusses issues with their
neighbor first, that is being a responsible neighbor. After Black Lives Matter Incorporated was used to
bully Edmonds citizens, it is clear the voice of the citizens are mocked. The portal is weaponized for
biased gossip, to bully the ugly White people and the businesses in the Edmonds Bowl. This cancer is and
must be dealt with now before it destroys this town and spreads to other cities. The definition of cancer is
a disease in which abnormal cells divide uncontrollably and destroy body tissue. There are policies from
King County that citizens of Edmonds do not want, policies biased toward citizens in the community. The
Code of Ethics talks about keeping the community informed on municipal affairs and encouraging
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 9
6.2.a
communications between citizens and all municipal officers, and emphasizing friendly and courteous
service to the public. There is nothing courteous about a biased portal. Judgment is biased on what people
say; this is done in communist countries. This portal is designed to create division. After seeing how well
the City is doing, she questioned whether Edmonds would continue to flourish economically if the portal
remains open. She watched Whatcom's Council and they do not act like Edmonds City Council. She
requested this issue be put on the agenda, stating we are a constitutional republic, not a democratic one.
Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, said she never thought a community of people speaking up at a Council
meeting would be chastised for exercising their 1" Amendment rights. Given the fact that citizens'
concerns are not being heard, they should not be surprised. The Council recently returned to in -person
meetings and there is a vote tonight to return to Zoom. As the governor is not mandating stay-at-home
orders, she questioned why masks are not sufficient to retain in -person meetings. She questioned why
government officials have audience comments during Council meetings if they don't really want to know
what the community cares about. Speaking out about her concerns about the illegal, unconstitutional hate
portal, as Mayor Nelson referred to it at the August 3' meeting, she realized her words don't matter and
it's clear the government has no interest in what citizens want. She questioned whether audience
comments were just for show and just to give the appearance that their voices matter. The government has
asked for civility at meetings; the problem is when they are perpetually given lip service.
Ms. Sjoblom continued, on July 27th there was a group of passionate people in the room and a great deal
of applause that was not recorded because apparently the microphone is very sensitive. There has been a
great deal of local public printed news that is not favorable of the government and it appears a law may
have been violated on August 3rd. She questioned why government was so defensive of citizens
expressing their thoughts, concerns and things they are passionate about, whether there was another
agenda that the public was not aware of. The answer is yes, the fact is the government is following the
playbook of the Seattle City Council, the governor and even the federal government through the United
Nations Agenda 21, an agenda that is global. She urged everyone to become familiar with Agenda 21 that
lays out the strategy of redevelopment and density using our tax dollars, giving developers years long tax
exempt status while the rest of the constituents carry that tax burden. Creating such density means the
standard of living goes down and crime goes up. She spoke with a police officer outside Edmonds today
who confirmed density increases crime.
Susan Hughes, Edmonds, said she had never attended a City Council meeting or been involved with
Edmonds politics until she attended the July 27' Council meeting to express her concern with the hate
portal. She was glad to see a large number of very passionate people in attendance to express their
concerns with the portal, upzoning, and Dayton Street. Many had specific reasons why the portal should
be removed such as increased distrust, government overreach, something seen in communist countries,
etc. There were Asian and Hispanic citizens stating they have never been discriminated against or seen
racism in Edmonds and even a woman from Romania pointing out the horrors the hate portal will create,
explaining how members of her family were killed for speaking the truth and fascism used by every
dictator. The Mayor and City Council had a great opportunity to hear concerned citizens and could have
planned to discuss the concerns, acknowledge the citizens and work to bring everyone together. Instead,
the Mayor made vindictive and false statements at the August 3rd meeting; she was appalled at what he
said. After relistening to every person that spoke on July 27t'r and reading the minutes, she relistened to
the Mayor's comments and realized he was gaslighting, taking comments out of context and making false
statements. The Mayor was shaming and bullying citizens in his comments.
Ms. Hughes quoted the Mayor, "packing of the Council Chamber was part of an organized effort by a
partisan campaign to bully and harass specific elected officials and City staff by a local City Council
candidate's campaign." Ms. Hughes said that was not true, not one person bullied or harassed anyone;
they expressed their concerns with the hate portal and stated it was communistic. She did not personally
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 10
6.2.a
know any of the Councilmembers or candidates running for Council, but the Mayor is trying to smear a
candidate. She recalled Mayor Nelson saying these candidates called us fascists, Nazis, communists;
commenting unless someone's name was portal, that did not happen, not one speaker called anyone
names. They said the hate portal was fascism like Nazi Germany and communistic. She recalled Mayor
Nelson saying an audience member identified the personal car driven by a Councilmember they targeted;
a man named Eric read a statement from a man named Rod who was unable to stay for the meeting; he
listed a number of concerns about the hate portal and stated Councilmember Fraley-Monillas in a
Facebook chat referred to people who in downtown Edmonds as a pack of rich, white people. He stated I
drive a Honda Accord and I'm a white male, I don't drive a yellow Corvette. She referred to Mayor
Nelson's comment that they repeatedly called out their opponent and the candidate's campaign manager
shouted and pointed from the podium that he was coming after Councilmembers. In fact, the comments
Eric read were posted on the wall behind the Council to remind them of their duty. Regarding the portal,
he said this is injustice which is why so many are present tonight and it needs to stop tonight. He pointed
out several Councilmembers' terms are up in the coming elections and said citizens are coming after
them. Ms. Hughes said she was fearful of the power the Mayor's was wielding with false statements and
is setting up an us, Edmonds citizens, versus them, the City Council.
Kathy Brewer, Edmonds, referred to the agenda item regarding suspending in -person Council meetings
for health and safety reasons and said this is a bad idea, not only for the City and citizens but especially
for democracy. Founding father James Madison stated in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the
government in person. It is crucial for Edmonds citizens to be allowed to participate in in -person Council
meeting and let their voices be heard. COVID no longer has to be a threat; most people have been
vaccinated, wear masks and are socially distanced in Council Chambers. She was unaware of any
infections due to in -person meetings that resumed on July 20t' and she attended the first two. Even with
the July 27t' meeting, which was a packed house with many unmasked, there are important issues being
discussed and decided and citizens have a right to fully participate and know they are being heard. The
vocal July 27t' meeting was an exhibit of pent up frustration and anger from citizens being blocked from
face-to-face interaction with their government for 1 %2 years while decisions continued to be made by
representatives, many against citizens' will. Citizens also expressed frustration with the lack of email
response from their representative; they do not feel heard. Going back to remote -only meetings will result
in more frustration and anger. She urged the Council to do the right thing — continue in -person meetings
and keep citizens healthy and safe with COVID protocols and ensure democracy is also healthy and safe
and flourishing in Edmonds.
Robin Wright, Edmonds, referred to herself as an uninformed citizen, having learned only a few weeks
ago about the Housing Commission and their proposals related to rezoning single family to multifamily.
She loves walking around Edmonds and through downtown because it is a peaceful, quiet neighborhood
setting and she anticipated bringing in a lot more people would change that, increase traffic, increase
crime and change the look and flavor of the neighborhoods. She referred to the cover letter and
questioned why the study was even done, whether it was a legal requirement for Growth Management or
just a whim to bring more growth to Edmonds because growth is always good. It also mentioned the
Commission did a lot of outreach to the community including surveys, focus groups and mailings. She
never heard anything about it and if she received a mailing, it went into the recycling. Due to COVID, a
lot of things have been shut down like the library where people may see a public notice or in the Beacon
which she noted is now a subscription. In talking with her neighbors, none of them knew anything about
it either. There are a lot of uninformed citizens like herself that would be very disappointed to hear about
this upzoning.
Janelle Cass, Edmonds, expressed her concerns about Council meetings returning to Zoom versus
remaining in -person per Item 9.2 on the agenda. Like many she appreciated the hard work done to
accommodate public viewing during the statewide lockdowns and the creative hybrid model that has
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 11
6.2.a
allowed the public to safely return to in -person participation while accommodating those who feel more
vulnerable to participate from home. Just as the Council had much to consider when returning to in -
person meetings, the Council has much to consider as concerns evolve around the delta variant. She
offered the following considerations for the Council's discussion:
1. It seems evident that residents are more apt to speak in person rather than on Zoom. Judging by
Councilmembers' reactions, she believed Councilmember were hearing them. It would be
worthwhile to include in tonight's discussion the data which she assumed Councilmembers have
of how many more people speak on average at in -person meetings versus Zoom.
2. Just like grocery store workers and first responders, Councilmembers being at meetings in -person
is essential to citizens. Government is of the people, for the people and by the people. What is left
when the people are taken out of the equation?
3. During this current term which started in January 2020, the public has only been able to engage
with this Council as a whole in -person for less than 20% of the time. When Councilmembers
don't get to see or hear citizens, she asked whether they were truly representing them. The lack of
personal engagement is reflective in many citizens' discontent in policies put forth by the
Council. Personal engagement is necessary to build a trust factor and create optimum outcomes
for Edmonds.
4. Rather than going back to Zoom as the only control measure, she encouraged the Council to reach
out to the many doctors, scientists and experts in Edmonds who willingly donate their time and
find additional safety measures to keep the public process in person.
Ms. Cass looked forward to the Council voting to retain in -person meetings.
Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said she was grateful to live in Edmonds. She referred to Agenda Item
9.2, Council Vote to Return Meetings to Virtual Platform in Lieu of In -Person Meetings, voicing her
concern that if this passed by a majority, it would seriously stop open communication with citizens of
Edmonds and negatively affect good government outcome. Too many important issues require residents
to be fully participating in the discussion to be relegated back to a call -in protocol where Council does not
see faces. Being in person makes an impact and is important. She requested Council vote no on this issue
as it will rescind full citizen involvement in the local government process. She suspected the return to
virtual meetings would pass based on the response from the Mayor and a majority on Council when
residents showed up to share their opinions on City issues in late July. She hoped everyone was able to
watch that video, especially the Council comments at the end of the meeting. If not, she urged citizens to
go to the City's website and watch the video of the July 27, 2021 Council meeting.
Ms. Anderson reminded everyone of the Mayor's reply in My Edmonds News to the notable participation
of residents in Edmonds on July 27t''. In short, he did not appear to appreciate in the least the public
comments as they ran contrary to his opinion. She supposed it will be argued that the need for the rollback
was due to the uptick in COVID cases, but she questioned whether the rollback would include City Hall
shutting its doors as well or was it just for public meetings involving residents, whether City employees
would be working from home again and if not, why not? The public is still allowed in grocery stores with
masks to ensure in -person access to food, but the Council is set to vote on not allowing residents in -
person access to their government. She questioned what made Council Chambers different than grocery
stores and restaurants, and why the same safety protocols approved by the State cannot continue for
Council Chambers. For the good of Edmonds, she urged the Council to vote no on this agenda item.
Tamara Murphy, Edmonds, concurred with every previous speaker, particularly regarding in -person
meetings. She applauded the Council for doing a hybrid. She attended the Zoom meetings, raised her
virtual hand for the entire meeting and was never called on, something the public cannot see because the
public's faces and interactions are not visible. It is very important to see one another, to hear from one
another and honestly to applaud one another. If she didn't come up and say she agreed with all the
previous statements, the Council would not necessarily know that. It would be wonderful if people could
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 12
6.2.a
express to the Council between speakers walking to the podium their approval or disapproval of what
someone has said. She felt that was very valid and important and she did not appreciate being shut up or
not called on in the Zoom meetings.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the Council's tree ordinance, an ordinance that requires
private property owners wishing to build homes in single family zones to purchase for a second time their
own trees from the City. Before property can be divided, tree roots removed or homes built, the Edmonds
City Council requires payment for 100% of the worth of a 24" or larger trees' timber and the perceived
carbon footprint value. It's an illegal taking of private property without compensation according to the 5t'
and 14' amendments of the United States Constitution. As an immigrant and a naturalized American
citizens, she treasures our country and the freedoms the constitution protects. The constitution was written
purposely to restrict governmental control, illegal takings and to ensure citizens' rights to own and use
their property for the purpose it is zoned for without penalty or overburdening with unfair taxes. She
questioned how the Council can pass an ordinance that breaks the laws of the constitution, burdening
those wishing to legally build single family homes on single family zoned properties. How can the
Council stand by this ordinance knowing it is illegal and not demand equal treatment for hardworking
people trying to fulfill the needs of the community? The only way they can build 3 homes on their 1.2
acres without these illegal tree fees is if they are able to retain 50% of the trees. Large trees will be only
10 feet from their homes and they will have to maintain 50 trees on each of the 1/3 acre lots after they
purchase and plant 1-3 trees for each tree removed. She questioned when they would see the sun.
Ms. Ferkingstad asked if the Council would require every single family zoned property with or without
homes in Edmonds to have 50 trees on their 1/3 acre properties and whether the Council willing to pay
$2000 for each tree that was less than 50 trees on their property. If not, the ordinance is not equitable and
is obviously targeting those who wish to build or purchase new homes in Edmonds. The tree ordinance is
embarrassing for the City, illegal, discriminatory and a bullying of private property owners who are
attempting to legally build much needed single family homes. She requested the Council revise the tree
ordinance to comply with the US Constitution and the Washington State GMA and review the tree code
written by neighboring Woodway after litigation forced them to comply with the GMA when they
attempted to restrict building and tree retention. She thanked the Council for listening and for working to
make laws equal for all those who currently and wish to live in Edmonds.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, relayed her understanding from the packet that the City is looking toward bond
financing to pay for capital and maintenance expenditures as well as take advantage of low interest rates.
She was supportive of the City increasing the use of low interest bonds to create transformational changes
in public works infrastructure to address the affects of climate change. She would also support the City
using bond money to support the enhancement of street sweeping programs with high efficiency
sweepers; this type of investment would help salmon recovery by removing tire dust before it enters the
stormwater system and help the City meet upcoming Phase 2 permitting requirements. If undertaken,
sweeping should occur throughout the City and not just places with curbs and gutters. She was not
supportive of allocating funds based on a 2018 maintenance needs report that has not been reevaluated to
account for lessons learned during the pandemic. The City should not look to a future where staff are
working the same way they did in 2018. She also did not support undertaking bonds that do not provide a
balanced benefit to the City as a whole; the City should identify and evaluate which areas benefit from the
work proposed for bond funding.
Ms. Seitz continued, Civic Center Park as well as funding the maintenance of buildings that serve a
limited geographic area such as Frances Anderson should be balanced with equitable earmarked funds for
other areas of the City proportional to population. Otherwise the City is just redistributing wealth using
her and others' tax dollars to pay the principal and interest to support the lifestyle of downtown
neighborhoods. Every decision is an opportunity to consider equity. She hoped the Council would take
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 13
6.2.a
action to ensure that this debt equitably benefitted all areas of the City. With regard to tree code
enforcement, she said as the City is considering regulating the maintenance of trees, significant
consideration should be given to how it will be enforced, specifically that people do not generally get
permits outside of development so there is no inherent mechanism to approach the City and the use of
aerial photography to support code enforcement has significant privacy concerns and legal implications
and neighbors reporting on neighbors is bad for social cohesion and has disproportional impacts on
certain communities. For these and other reasons, she did not believe regulating the maintenance of trees
on private property was a good path forward to promote trees on the urban landscape. She hoped the City
would abandon the maintenance regulation effort in support of incentivizing trees or considering trees as
public infrastructure burden that is shared by all areas of the City.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
8.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY , TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved
are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2021
4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 2021
5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GAVIN
HARDWICK
7. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
8. PFD FINANCIAL PRESENTATION
9. APPROVE CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWALS FOR COMCAST AND ZIPLY
10. CLASSIC CAR SHOW EVENT AGREEMENT
11. JUNE 2021 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
12. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.14 ECC CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES,
PARAPHERNALIA, POISONS AND TOXIC FUMES
1. EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT REORGANIZATION
Judge Whitney Rivera commented she had an opportunity to meet with most Councilmembers
individually. This was supposed to be a presentation by a three -person team including HR Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson and Court Administrator Uneek Maylor. Ms. Maylor gave her permission to share
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 14
6.2.a
that when she picked up her I I -year old son from camp, she learned he has COVID so she is quarantining
with him. She will participate tonight via Zoom. Judge Rivera reviewed:
• EMC Recent achievements
o Remaining open during COVID 19 pandemic and transitioning to a hybrid of remote and in -
person proceedings;
o Quickly navigating a changing landscape of criminal law and procedure; and
o EMC Probation Officer Omar Gamez named the 2021 Probation Officer of the Year by the
Washington State Misdemeanant Probation Association
Requests:
1. Create an Assistant Court Administrator position; replace the Clerk position that may be
vacated by the individual who becomes the Assistant Court Administrator;
2. Reclassify the Court Administrator;
3. Change the elected judge from 0.75 FTE to 1 FTE; and
4. Add an additional Clerk position to help with the relicensing program and other clerk
functions
Photographs
o Court during a pandemic
o File room turned into jury room
o Our amazing court clerks Julie (hired before 2020), Shannon and Tracie (hired in 2020), and
Katie (hired recently)
o Pre COVID and post COVID work stations for clerks, managing 13 open programs at once
o Positive jury surveys
#1: Assistant Court Administrator
o EMC is on the only court in Snohomish County that does not an Assistant Court
Administrator
o An Assistant Court Administrator will provide succession planning, depth, and continuity of
government in emergency situations
o In order to be in compliance with the State Auditor and Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) recommendations, need at least two levels to audit and track financial transactions
#2: Reclassify Court Administrator
o Change court administrator from NR-14 to NR-20
o Recent movement to change court administrator salary across the State of Washington
o If change approved and effective September 1, 2021, cost impact for 2021 is $9,752.16
(0.86% of budget)
0 2022 cost impact is $29,256.48 (2.57% of budget)
o Court Administrator Salaries
City
Low End Salary
High End Salary
Shoreline*
$170,119
$214,589
Kent
126,732
198,456
Tukwila
124,608
162,024
Lynnwood
119,743
171,120
Mountlake Terrace
1051849
149,582
Marysville
104,973
131,703
Des Moines
101,652
124,788
Issaquah
99,867
136,469
Kirkland
98,822
127,536
Bothell
97,281
124,375
Bremerton
94,200
115,008
Edmonds (current)
93,283
125,008
Puyallup
85,284
109,152
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 15
6.2.a
#3: Change Judge to 1 FTE
o Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) generates a Judicial Needs Estimate (JNE)
o JNE based on algorithm based on case filings, hearings held and dispositions
o Data taken from the five most recent years of caseload reports
o EMC JNE was 1.02 in 2019 and 0.96 in 2020
o The JNE did not include weekend booking reviews or search warrants (average of 102 search
warrants per year for last 3 years)
o JNE does not include administrative activities, non -case activity, and off -bench case activity
o If approved and effective September 1, 2021, cost impact for 2021 is $19,867.54 (1.74% of
budget)
0 2022 cost impact is $59,602.62 (5.23% of budget)
#4: Relicensing Clerk
o Court staff overworked and need additional assistance as we take over additional duties
o NR-7
o If approved and effective September 2, 2021, cost impact for 2021 is $23,184.48 (2.03% of
budget)
0 2022 cost impact is $69,553.44
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed his appreciation for how the extra position would support the
relicensing program. He asked how this could potentially restart community court in the future. Judge
Rivera answered it would absolutely help with community court. The contract has been signed for Unified
Payments (UP) and the court is in conversations about community court but that takes staff time. New
calendars are being added for those things especially a relicensing calendar, which requires when
someone gives their name, the clerks pull information regarding what is holding up their driver's license,
whether they need to make payments, etc., essentially preparing that calendar for any court action the
judge needs to take whether that is reducing fines, pulling them from collections, or setting up a payment
plan. The same is true for community court; there is so much coordination between vendors and
stakeholders, Ms. Maylor attends every stakeholder meeting, and the court needs staff to support that.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Judge Rivera for the update regarding the UP program. Judge
advised the court is completing an application as part of the Blake fix bill, there was money set aside for
courts of limited jurisdiction for therapeutic courts. Applications can be submitted beginning September 7
to secure funds to help prop up community court. She acknowledge Judge Coburn was a miracle worker
and did that on a shoestring; she wanted to get funds to support the vendors and people who participate in
community court.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed if the reorganization was approved as proposed, the total cost
for the rest of 2021 would be an increase of $86,000. She asked the increase in 2022. Judge Rivera agreed
the cost impact in 2021 was $86,329.98 and if all 4 requests are approved, the cost for 2022 would be
$258,989.94. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that was an extremely high amount and
budgeting has not even begun for 2022 so there are unknowns regarding where the City will be
financially and other asks. She observed the documentation supports the need for an assistant court
administrator and it has always been clear that a full-time judge is needed. She recalled the judge was half
time when she first joined the Council and was later increased to 0.75. With regard to the relicensing
clerk, she suggested hiring a temporary employee to get the Driving With License Suspended stuff
updated, as that was a lot of money moving forward.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Judge Coburn ran a fairly successful community court, and yes
it was on shoestring, she was part of the group that worked on it, but she was unsure where the money
would come from to support this request. She has expressed her angst to Judge Rivera with spending that
level of money, particularly when the 2022 budget is unknown. Judge Rivera said she was doing a needs
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 16
6.2.a
assessment for how she felt the court could best serve the community. She understood Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas' concerns, but she was trying to ensure the court's employees can serve the community
in the best way they can; that was her goal in providing this information.
Councilmember Olson thanked Judge Rivera for her patience and for answering her questions. She
listened in on the committee meeting and the information has been in the packet twice so she is very
familiar with the content of this request. She thanked Judge Rivera and the team and her predecessor for
doing so much with such a small amount of money. She observed the $260,000/year impact of this
request is a huge amount to swallow and it may not be possible to do it all at once although in her opinion
it was warranted based on the comparators. The hardest part of the request for her personally was the
assistant court administrator because it seemed like the reason was that a non -union person was needed to
do certain things when the court administrator was not there, but it did not seem like there would be many
times that the court administrator would not be present in that role. She suggested not funding that
position now, but planning for it in 1-2 years, and communicate that to the auditor. She thanked Judge
Rivera for the very complete packet. Judge Rivera relayed Councilmember Olson's questions helped
provide a more complete packet. She said Ms. Maylor would be able to describe the need for the assistant
court administrator; that recommendation came from an issue the court had and was something Judge
Coburn had been working with Finance and HR to address underlying concerns associated with not
having an assistant court administrator.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not have a problem with this request because the packet was
extremely well done. She asked if Judge Rivera looked at the positions and how poorly the positions are
funded. She did not understand the proposal to increase the court administrator 4-5 steps versus 2-3.
Judge Rivera agreed it was a big jump to increase the court administrator from NR14 to NR20. In
speaking with the court administrator and doing comparisons, that increase got the position closest to the
way court administrators are compensated in cities like Lynnwood and Tukwila. If Ms. Maylor had not
been here during all transitions, the court would have been a mess, but instead having all new staff was
seamless. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the job descriptions had changed drastically as well. Judge
Rivera answered the administrative officer of the courts and another organization developed a model job
description for the court administrators as part of the movement to properly compensate them as well as
part of an administrative rule passed at the state level about the level of continuing education and
professional training she needs to be eligible to keep that position.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were plans to do passports again and if so, who would handle
that. Judge Rivera answered her understanding was if this request was approved, one of the clerk
positions, the additional NR7 position could do passports again although they would need to complete a
process to get certified. With the way the court is currently set up, it would be impossible to do passports
again. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is a revenue source that could offset the funding request.
She recognized the increased workload, etc. and she supports the proposal. She thanked Judge Rivera for
the complete packet and the conversations and texts.
Council President Paine expressed appreciation for the discussions regarding this request. She asked for
an estimate of the amount spent on overtime in the past year to get all the court clerks up to speed. Ms.
Maylor answered there was approximately $18,000 in overtime at the beginning of the year for temps as
well as staff. All of the court staff changed other than Julie. She explained to the staff that overtime could
not continue or the court would be over budget so some duties are not being done for the public because
there are not enough staff hours. Judge Rivera commented on pandemic related cost savings such as
interpreters and court security overtime.
Council President Paine observed the court has a lot of backlog that needs to be input into the ACO's JNE
to continue to document and collect data regarding the work that is being done on the bench as well as in
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 17
6.2.a
the clerk's office. She wanted to ensure the court had the right people to do the work which includes the
relicensing clerk as well as reassigning an assistant court administrator so the higher level work is being
performed with adequate oversight. She observed some of the data that has not been collected over the
years is necessary to accurately estimate the court's needs. She expressed her appreciation for compiling
the documentation in the packet. She worked in courts for years and although she had not heard it said
explicitly, all the data documentation that needs to be done, the other work related to community court
and the relicensing program, also reduce jail costs. She acknowledged it was a lot of money but there will
be gains in efficiency and community response as well as a reduction in other parts of the budget.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Judge Rivera for meeting with her to go over each of these items in
detail. She asked Judge Rivera to highlight the projected impact to the court, the community and the
individual serving in the position if any of the four requests are not approved. Judge Rivera answered
employee retention and job satisfaction was one of her first priorities; it is important to retain staff to keep
the court functioning and working smoothly. She makes the rulings from the bench but multiple different
several steps follow. People who receive an infraction and come to court, it is important that they are
heard. She wants to be able to meet the community's needs as quickly and as accurately as possible. The
better the court operates, the better the community is in terms of safety and accountability. There has been
a backlog in terms of jury trials; a case called Gelinas said the way bench warrants had been issued for
decades violated the rules so 700 bench warrants had to be reviewed and the court clerks touched every
one of those cases. She put this request together with the focus on ensuring the people of Edmonds feel
confident with what is going on in their municipal court.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she also had some angst over the size of the request and preferred that it
be considered this as part of the 2022 budget process for the positions of judge, court administrator
assistant court administrator and court clerk replacing the clerk who will move to the assistant court
administrator.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO TABLE THIS REQUEST UNTIL OCTOBER WHEN THE 2022 BUDGET IS
PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Mr. Taraday advised no discussion was allowed on a motion to table.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ACCEPT THE PACKAGE AS PRESENTED THROUGH 2O21 WITH THE PLANS FOR A
BUDGET PROPOSAL TO BE COMING FROM THE COURT FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how this this will be paid for, from what fund, and potentially
what would be cut for 2022 to accommodate this. Finance Director Dave Turley answered Judge Rivera
and the HR Director worked on this and have not talked to Finance so consideration has not been given to
how it will be integrated it into the 2022 budget. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if it was
preliminary to pass a $250,000 budget item when consideration had not been given to where the funding
would come from.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, the motion was to approve $86,000 for 2021 which has
nothing to do with 2022. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' request, Council President Paine restated the motion:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 18
TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED TONIGHT FOR 2021 WITH A BUDGET
PROPOSAL COMING FROM COURT ADMINISTRATION FOR 2022 GOING THROUGH THE
NORMAL PROCESS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was okay with that and hoped Finance could take a look at it
prior to the 2022 budget process.
Councilmember Olson commented this was the first time this had come to full Council and she suggested
the Council complete deliberations and vote on it next week or the next time it can be put on the agenda.
Council President Paine advised it was presented via the committee process, vetted there and now there
had been a presentation and discussion tonight.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, commenting it was not vetted at the committee level.
The request to bring it back to committee the following month was bypassed and it was placed on the
agenda few weeks ago, but was not discussed because the Council ran out of time at that meeting. These
are very important issues and need to be represented truthful.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the motion due to the complete packet. It first came
to the Finance Committee on May 11, came to Council on July 20t'' but it was postponed due to the
lateness of the meeting and now it is being discussed on August 17t''. If there was not such a complete
packet, she would have apprehension about it. She acknowledged the Council did not touch it three times,
but the packet was very thorough and tonight would have been a third touch if it had been discussed on
July 20'.
Councilmember Olson clarified the agenda item that was presented at committee was quite different; this
is the first time it has been discussed with this packet of information. For something that is such a
significant amount of money, there is no downside to waiting an extra week as has been discussed in the
Rules of Procedure and that has been more of the Council's typical protocol with regard to how items are
handled. She concluded it warranted waiting to vote until next week. As a motion has already been made,
she encouraged Councilmembers to vote no and vote on it next week.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed this is a $258,000 perfect packet. It is quite a bit of money to
approve based on what is in the packet. She agreed it was a very complete packet, but she was not
comfortable moving forward. She pointed out it did not go to the Public Safety, Personnel and Planning
Committee who looks at job descriptions. Judge Rivera clarified the topic was not on the May 11'
committee meeting agenda; Ms. Maylor was planning for that date and that date was included in one of
the packets, but it was not actually on the May 11' Finance Committee agenda. With regard to job
descriptions, GR29 is explicit that job descriptions for the court staff remain in the judicial branch which
is why they did not go through a committee. The court has been navigating the separation of powers issue
while trying to provide Council as much information as they are used to receiving for these types of
requests which has been challenging. She wanted the Council to have all the information they needed to
move forward on the request, but also be cognizant of GR29 which does not allow delegation to the
executive branch.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked whether court costs have come from the General Fund in the past. Mr.
Turley answered the Municipal Court has always been paid out of the General Fund. Councilmember
Distelhorst observed the General Fund is currently $1.569 million underbudget in 2020 and General Fund
revenues are $2.085 over budget. Mr. Turley agreed.
Council President Paine said she was at the Council committee meeting covering for an absent
Councilmember when the presentation was made. She expressed support for the proposal in 2021 and
have it go through the typical budget process in 2022.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 19
6.2.a
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out if the Council only approves the proposal for this year, it sets the
stage for the next year by asking for a 25% salary increase for the judge, a 25% increase for the court
administrator, and new assistant court administrator and relicensing clerk positions. She felt it was
misleading to approve it for 2021 and then look at it again in October because if the positions are filled in
September, it sets the stage and she did not believe those new hires or new salaries could be undone. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday answered an elected official's salary cannot be lowered while the elected official is
in office; it can be increased. With regard to the other positions, he was not aware of anything that would
bind the City Council discretion with regard to lowering the salary of other non -elected judicial officers.
He invited the court staff to weigh in if that was incorrect. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the
decision the Council makes for September affects the following year. Mr. Taraday answered yes with
respect to the judge's salary but not necessarily the other court staff.
Councilmember Olson said Councilmember K. Johnson made a good point. When hiring new positions
and impacting other positions, there will follow-on impacts for subsequent years which is the reason the
annual impact was provided. She agreed the request was warranted and she preferred to phase it in, but it
did not sound like other Councilmembers were interested in that.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO PUT THIS ON CONSENT FOR NEXT WEEK.
Councilmember Olson observed Councilmembers can pull an item from Consent for additional discussion
with the Finance Director or if a Councilmember has specific concerns or want to make any changes. She
clarified her amendment, voting yes would move the item to the Consent Agenda, but discussion could
continue.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed confusion with the amendment. Mr. Taraday was uncertain the last
amendment has any effect beyond the main motion because if something does to Consent, by definition it
is not finalized and can be pulled and voted down. At the end of the day, the amendment is whether to put
it on the Consent Agenda.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Judge Rivera, 1) if she felt the court administrator was underpaid for
the work, experience and time put into the position, 2) if she found the .75 FTE adequate to fulfill her role
as municipal court judge or what does she feel is actually necessary to complete her role, and 3) what
does her role include as far as being on call on weekends, etc. Judge Rivera answered she felt the court
administrator was underpaid for the level of skill, subject matter expertise and knowledge. She felt quite
passionate about that request in terms of equity, parity and compensating her for the tremendous work she
does on behalf of the court. She felt equally passionate in ensuring the other court clerks continue
working for the court. With regard to the .75 FTE, she knew what Judge Coburn worked 60 hours/week at
a .75. As she was putting this packet together, that was something Ms. Maylor felt strongly about to
reflect the work the court does. It is a full-time job; she is on -call 24/7 to take phone calls for warrants and
to deal with issues that require immediate attention. If she were to prioritize the four requests, the lowest
priority would be the judge position because frankly she will keep doing what she is doing, but it has been
a 1.0 JNE in the five year look back. The judge's position is a full-time job and she is on -call all the time,
but it is a rewarding job and she wants to ensure she is surrounded by good people who are trying to
achieve the same purpose.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 20
6.2.a
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Judge Rivera for her approach, commenting it was also important to
recognize the work being done and to adequately compensate for it.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC
SECTION 20.75.045.11, ENTITLED UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION - APPLICABILITY
Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this is a continued public hearing from last month related to the
unit lot subdivision (ULS) proposal. He reviewed:
• What ULS does
o Allows for fee -simple ownership of a unit in a multifamily or mixed -use development
o Alternative to condo ownership
o Inserts parcel lines around units that have already received design review and building permit
approval
o Like condos, HOA and CC&Rs are required in ULS for operation and maintenance
• Examples of Existing ULS in Edmonds
o Hyde Park (212')
■ 12 attached units in the CG zone
■ Design approved by staff
■ Building permits approved by staff
■ ULS approved by Hearing Examiner
■ ULS added parcel lines around individual units
o Brackett's Corner (212' & 80')
■ 14 detached units in the RM-2.4 zone
■ Design approved by ADB
■ Building permits approved by staff
■ ULS approved by Hearing Examiner
■ ULS added parcel lines around individual units
o Ashwood Court (244')
■ 11 detached units in the RM-2.4 zone
■ Design approved by ADB
■ Building permits approved by staff
■ ULS approved by Hearing Examiner
■ ULS added parcel lines around individual units
What ULS does not do
o Does not change density (not an upzone)
o Does not change development standards for height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.
o Would not change how buildings are configured in the BD zones:
■ Ground floor dimensions and use
■ Parking
■ Open space
■ Design standards
Proposed ULS
o Pine Park
■ 14 attached units in the BD-3 zone
■ Design approved by ADB
■ Building permits will be approved by staff
■ Developer could file a condo plat at County (no City review) or ULS would have to be
approved by Hearing Examiner
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 21
6.2.a
■ If code change is denied, project could still be built
Recommendation
o Planning Board recommended approval of ULS in the BD Zones
o Proposal is consistent with the propose of the ULS code.
AApplicant
Jonathan Kurth, Edmonds, explained when this project first started, his mother-in-law reached out to a
Councilmember. She does a lot of volunteering at the farmer's market, museum and garden club and has
met many Councilmembers. He is a developer/builder, but his primary goal is to build homes that draw
community together. He went to school to study design that helps foster a building reacting with the
community. Edmonds is a perfect place for that, people can walk five minutes in any direction and live,
work and enjoy the entertainment. When the opportunity arose to work on this project, he reached out to a
Councilmember who put him in touch with a planning member and a staff member at the property to
discuss what could be done with the property and whether it needed to be another massive building of
apartments or condominiums. The planner had an idea of small townhomes with little shops. When he
asked if that could be done, the planner said yes, but they would need to be condominiums. His vision
was small owner -occupied shops with living space above, small buildings that would be more attainable
for buyers. One of the issues was condominiums would be the only way to own one of the units, a shop
with live above, a small urban European village type style. Their goal was small shops, not one big
retailer with residential above. They care about design and making it attainable.
Mr. Kurth displayed a massing diagram of an apartment building that could be built on the site with first
floor retail along 5t1i Avenue and residential above. He displayed another massing diagram with 14
townhouses where the units would be owned from the ground up with an HOA that controls everything.
He displayed a conceptual drawing of small shops with the owners living above. He reviewed:
• Amendment request will not:
o Increase density
o Change height limits
o Change what can currently be built
o Change construction standards
o Change the need for CC&Rs
• Edmonds Village — Townhomes
o 614-616 5t' Avenue S, Edmonds
• Amendment request will
o Provide more ownership options
o Lower mortgage loan costs
o Remove HOA fees
o Encourage small owner -occupied retail
Augustus McCloskey, Edmonds, said his family lives in the downtown area and have multiple small
businesses in the downtown area. He can be found on 3`d Avenue if anyone wants to discuss ULS. This is
a fantastic project already approved in the BD zone which allows the highest density in Edmonds. One of
the reasons he wanted to bring ULS to this project, which only changes the ownership of the unit, is to
bring affordability to the area. One of his businesses is lending; home ownership is much more expensive
for condos because condos can be withheld from homeownership based on how the HOA is managed,
HOA dues add a significant amount for consumers, and interest rates are higher. For example, if one of
the properties is sold for $750,000 with a 20% down payment as a condo, the payment with a $250 HOA
due would be approximately $3,365/month. If the exact same unit was sold as a ULS, fee simple
ownership instead of a condo, the payment would be $3,035/month, $330/month an Edmonds consumer
would save by allowing ULS versus condo ownership. Condo construction is more expensive, not due to
the quality of construction, but the legal costs of setting up the condo association, financial reserves, etc.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 22
6.2.a
There are also additional bank fees, liability insurance, etc., which increase the cost by approximately
10%.
Mr. McCloskey explained if the exact same property is delivered for 10% more, that is $75,000 more the
consumer has to pay for the exact same product. If the property costs $75,000 more, that is an additional
$375/month a condo owner will pay versus a ULS. This total increase simply to own it as a condo versus
a ULS is $700/month; it is almost 20% more expensive to own the exact same unit as a condo versus a fee
simple townhome. A homeowner could do a lot with $700/month such as donate it toward the
beautification of downtown, parks and community. Not only is it more expensive on a monthly basis, but
the down payment would increase by $1500 which represents 20% down on the additional $75,000 cost.
This change is important, but not just for them because they will build this project as a condo as the
zoning allows and has already been approved. Their project is actually lower density than the zone
allows; there are no density limit at all. They want to provide townhomes at a cheaper, more affordable
level.
Mr. Kurth said as a builder, he would build this at the same standard as the post office project. The
requirements are the same however the units are owned. There will be CC&Rs to help manage the
building and maintain the character and look.
Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, referred to a model he prepared to help everyone understand the possible
ramifications. The current code for this lot compels the developer to use ground floor to a depth of 45 feet
for business use. It also requires 5% green or open space. The developer is trying to avoid these
requirements by subdividing the lot which will allow him to build business space at a depth of 30 feet, a
33% reduction in business space. It also allows him to forego any green or open space. The space left for
business will be about 360 square feet or less, allowing for a foyer, stairs and ADA restroom. ULS would
allow for no restrictions on the back parcel with the front two buildings meeting the reduced code
requirement. This a slice and dice maneuver to maximize housing, diminish or delete businesses. There
are several challenges with this scenario. Up to 40 garbage and recycle bins will be placed on 5t' Avenue
South on pickup day, an unsightly hazard to pedestrian and cars trying to park. Parking is provided at the
bare minimum for backup and drive -by. If built out, the density of the current use will increase
dramatically. There are 20 cars minimum 24/7 and untold numbers of delivers to 14 dwellings. He urged
the Council to say no to ULS as it would not be a good thing for the downtown core. Just because it has
been allowed a handful of times in other parts of the city does not mean it should be allowed in the
downtown business district. Just because other cities are doing it doesn't mean Edmonds should do it. At
$800,000 to $1.2 million per unit, it does not create affordable housing, only expensive housing at the
expense of business space. He describes difficulties with putting out trash bins for pick-up.
Paul Gill, Edmonds, said after reading the materials and looking at the model, the public needs more
clarity with regard to how the language and terms are being used and sometimes bent to meet the code
and the expectations. He provided some examples, relaying his understanding the 15% landscaping
barrier between this project and the project to the immediately west will be reduced; the applicant's
rationale was the reduced barrier meets the intent because this project is multifamily and the adjacent
property is multifamily and the City agreed. The same applicant argued to the ADB about open space,
saying the site was zoned commercial and commercial zones don't require open space. He struggled to
see where the open space was located on this project, commenting he grew up in a place without open
space and the City should not go there. The applicant seems to be arguing that the blacktop space is open
space; if that is the case, that should be clear. He understood the applicant favored individual garbage
cans but that will result in a medieval shield of at least 28 cans along 5th the night before and on pickup
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 23
6.2.a
day. The units are termed live/work spaces but the public is confused whether that means residential or
businesses. The site is on the cusp of the business core, what is done here will set a precedence.
Jeff Paulson, Edmonds, said he loves his condo downtown. He suggested checking the applicant's math.
He referred to the visual effects of this building, commenting there was no space between each unit to
protect cars backing out so an extruded curb or cast -in -place curb would be required 3-4 feet behind the
building. Vehicles will be required to do a 3-5 point turn to exit rather than a 1-point turn. In the work he
does, they worry about caring for life when constructing things. Looking at the model, it is hard to
imaging they are caring for people's lives in this configuration. The two back units are unlikely to see any
sunlight, creating mold issues. Another unit will not get light until 10:30 a.m. Issues include vehicles
making delivers and their backup alarms, and no through path for fire engines to turn around.
Kathy Brewer, Edmonds, commented on how bad this ULS would be for the darling Edmonds
community. Her husband spent a lot of time developing the model because he knows having it built will
be a big mistake. Plans for the Baskins & Robbins site on 5' Avenue would contain 14 townhouse units,
have no green space and only 366 square feet of storefront designated for business space per unit for only
6 units as required for live/work. The 366 square feet drastically limits the type of business, possibly only
a home office. Once built, the townhomes could be used exclusively as housing; the 366 square feet
would provide a nice living room right on 5' Avenue. Requiring no green space, Pine Park would hardly
be a park; it would simply be structure and concrete with no vegetation. In addition, there will be 40
unsightly and cumbersome trash and recycle cans with no place to put them other than on the 5' Avenue
sidewalk blocking pedestrians and creating a safety hazard and eyesore. The alley is not a viable option as
there is no space and the cans would block access. This is a huge problem and absolutely should not be
allowed. The developer has a lot to gain so has been aggressive in getting the code changes passed. She
watched the May 5, 2021 ADB meeting where he threatens several times to build a large box if he doesn't
get his way. At the July 2"d City Council meeting, the staff member tried to sell this major code change,
referring to it a simple ask for the developer. This is not simple ask; it is a major ask for a major change
that would change a dangerous precedent for more to follow downtown and elsewhere in the City. When
the Council votes on Pine Park, she urged them to keep in mind that developers do not have the City's
best interest in mind, that is the Council's job. Developers' interest is making money for themselves; in
many cases they do not live here and will not have to live with the consequences like the residents of
Edmonds will. She urged the Council to vote for what is best for the City, not the developers, and
preserve the Edmonds business zone.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, President, Alliance for Citizens of Edmonds, explained the ULS code
amendment change has been requested by staff and a single private developer of a proposed 14-unit
townhouse development at 614/616 5t' Avenue South where there were previously two commercial
buildings. This will allow for an increase in housing density where the code language promoted larger
commercial uses on the ground floor. The proposed revision to the business district code language from
one developer in the 13D-3 zone has never included any detailed consideration of the impacts to one of the
larger business and job centers in this small town. If allowed, this code amendment will spread high
density townhouse development niche uses in lieu of larger commercial uses to the entire downtown
business district areas of BD1-5, five different zones in the small BD commercial district. She questioned
the result if these highly profitable, dense townhouse developments were allowed to squeeze out the entire
small business core.
Dr. Dotsch continued, referring to a presentation given to Verdant on housing by Mountlake Terrace
Senior Planner Edith Duttlinger. During her presentation, Ms. Duttlinger she shared that townhouses are
the primary development occurring in Mountlake Terrace and stated "townhomes, that is definitely a way
to substantially increase density." Removing commercial space to squeeze in more ULS housing units
removes the intended language in the BD zone to substantially increase housing density uses instead of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 24
6.2.a
commercial uses and job opportunities. Housing in the BD zones is secondary to businesses; this code
amendment will incentivize more developers, including this one, to develop only these currently "hot for
profit" dense housing units using ULS as its primary tool. At the end of Ms. Duttlinger's presentation, she
gave cautionary advice about townhouse developments, "When the community sees how that manifests
itself in the real world, they may be rethinking the design standards for these developments. How it looks
is one of the things that is key to any of these more intense developments. That is, how does it look? How
does it function? Not just can you build it." She requested the Council deny this piecemeal code
amendment and revisit it comprehensively in the future as part of the broader housing policy discussion.
It needs a much deeper look than just can you build it.
Kim Bayer-Augustavo, Edmonds, an ADB member, said she and another ADB member voted no on
this project; the final vote was 3-2. She voted no because she represents many concerned residents who
want to protect and preserve the City from becoming another Ballard or Shoreline by actively working to
stop changes or amendments to code that will forever the quality of life. We need to increase green and
open space, trees and vegetation and decrease the amount of concrete in the City. Open space will be lost
if the Council approves the proposed code amendment to allow ULS in the BD zone. Additionally, if the
Council approves the code amendment, they will be violating the City Comprehensive Plan. The gem of
Puget Sound is a phrase highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan; ULS will not support this description
because it allows developers to increase density where there will be more concrete by cheating the system
designed to protect open space. This is because developers will get around the 5% requirement of open
space by simply subdividing lots.
Ms. Bayer-Augustavo continued, once pandoras box is opened to this Seattle applicant to move forward
with his plan at the Baskin & Robbins site, it will approve expansion to do the same throughout all the
BD zones. If the Council approves this tonight, a transformed downtown Edmonds will quickly result
with less open space, higher density, more traffic, less parking and solid two-story buildings everywhere.
The second reason the Council needs to delay this vote is approving this amendment now creates a
piecemeal approach to managing increased density. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls out on
page 1 to avoid using a piecemeal approach, not to mention legal ramifications as this application process
is flawed based on several issues that Ken Reidy pointed out numerous times to staff, Council and Mayor
with little to no response. ULS needs to be delayed to ensure it fits within the overarching strategic
framework of a revised housing plan. This amendment should not stand alone. She requested the Council
do the right thing and vote no.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he has sent a lot of time over the years researching the code, trying to figure
it out. Everyone knows the code has needed to be updated since at least 2000; it is full of errors,
ambiguity, inconsistent references, references to repealed code sections, etc. When he heard about this
proposal, he looked at the code trying to find what governs the application for a code text amendment and
was unable to find it. He emailed City staff and Mr. Clugston provided him a link to ECDC 20.02.002
which he studied and noticed it clearly would not allow this applicant to submit this application because
they either had to be the property owner or have consent of all the property owners. After he made that
argument, Mr. Chave said that code section did not apply to this application. He asked Mr. Chave to
provide the applicable code section and has still not received it. He urged the Council to ensure there was
adopted legislation that allowed this applicant to make this specific application. He has been unable to
find it and staff has not provided it.
Robin Wright, Edmonds, identified herself as uninformed citizen, relaying she had just heard about this
tonight. She relayed her understanding this was not a condominium so there would be no HOA which
reduces fees. Without a HOA, she questioned how the property would be maintained. It seems like the
shops will be fairly small and she questioned what type of businesses would occupy the spaces.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 25
6.2.a
Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, said the presentation stated no HOA, but later said there would be. Without
a HOA there can be a lot of problem because people can do carte blanche. She also recalled there would
be no CC&Rs, expressing concern that would allow people to do whatever they want without regard to
the rest of the public.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, echoed some of the previous comments regarding the piecemeal approach to
amending the code. He reiterated the need to create a vision for the City and take a holistic approach
toward integrating values related to housing, the environment and other resources that citizens cherish
rather than a piecemeal approach. He encouraged the Council to step back, catch their breath, look at this
holistically, revisit and update the Comprehensive Plan with values in mind to provide a more cohesive
approach to planning growth. Growth is desirable but in a planned manner rather than the ad hoc manner
that seems prevalent in the last few years.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the ADB report. Mr. Clugston answered the ADB was a
separate decision; the ADB approved this project in May. That approval is not part of this proposal; the
focus of this amendment is solely whether to add the downtown business zones to the ULS code. The
project design was approved by the ADB and it was not appealed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked staff to respond to the comment about fire engines. Mr. Clugston
advised that was also a design question. This amendment is whether add the downtown business zones to
the ULS code. The project design has already been approved by the ADB. That was something that could
possibly be discussed in another forum but the project was approved by the ADB. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked if that would also apply to the open space and green space. Mr. Clugston answered
yes.
Council President Paine observed this has been described as a staff -supported code change, but it was her
understanding it had been proposed via an application process. Mr. Clugston answered the developer
applied for the code change, but as with any code change from the private sector, it is an iterative process.
A developer may propose language, staff considers it relative to the existing code and possibly other
changes that could be made at the same time, and discusses it with the Planning Board and City Council.
This developer wanted to apply it to the downtown business zones, there are other zones where
townhouses could be constructed so to staff it seemed reasonable to include those as well. The Planning
Board did not support that and recommended it only for the downtown business zones. When the ULS
process was originally adopted in 2017, the exact same process was used; a private applicant proposed
code, an iterative discussion followed, and the existing code was developed and approved. Council
President Paine observed this would apply to all the BD zones, not just BD3. Clugston answered yes.
Council President Paine asked whether this project would have an HOA and/or CC&Rs. Mr. Clugston
answered it would definitely have CC&Rs and an HOA just like a condominium association.
Councilmember L. Johnson found the insinuation that those who dwell in other than single family homes
and that they did not take the same pride in where they live offensive and discriminatory. She understood
that this addressed a change in the form of ownership and the potential benefits that come with fee simple
ownership. Her question was not specific to this project but to the slide that states ULS will not change
how building are classified in the BD and the bullet point regarding ground floor. It seems that having
multiple small retail/office spaces could eventually impact how buildings, specifically available retail
spaced in the BD-1 zone would be configured. She recalled staff indicated at the original public hearing
that there was an average of one ULS a year. Her concern with the potential limitation overall to the BD
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 26
6.2.a
zone which lead to her not supporting an overall zoning change. She asked staff to speak to that, the
change in how buildings are classified in the BD zone, specifically the ground floor portion.
Mr. Clugston responded the ground floor requirements are the same whether this building is owned fee
simple via ULS or via a condominium, there is no difference in how the building and the uses within
them operate; the code amendment would simply allow a different way to own the townhouse units.
Councilmember L. Johnson said there was an implication that there would not be an overall change to
buildings, retail, ground floor retail and available uses and that this would not impact the BD zone in the
future. She was not sure she agreed with that implication, anticipating it could impact what is available
and by allowing multiple very small retail/office spaces, there was nothing to ensure a balance and not
losing the potential for valuable retail space in the future.
Mr. McCloskey commented as one moved south on 5r' Avenue South, there is a high need for small self-
employed businesses like himself. He takes up approximately 350 square feet in an office on 3rd Avenue
South where he operates his mortgage and development businesses. There are several other businesses
that occupy approximately 300 square feet such as Elegant Gems on 5r' Avenue South, a psychic, a
Pilates studio, the froyo place, etc. As rents increase for 2,000-3,000 square foot spaces that cannot be
filled, this allows a more affordable alternative where a person can own the space and utilize it for their
business without worrying about their rent increasing to the point they can no longer operate in Edmonds'
business core.
Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave commented the choice of size of commercial space is
entirely up to the building owner and/or developer. There is no minimum space requirement in the
downtown zones. A lot of the buildings were built during a certain time and were divided in a certain way
but that changes over time depending on demand. This proponent has a particular configuration that is
allowed in the existing BD zones and nothing in the ULS would affect that if they chose to utilize it. The
ULS simply allows fee simple ownership rather than condominium-izing the same spaces. It is simply the
choice of the developer/building owner how they want to organize their spaces.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked staff to clarify in how many BD zones a similar project could be built
under the current code. Mr. Chave answered it was allowed anywhere in the BD zones. The BD zones
consistently have a depth requirement for commercial, but there is no requirement for how commercial
space is organized within that depth. Councilmember Distelhorst concluded a similar project could be
built in any of the BD zones tomorrow as a condominium. Mr. Chave agreed, stating he did not know of a
restriction that would prevent that. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the map on packet page 378,
pointing out approximately 60% of the multi -unit areas of downtown currently allow ULS. Mr. Clugston
agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked who Jacob Young was. Mr. McCloskey answered that was the architect
on record. Councilmember Buckshnis asked who the property owner was. Mr. Kurth said that was them.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was a signed application. Mr. Chave explained text amendments
affect a number of properties so there would never be someone who owned all the affected properties
proposing a text amendment; ownership is not part of the application requirement. Councilmember
Buckshnis relayed a citizen's question regarding why a SEPA was not done on this project. Mr. Clugston
answered SEPA was completed and a DNS was issued on April 28, 2021 and it was not appealed.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with a private person proposing this for one property and
then it is suddenly opened up to all the BD zones, especially when other Comprehensive Plan changes are
needed. She did not understand how this one development variance morphed into being applicable to all
the BD zones. Mr. Clugston said this is the same process that was used in 2017 when the original ULS
code was adopted. At that time, staff and Council did not consider applying it to the downtown zones. In
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 27
6.2.a
this iteration, this applicant has applied to do that. The Planning Board recommended approval of this
legislative code change. Mr. Chave advised there was no other way for the applicant to apply for ULS to
apply to their property. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if they could have done a variance. Mr. Chave
answered no, this was the only avenue they had to have that type of development available to them.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why it was not considered for only the BD-3 zone instead of all the BD
zones. She feared it could potentially change the entire look of the City. Mr. Chave did not agree with that
statement and said having it apply to only the BD-3 zone was an option available to the Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not support the proposed amendment at this juncture because she
felt updating the Comprehensive Plan was more important and that this was part of the housing strategy.
Councilmember Olson said when looking at the map, she would be more open to considering the 1313-3
zone only. For example, she had no interest in including the area by the 4" Avenue corridor. Her biggest
concern is the 5% open green space; 5% is really nothing to begin with and she did not want to give that
up. She was also concerned with having it both ways; if a developer wanted to have multifamily
characteristics or considerations granted, they didn't also get to use commercial standards for any part of
that project. It was one or the other because projects were thought out that way in code. The code did not
anticipate multifamily for one aspect and commercial for another. She anticipated there would be bad
results if a project was executed with that bipolar type scenario, noting that has happened in other projects
that she has personal knowledge of.
Councilmember Olson asked if the 5% open green space was provided on this project. Mr. Clugston
answered these are topics that would be better discussed in another forum because that decision has
already been made. It may be worthwhile to have a discussion about design standards in the BD zones
that were adopted in 2007. For the purpose of this item, the only issue is the ULS code change.
Councilmember Olson said she understood what he was saying but the relevance is if it were a condo, it
would have 5% open green space. Mr. Chave answered that was not accurate; the 5% open space
requirement was adopted in 2006 due to a concern with large buildings that took up half a block and the
City Council at the time did not want huge buildings without some sense of space. Townhomes are by
their nature much smaller than many of the buildings downtown that cover multiple lots. The Council did
not want new building with that bulk without some sense of open space. He could not think of any new
buildings that have been built since then where the 5% open space was invoked simply because the
buildings have been smaller. The 5% is not a blanket thing, that every building has to have 5% open green
space, that is where the 120' width of a building came in; it was aimed at very large bulky buildings and
the 5% would help break up the facade.
Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding of Mr. Chave's explanation that it was the outside
exterior of the edifice itself and not the size of the unit. Mr. Chave answered yes. He referred to the
building where the Cafe Louvre is downtown that has the cutout; that was the concept envisioned, some
type of inset or open space to break up the massing of very large buildings.
Councilmember Olson referred to the concern expressed related to trash cans, noting that would occur
with either ULS or condo. Mr. Clugston agreed. Mr. McCloskey said that was addressed in design
review; the trash cans cannot be located on 5' Avenue. Mr. Kurth said their goal will be to not have trash
cans on 5t1i Avenue; they are beginning to design the building and that will be worked out during design.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DENY THE PERMIT APPLICATION AS PRESENTED TO ADD UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION
TO THE ENTIRE BD DISTRICT.
Councilmember Olson suggested the Council not vote on this tonight. This is the second night of the
public hearing, the Council heard new things and she would like time to think about it.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 28
6.2.a
Councilmember K. Johnson commented it was not in the Rules and Procedures, but the Council had
instituted an informal or formal policy several years ago to not make a decision the night of a public
hearing to give citizens an opportunity to weigh in after the public hearing and allow Council to carefully
consider what they had heard. She did not support the proposed amendment, but would like to honor
Councilmember Olson's request to vote on it at a future meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO DENY AND PUT IT ON CONSENT NEXT WEEK.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained some Councilmembers want to think about this or hear from
citizens and moving the denial to the Consent Agenda will address that.
Council President Paine pointed out a resolution will need to be prepared and adopted. City Attorney Jeff
Mr. Taraday said a resolution would be required for denial and an ordinance for approval. Council
President Paine did not support the amendment to put it on the Consent Agenda because the resolution
will already be on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Olson commented this is a very significant process issue. This is a public hearing night
and the Council should not be voting. She did not want to vote either yes or no tonight.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there was a deadline for this decision. Mr. Clugston answered
no. He said it seems like there will be denial so it would make sense to make that motion so a resolution
could be prepared for next week's Consent Agenda.
Speaking to the issue of whether the Council has had enough time to consider this, Council President
Paine pointed out this is the second public hearing, Councilmembers have had adequate time to review
the project materials, discuss it with the community, do their research and ask questions. She encouraged
the Council to consider taking a vote tonight.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if there was an intent to make another motion to apply the proposed
amendment to only the BD-3 zone versus all BD zones.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented if that motion was made, she would need more information
and would find it difficult to vote on that tonight.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO, AND
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON ABSTAINING.
Mr. Taraday said notwithstanding the passage of the motion, the vote is not final until a resolution is
approved. He will prepare the resolution to deny the proposal and it will be on the Consent Agenda.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON AND SECONDED TO EXTEND
UNTIL 10:30 P.M.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 29
6.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that Item 9.1 was scheduled for 45 minutes and the motion
anticipated it would be concluded in 30 minutes. She has a lot of questions from citizens. Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services Deputy Director Shannon Burley anticipated she could get through it in
30 minutes, leaving time for questions.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON
VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
9. NEW BUSINESS
1. HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION UPDATE & SOCIAL WORKER CONTRACT
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Deputy Director Shannon Burley introduced Parks, Recreation,
Cultural Arts & Human, Services Director Angie Feser, Human Services Program Manager Mindy
Woods, and Charissa Westergard, Director of Healthcare Integration, Compass Health. Ms. Burley
explained they met with Councilmembers in groups of two and three and established priorities for the
Human Services Division which was moved into the Parks Department in April.
Ms. Burley reviewed:
• Human Services Division Priorities — Phase 1
o Social Worker in close connection with the Police Department but NOT how it was
historically implemented
o Provide more frequent updates to council on the Human Service Division
o Support for people in crisis (mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.) AND
separate coordinating services for those not yet in crisis
o Housing Preservation & Homelessness Prevention (affordable housing, planning, house
sharing, etc.)
o Update the Kone Report / make data driven decisions
• Human Services Division Priorities — Phase 2 (future)
o Grant procurement / department funding
o Services for youth (foster child transition, domestic violence education, vocational training)
o Increased hours for service coordination (disabled, veterans, food, shelter, resource guides,
computer help, etc.)
o Potential regional collaboration for 24/7 social worker availability
Human Services Division Update
o CARES Funding Recap
■ $1,130,000 — Small business grants to 147 Edmonds businesses
■ $580,000 — Housing and Supplementary Relief Program to 387 Edmonds households
- $338,563 — Rent
- $27,864 — Mortgage
- $4,413 — Medical
- $32,012 — Utility
- $139,255 — Food
- $1,625 — Childcare
- $1,000 — Other
■ $26,344 — Edmonds Food Bank to support purchase of a refrigerated truck
■ $37,500 — Development and implementation of LEAP (distance learning support
program)
■ $265,100 — COVID related city expenditures
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 30
6.2.a
o American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
■ Household Support - $4,150,000 (up to 40% of Edmonds Median Household Income)
■ General Support - housing, food, medical bills, childcare, internet, etc. - $3,000,000
- Utility Bill Support - $150,000
- Housing Repair Grants - $1,000,000
■ Business Support - $1,125,000
■ Non-profit Organization Support - $500,000
■ Job Retraining & Reskilling - $600,000
o Program Manager Update
■ Human Services Program Manager - hired April 2020
■ Responded and coordinated services for 125+ individuals
■ Oversees 5 long-term motel vouchers for Edmonds Emergency Shelter program through
Snohomish County
■ Coordinated warming shelter in Winter 2021
■ Represents Edmonds in numerous regional collaboration efforts
■ Supported creation of Human Services Resource Guide and gap analysis (ongoing)
■ Supported setup and communications for two City sponsored COVID testing sites, City
Sponsored Vaccine Pop-up for BiPoc residents and City Sponsored COVID Vaccine for
home bound seniors program
■ Coordinated mask distribution to low income families
■ Coordinated cooling and misting station during heat wave
Ms. Burley referred to emails Councilmembers received about individuals experiencing homelessness or
mental health crises, in particular a person on the Interurban Trail. As of today, that individual was
accepted into a long term shelter program. One of the challenges with human services is people may not
be ready to accept the options available and/or the reality is the available options aren't great. Ms. Woods
was able to work with a local nonprofit to ensure this individual received a long term hotel voucher with
wraparound mental health services in a program that will ensure that they are cared for until such time
they no longer need additional resources. She thanked Ms. Woods and the Police Department who was
instrumental in building a relationship with this individual. In the absent of a social worker, it is Ms.
Woods and the Police Department who build relationships.
Ms. Burley continued her presentation:
o Kone Report Update / Data /Driven Decisions
■ Kone Consulting Homelessness Study Update - executed contract (within spending
authority)
- Updated AMI Census Data released in September and December
- Report shared with Council in early 2022
■ Human Services Needs Assessment and Performance Measurement
- Proposal received, under review for 2022
- Included in 2022 budget proposal
• Dedicated Social Worker
o Social worker will have office space in Parks Department in Frances Anderson Center,
proactively reach out to citizens in need and provide support to Edmonds Police Department
as they encounter citizens who need support.
o Marty Smith Law requires crisis responders to be accompanied when responding to a private
home or location, Parks to work in collaboration with new Police Chief to ensure needs are
met.
o Will pursue grant funding for position once arrangement is established
• Compass Health Community Transitions
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 31
6.2.a
o Compass Health Community Transitions Program provides social workers to the cities of
Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace and South County Fire
o Proactive community engagement, visiting people, providing support and connection to
services
■ Seek to engage first time, might be the only time
■ If willing to engage, conduct a needs assessment
■ Start connecting them to resources
■ Ongoing engagement until they are connected to ongoing resources
o Crisis response, if unable to stabilize utilize crisis services through Snohomish County
Recommendation
o Approve professional services agreement with Compass Health to provide dedicated Social
Worker for remainder of 2021 and 12 months in 2022 (funded by Humans Services budget
allocation)
Human Services Next Steps
o Distribute ARPA funds for housing preservation and homelessness prevention
o Complete Human Services office in the Frances Anderson Center
o Partner with Snohomish County Domestic Violence Services to offer prevention classes for
teens, coaches and parents
o Apply for Grant funding for Social Worker & shelter solutions
o Develop position description and recruit for division administrative assistant
o Utilize data to support priority setting in the future
o Better understand support needed for youth (foster children, vocational training, etc.)
o Continue to work towards regional collaboration for 24/7 social worker availability
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for all the work that has been done, nothing this
position was approved in December and it is now almost September. It is beginning to be a crisis mode;
when she brought this issue up six years ago, there were homeless people but fewer than there are today.
Through the Kone report as well as the Police Department, it was clear it was more than just
homelessness; there are a lot of co -issues related to mental health, drug addiction, getting people into
programs, coordination with the court, etc. She lives within a couple blocks of the person Ms. Burley
described and was one of the people who brought the individual water and had conversations with them;
it was heartbreaking to see a person living on a park bench for weeks in the heat and rain. She pointed out
there are people sleeping at bus stops, at Safeway, etc. and many of them have co -issues such as mental
health. She agreed with partnering with Compass Health; she worked with them during her career and
they have a very solid reputation. This issue is at a pivotal point where it needs to move forward or it will
only get worse. Every Councilmember has received multiple emails from citizens about people in the
community who need help. She summarized where Seattle failed in this process was they did not start
providing services in the beginning and waited until it overran their city.
Councilmember Distelhorst voiced his great appreciation for the work that has been going on, especially
over the last 18ish months as well as the advocacy work done in prior years to get the part-time position
filled, but especially in the last 18 months and approving the first $100,000, folding in the CARES
funding, having this position and the $500,000 that was the Council's #1 budget priority for 2021. It has
been a really long journey and so important to finally address the needs in the community.
Council President Paine said she spent some time on the Community Transitions website and was
impressed with the program and she supported the social worker contract. Because all Councilmembers
have been contacted by community members asking for support rather than a referral to law enforcement
or Ms. Woods, it will be helpful to have a communication strategy. She concluded this has been an
amazing process and she was excited for the City.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 32
6.2.a
Councilmember L. Johnson offered a big thank you to Ms. Feser, Ms. Burley and Ms. Woods for
everything they have done to help community members most in need and for not giving up. She suspect
much of what they have done is above and beyond and goes unnoticed. This is how the rising challenges
and needs of those without housing and have other struggles are addressed. Given the urgency of the
work, which the Council is reminded of via daily emails, she fully supported moving forward with a
dedicated social worker as soon as possible.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
EXTEND 15 MINUTES TO 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received a lot of questions that she will forward to staff. The
largest question was the contract and how it was defined as behavioral health assistance services; this is
basically a social worker. Ms. Westergard answered it will be someone with a bachelor's degree, a BA,
BS or BSW, who has behavioral health experience. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has a
psychology degree and there are a variety of psychology degrees someone can get.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why it will not be 24/7 and only 8:30 — 5:00. Ms. Westergard explained
it is designed as a care coordination program; the idea is as people are connected to the right services, it
will divert crises and mitigate future crises. As a care coordination program, the services they are
connecting people to are open during business hours. The intent is not to duplicate what Snohomish
County does, they work closely with them when needed. If staff is doing care coordination and crises
services, they are not adequately devoting time to either; they cannot carry a caseload and devote enough
attention to people in their caseload with regard to care coordinating and needs because they are
responding to crises. They respond to crises for people they are already engaged in but it is ineffective to
try to do both. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for the 125 people Ms. Wood has
helped.
Councilmember Olson asked if the bachelor's degree would be in social work or social welfare or could it
be any bachelor's degree. Ms. Westergard answered the bachelor's degree would need to be in a
behavioral health related field. Councilmember Olson said input the Council received was that social
work and social welfare are different than psychology in terms of systems awareness and there was a
preference for that from someone who was in the know in this field. Ms. Westergard responded they have
these programs and a variety of staff with different emphases in their degree. What is important is their
skill set rather than their education; as long as they have a foundation related to behavioral health and
have the right skill set, they will be able to do the work. It is more about the fit of the person for the
position.
Councilmember Olson expressed her appreciation for the thought process that went into choosing
Compass. Knowing what is happening in other communities and having that overlap will be helpful. Ms.
Burley explained by partnering with Compass, the City is partnering with the organization. Although the
City will have an individual dedicated social worker, Compass has supervisors with MSW degrees and
experience that the social worker can draw on. Partnering with Compass expands the ability to deliver
services compared to hiring an individual.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE COMPASS HEALTH
AGREEMENT FOR BEHAVIOR HEALTH ASSISTANCE SERVICES SOCIAL WORKER AS
ATTACHED AS ITEM 9.1.B.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 33
6.2.a
2. COUNCIL VOTE TO RETURN MEETINGS TO VIRTUAL PLATFORM IN LIEU OF IN -
PERSON MEETINGS
Council President Paine said she asked to have this on the agenda tonight so the Council can consider
whether to return to Zoom only meetings due to the high rate of the delta virus and the lack of ICU beds
in the community. The packet includes the Snohomish Health Officer's August 10' directive related to
mandatory indoor masking. The packet also includes information on the number of people who are not
yet vaccinated and cannot be vaccinated which includes 125,000 people under the age of 12 who are not
eligible for vaccination. The Council also heard tonight about a staff member whose child contracted
COVID and she now has to quarantine.
Before tonight's meeting, Council President Paine said she sent Councilmembers an email with the ICU
statistics provided by the Health District via Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. There are 70 COVID
hospitalized in -patients; 93% of the ICU airborne isolation beds are full, 8 1 % of ICU non -isolation beds
are full, the net ICU occupancy is 86%, and 98% of other airborne isolation beds are full, 89 of 98 beds
are full in Snohomish County. She is proposing returning to a virtual platform because not only are
people required to wear masks indoors, but she also wanted the public to consider the resources available
to the community for any reason if they need hospital care. For the safety of the community and those
who are not able to be vaccinated or have not been vaccinated for whatever reason, she proposed the
Council consider returning to Zoom only meetings and discuss it again in approximately one month.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was in very frequent contact with the Health District and serves
on their Administrative Community so she knows what is going on, particularly in Snohomish County.
Every county health officer in the State of Washington signed a letter to the governor requesting that he
mandate masks inside, and outside if people are unable to socially distance. That is first step; the next step
will be the governor tighten down as he did before. She recommended the Council and everyone in the
Council Chambers continue to wear masks as it is unknown who is and is not vaccinated. Now there are
discussions about getting a third shot which some people with compromised immune systems have
already received. She suggested keeping sharp eyes on this, wearing masks in Council Chambers, and she
will keep everyone updated regarding what the governor does next.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
THAT WE RETURN TO ZOOM AND REVIEW AGAIN AT THE SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING.
Councilmember Olson recalled a citizen said it best, this is an essential service and should be one of the
very last things that would be taken away by necessity. She agreed everyone should be masking, noting
there was great cooperation from residents who were at the meeting today. It has been said by residents
that it's harder to ignore people when they are at Council meetings in person. She shared her own
personal experience, she listens carefully and pays a lot attention and cares, but the day where there was
an hour and 45 minutes of public comments in Council Chambers, it took her the next day to process
mentally and emotionally everything she had heard; people in -person at Council meetings have a greater
impact. She was not encouraging people to come in -person to Council meetings when they have reasons
why they shouldn't and was encouraging people to wear masks and be responsible for themselves and
others when they choose to come in -person. This is a critical part of the government process and she did
not think the Council should return to Zoom only meetings unless it was a true necessity. She did not
support the motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Olson's comments. She did not support the motion
and preferred to continue with a hybrid approach. If people feel they are compromised or are not
comfortable coming to Council meetings, they can participate via Zoom. She agreed Council meetings
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 34
6.2.a
were an essential service and that it adds depth when people speak in person. She recommended the
Council continue with a hybrid until more information is provided by the governor.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he is ridiculously concerned with how quickly the numbers are going up,
500% in basically 4 weeks, and hospitalizations usually lag cases by about 2 weeks. He wanted to ensure
staff, Councilmembers, and other people who come into Council Chambers are aware of all the options
they have to participate in City government without potentially putting themselves, their families and
children in harm's way. Many families have children who cannot get vaccinated; at the same time those
families need to send their kids to school so they can do their jobs. At some point the Council has a
fiduciary duty to the public health of the community to ensure staff, Councilmembers and children are
safe. He was greatly concerned when 100 people were at a meeting not wearing masks, when there were
160 cases from an outdoor festival including 20 from Snohomish County and there are two very large
outdoor festivals in Edmonds this weekend and the following weekend. If the Council stayed in
Chambers and maintained a hybrid option, he wanted people to be aware and not feel pressured to come
to Council Chambers and to make safe choices for themselves and their families. With the speed at which
this new variant travels through the community, it is not just a personal decision, but a community
decision. He reiterated cases have increased 500% in 4 weeks; the pandemic has been going on for 70
weeks and there have only been 5 weeks with a higher cases count than this week, making this essentially
the height of the pandemic. When new numbers come out next Monday, regardless of the decision the
Council makes tonight, he hoped everyone takes a very long look and think about the actions they are
taking. There are still at least 10,000 eligible Edmonds residents who are unvaccinated.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
With regard to the statement that Council meetings are an essential service, Councilmember L. Johnson
agreed with that, but pointed out surgeries and other procedures such as cancer treatment and other
lifesaving things are being canceled or put on hold because they do not have staff available. Most doctor's
appointments are telehealth now; the medical profession has shifted to do things in the safest manner
possible, setting an example that the Council should follow. She appreciated that it appeared more
audience members were wearing masks, but they and other Councilmembers took their masks off when
speaking. When people speak, respiration particles come out which is a potential exposure if a person's
mask is not worn the entire time. Everybody has their own story and reasons; she will consider her
reasons, her neighbor's reasons, staff's reasons, and everyone's reasons and do the right thing to keep the
entire community safe.
Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated what citizens have said about returning to in -person meetings.
There is a real advantage to seeing people when they are talking because when they are just a voice it is
not as easy to make a connection. However, these are very serious times and she also noticed that certain
Councilmembers and many members of the public took off their masks when they spoke. There are only
two people on the dais who have front facing shields; this is an airborne disease, so one cough or sneeze
can spread the virus. She supported the current hybrid model but would also support the Council returning
to a Zoom format to protect themselves and the public.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 35
6.2.a
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday provide an opinion about the portal. She
offered to share two examples she was provided where it has been misused and could be a liability to the
City. She recalled asking Tom Brubaker when he was the acting City attorney when Mr. Taraday on
vacation. She felt it was important for the City to provide an opinion because there is a privacy issue. She
relayed an instance where someone did it as joke and the person's name became public record and she
wanted to remove it.
Councilmember Olson announced a Marina Beach cleanup tomorrow from 9-12. Volunteers can register
at Reczone.org. She will be looking into process issues as she did not think the Council should vote on
nights when public hearings are held. She relayed vaccines are readily available at all pharmacies and at
Snohomish Health. She urged the public who not already been vaccinated to consider getting vaccinated.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her third request of the Council President to add Walkable Main
Street to a future agenda for discussion and possible public hearing.
Council President Paine commented this was the first time she had heard Councilmember K. Johnson
request. She relayed applications are being accepted for the Student Representation position, the deadline
is the end of the month.
Councilmember Distelhorst urged the public to get vaccinated, wear masks, and think about the decisions
they are making for the health of the community.
Student Representative Brooks commented decisions add up which is seen with the number of COVID
cases. He urged the public to get vaccinated, get a booster if it is recommended, and wear a mask.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson commented one of the differences with the delta variant is how it is impacting children.
There are more children hospitalized than ever before due to COVID and it will only get worse until
people get vaccinated. Many of these children do not have the option of being vaccinated because there is
not one available for them, including one of his own children. Everyone needs to be extra careful because
there are many people who do not have a say because they are not old enough, but are being impacted,
hospitalized and dying from COVID. The delta variant is the worse yet and this wave is likely to be the
worst one yet. He urged the public to take whatever precautions they can to protect their families and
people they spend time with.
[cam\ Ia1111J 711
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 36
6.2.a
Public Comment for 8/17/21 Council Meeting:
From: Bill Herzig
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:46 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision
The Citizens of Edmonds DO NOT WANT the entire BD zoning of Edmonds opened up for new types of
development.
Something that sweeping needs to be done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Please do not approve that requested change.
Thank you,
Bill Herzig
From: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 6:03 PM
To: votepetso; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob
<Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Private Code Amendment
Hi Lora,
I'll forward your request to Mr Clugston. The others are BCC'd.
Susan Paine, (she/her) M.P.A.
Edmonds City Council, position 6
425-361-8844
From: votepetso
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:56 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Private Code Amendment
Please make me a party of record on this issue.
In addition to the concerns set forth below, I believe the City has violated its own code, SEPA, and the
GMA in bungling the processing of this supposedly "private" code amendment. By labeling the proposal
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 37
6.2.a
as private, but then attempting to broaden it, the City has defeated my right to ongoing and continuous
notice and opportunity to participate. Thus, I submit this comment very late in the process, and without
a full understanding of the proposal(s).
As a resident impacted by any future development or redevelopment under this "private" amendment,
whether downtown (or even more so at Firdale Village), I urge you to limit your consideration to the
original parcel, if any valid application was even made for any parcel. If you wish to pursue the broader
proposal later, do it properly identified as staff proposal broadly applicable throughout the City. No
tricks.
Lora Petso
Other concerns:
(1) There is no property owner signature on the application, and way too many unidentified property
owners involved.
(2) If someone brings a LUPA, would the applicant then need to join all effected property owners in the
litigation. What a mess.
(3) City minutes suggest that this proposal would facilitate additional "vacant space under housing", and
do so in a way most likely to produce "low quality" structures. This is inconsistent with our
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, and our best interest.
(4) Can this proposal result in reduced open space, and if so, when was the SEPA analysis of potential
flooding or other environmental impacts from the reduction of open space performed, and how could
the public have commented on it?
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:11 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave,
Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Continue in -person council meetings
To Council Members and Mayor Nelson,
I am writing in response to this evening's (August 17th) Agenda Item 9.2: Council vote to return
meetings to virtual platform in lieu of in -person meetings.
"With the health and safety of all residents in mind, the Council is asked to consider returning to a
virtual meeting format instead of in -person in Council Chambers."
This is absolutely a bad idea! -- unfair to the citizens of Edmonds to fully participate in our
government. There are many crucial issues right now and citizens need to be included and
involved. Zoom is inadequate.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 38
6.2.a
Do not use Covid as an excuse. Most of us are vaccinated, we wear masks and socially distance. We
currently participate in -person in most all aspects of life and work. We should be allowed to fully
participate in -person in our government too.
There were no in -person council meetings for 1.5 years and it resulted in a lot of frustration and anger
which manifested in the July 27th meeting. If you shut down in -person meetings again while continuing
to make city changing decisions, more of this will result.
Do the right thing. Be fair to the citizens you represent. Continue Covid protocol and vote to continue
in -person meetings.
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 20214:09 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Taraday,
Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: Continued Public Hearing on private code amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled
Unit Lot Subdivision
Council,
I am writing in regards to: Continued Public Hearing on private code amendment to ECDC Section
20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision
I urge you to unanimously deny this "private code amendment" entitled "Unit Lot Subdivision".
There are many reasons to deny this amendment. Here are seven of them:
(1) There is NO signature on the application.
See page 390 in your packet, Property Owner's Authorization. There is NO "Property Owner's"
signature.
Ken Reidy's comment in response to a Councilmember's question was: "why would any City Council in
the history of Edmonds adopt a policy allowing somebody from outside of Edmonds who does not
own any property in Edmonds to apply for an amendment to OUR code? That makes no sense. In
addition, City staff has decided on its own to try and expand this Code Amendment across the entire BD
Zone."
Why was this application not considered incomplete, given that no owner of any property affected by
the proposed amendment is requesting this amendment?
(2) This proposed code amendment would affect property owners in the BD zone. Why have they not
been involved or consulted in any way?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 39
6.2.a
The May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes include the following:
"When this application was submitted, staff felt it reasonable to add two more zones where ground floor
multi -residential is an option, the Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone and a few parcels in the Office
Residential (OR) zone on Sunset."
As Ken Reidy has stated, "What staff "feels" is reasonable is irrelevant."
(3) Approving Unit Lot Subdivision would allow the developer to sell the units through a "fee simple"
arrangement.
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson's comment in the May 4, 2021 presentation of this amendment to
Council (p. 376 of your packet) was as follows:
"She anticipated it would be a challenge to sell those units with the expectation someone living above
will want to work downstairs or it will be the homeowner's responsibility to rent out the space. If it were
a condominium, that would be the developer's responsibility, but with a ULS, it will be the homeowner's
responsibility. That issue was not discussed by the Planning Board and is a key consideration."
And Planning Board member Nathan Monroe's comment on p. 382 of your packet:
"Board Member Monroe didn't disagree with the comments provided by Board Members Cloutier and
Cheung. However, he felt it would be entirely appropriate for the Board Members to consider the
potential consequences. They should acknowledge that condominiums are more difficult to build
because they come with strings attached and developers can be held responsible for poor quality. These
same requirements would not apply to ULS projects. The amendment would make ULS projects easier to
build, and they could presumably have worse quality. Even if the quality were the same, there would be
no recompense to sue the developer once they are done."
(4) The first page of the Comprehensive Plan speaks to avoiding a "piecemeal approach". This is
undeniably a "piecemeal approach" to development, and is therefore inconsistent with our
Comprehensive Plan.
(5) Currently, in the BD zone it is required that the developer retain 5% open space. If this proposed ULS
amendment is approved, the 5% open space would no longer apply.
Michelle Dotsch commented at the July 27, 2021 Public Hearing on this private ULS code amendment:
"The intent of the code is for open green space to be included for any development in the BD zone.
"With a project area of 17,160 square feet, 858 square feet of open space is required. However, if a lot
line is created, the project would then consist of two lots that are each less than 9,000 square feet. In
that case the 5% open space requirement would not apply."
(6) Despite the late hour of the first Public Hearing on this proposed private ULS code amendment,
SEVEN citizens commented, ALL of them in opposition to this private amendment to our code.
Unfortunately, none of these comments are in your packet.
There are more reasons, too numerous to list, to oppose this private amendment to our code, but I will
end with one final reason.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 40
6.2.a
(7) The Edmonds City Code has needed to be re -written since the year 2000. Many code errors have
been pointed out to Council, Mayor, City attorney and staff for many years. It would be irresponsible for
Council to adopt this code amendment given the numerous code errors that have never been corrected.
Again, I urge you to unanimously vote to deny this "private code amendment."
Regards,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Councilmember
Edmonds is a gift. Let's show our appreciation
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:53 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave,
Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision Baskin -Robbins Site
To Council Members,
Please vote NO to Pine Park and unit lot subdivision at the Baskin -Robbins site. This will have disastrous
consequences to our downtown business district. Allowing fourteen townhomes with minimal business
space -- only 400 square feet each per six townhomes -- will take away valuable business space to this
property and more to come if it passes. This will set a dangerous precedent in our downtown and
elsewhere where residential will dominate at the expense of business. We need business for a healthy,
viable city.
We also need green space and open space. Pine Park has no green space and the front doors open
directly onto the sidewalk with no entryway. Additionally, there is no space for the up to forty trash and
recycle cans needed (two each per townhome and two each per "business"). They will be sitting on our
Fifth Avenue sidewalk creating an eyesore and safety hazard for everyone.
There are so many other problems with this plan! Please do the right and sensible thing for Edmonds
and vote NO to protect and preserve our downtown business district!
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 2:24 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 41
6.2.a
Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the August 17, 2021 City Council Meeting
Please contrast the City of Edmonds with the City of Sea Tac.
The City Council for the City of Sea Tac has provided the following Written Public
Comment opportunities:
Submit Written Public Comment on any topic or Public Hearing Comment as applicable:
-Submit Email/Text comments by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting to the following email:
Public Comments on any topic: PublicComment@seatacwa.gov
Public Hearing Comments, as applicable: PublicHearingComment@seatacawa.gov
-Written comments on any topic will be provided to the City Council and mentioned by name and
subject during the meeting.
-Written Public Hearing Comments will be read into the record, up to 5 minutes in length.
-Written comments will be placed on the City's website for viewing after the meeting.
-Public comments submitted to an email address other than the ones provided above, or after the
deadline, will not be included as part of the record.
Why does Edmonds City Government fall so far short of what the City of Sea Tac has done as it relates
to Written Public Comment? Especially when better treatment has been requested for months and
months.
Remember when I provided you another example - the City of Anacortes use of e-comments.
As documented in my Public Comment for July 14, 2020 City Council Meeting:
The Governor's proclamation states
that meetings must provide the ability for all persons attending to hear each other at the same time.
Why hasn't Edmonds City Council made a greater effort to see that Written Public Comments are
heard?
Thank you.
From: Jason Rowsell
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 12:35 PM
To: kmills@snopac911.us; Dave.Somers@co.snohomish.wa.us; Adam.Fortney@snoco.org; HeraldNet
News Tips <newstips@heraldnet.com>; Cassie Franklin <CFranklin@everettwa.gov>
Cc: Emily.Langlie@usdoj.gov; Seattle.fbi@ic.fbi.gov; Lee, Tara (GOV) <Tara.Lee @gov.wa.gov>;
Engineering <Engineering@edmondswa.gov>; contact.council@snoco.org; john.batiste@wsp.wa.gov;
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 36
Packet Pg. 42
6.2.a
OPS mailbox <opsmail@wsp.wa.gov>; investigate@kiro7.com; 'investigate@kirotv.com'
<investigate@kirotv.com>; Nick Harper <NHarper@everettwa.gov>; council@kingcounty.gov
Subject: Poorly Trained Snoco PSAP employees causing public safety problems in South County
Hello,
Below is the unincorporated Everett address that most of your employees usually incorrectly dispatch
calls for to Edmonds (i.e. wrong Hampton Court).
115 124th St SE
Everett, WA 98208
This address has a long complex history of issues that most of the jerks on council want to sweep under
the carpet.
Have fun trying to do that now (hint: you may want to do a "brown bag' for county employees and
teach them what a FIPS CDP and LAT/LON cords. are). Maybe since County Council has caused this
problem, they should own it and fix it like adults (for a change), instead of trying to shift the blame
elsewhere (in their typical fasion)?
Jason
From: Kim Bayer
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff
<jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: City Council In -Person Meetings
Dear City Council and Mayor Nelson,
I'm writing to request you do not go back into hiding behind a zoom wall and allow our rights as
citizens to attend and participate in our City Council meetings in -person.
There is so much pent up angst and frustration with our city government because decisions are being
made without our ability to properly voice our support or concern. If you can't see someone speak,
because they are not allowed to be seen on screen, this puts citizens, the ones you were elected to
serve, at a complete disadvantage. It also prevents us from knowing who is calling on who to speak
during public comments. Holding only zoom meetings will continue to erode community trust and raise
even higher level of concern over the further lack of transparency.
After attending several zoom meetings during COVID, it appears it is up to the mayor to decide who
speaks and who doesn't. We know it is very easy to stack the deck with supporters of an agenda the
mayor and certain board members may want to approve, by allowing them to speak first before the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 37
Packet Pg. 43
6.2.a
agenda item comes to a close. This happened on zoom during the first public hearing of the CHC
policies.
City Council members, the meeting tonight (8/17) is your opportunity to begin to build back the trust
that has been lost. Don't use COVID as the excuse to silence citizen engagement. Ask for proof of
vaccination, mandatory masks and social distance but, don't shut us out. Zoom meetings are not
effective and are not fair to tax -paying residents who have a legal right to properly address the council
face to face.
Do the right thing,
Kim
Kim Bayer-Augustavo
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 7:00 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael
<Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen
<Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael
<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the August 17, 2021 Continued Public Hearing regarding private code
amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision
For weeks, I have been trying to find the City Code that governs the Development Code Amendment
process documented on City of Edmonds Handout #P23. City Employee Mike Clugston represented:
"Type V legislative decisions are described in ECDC 20.01 and application requirements in 20.02.002."
City Employee Rob Chave claims this is not true and that there is no limitation on who can apply since
Text Amendments are not Development Project Permit Applications governed by ECDC 20.02. Chave
claims that an applicant does not need to have an ownership interest in all affected properties.
Why the inconsistency?
If so, where is the City Code that proves an Edmonds City Council adopted this policy? I no longer have
time to prepare for tonight's continued Public Hearing. I am still unable to find the City Code that
governs this process. Handout #P23 titled Development Code Amendment clearly states near the
bottom of the page: This information should not be used as a substitute for City codes and
regulations.
Where are the City codes and regulations?
It has been easy to find this for other Cities and all the ones I have found limit WHO can make this type
of application.
One city, Spokane Valley, has detailed city codes and regulations for this type of application.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 38
Packet Pg. 44
6.2.a
Spokane Valley's Code includes the following:
Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the city
council, Commerce shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60-day
comment period. No later than 10 days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall
be forwarded to Commerce. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. 8), 2016).
Edmonds plans under the Growth Management Act. Are we required to notify the Washington State
Department of Commerce when adopting or amending our development regulations?
Please require City Staff to provide the City codes and regulations that governs this application for a
Code Text Amendment. Please also determine if the City of Edmonds is subject to the 60-day
notification requirement documented in the Spokane Valley City Code.
Finally, the last thing we want is for our City Staff to try and expand Piecemeal Code Amendments
over a broader area of the City. I hope the 2021 City Council will immediately adopt legislation
preventing City Staff from attempting to expand code text amendments beyond the property address
the application relates to.
Thank you.
From: HELEN HALL
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 20214:07 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item: Virtual Council Meetings vs In -Person Council Meetings
There are many important issues coming before the Council and the Citizens of Edmonds need to have
open meetings to be involved in those issues. In -person meetings should continue if issues impacting
our community are to be brought to the table.
Recently you heard from the citizens through public comments at in -person meetings. It is very clear we
expect to be part of the solution and decision -making in important issues affecting Edmonds. The
people have a right to be heard and to get involved in issues that impact their monetary investments in
property/homes, daily life, and future taxes.
I understand any concern you may have regarding COVID-19. However, if the Council decides to go to
virtual meeting, the important issues of the day (e.g.,Housing and zoning proposals) should be put "on
Hold" until in -person meetings resume. The Housing and Zoning proposals should not be rushed and
there is no reason to rush them through. A slow process that considers the wishes and needs of the
community is the logical approach.
Do not exclude the Voters of this town from being directly involved in creating the future of our
community.
cc: publiccomment@edmondswa.gov
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 39
Packet Pg. 45
6.2.a
From: Dick McManus
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Retail sales of fireworks banned!
In June 1967 President Johnson planned to nuke Cairo and came very close to doing so.
By 1954, CIA boss James Jesus Angleton was the only person authorized to talk to Israeli intelligence
MOSSAD. He began helping Israel build its atomic bomb. In 1978, John Hadden, a former colleague of
Angleton, presented evidence as to how Israel stole nuclear material from the United States
government on Angleton's watch.
Angleton had regular professional and personal contact with at least six men aware of Israel's secret
plan to build a bomb. From Asher Ben-Natan to Amos de Shalit to Isser Harel to Meir Amit to Moshe
Dayan to Yval Ne'eman, his friends were involved in the building of Israel's nuclear arsenal. If he learned
anything of the secret program at Dimona, he reported very little of it. If he didn't ask questions about
Israel's actions, he wasn't doing his job. Instead of supporting U.S. nuclear security policy, he ignored it.
Angleton thought collaboration with the Israeli intelligence services was more important. And the
results proved his point, he believed. When Angleton started as chief of the Counterintelligence Staff in
1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington. The failure of the U.S.
nonproliferation policy to prevent the introduction of nuclear weapons to the Middle East in the 1960s
is part of Angleton's legacy. A friend of Angleton, Meir Amit was the head of Israel's Mossad. Amit said,
"He was the biggest Zionist of the lot."
In February 1976 the CIA briefed senior staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about the
matter, stating that the CIA believed the missing highly enriched uranium went to Israel. The NRC
informed the White House, leading to President-elect Carter being briefed about the investigation.
Carter asked for an assessment by his National Security Advisor, whose staff concluded "The CIA case is
persuasive. Israel received 206 pounds (93 kg) or more of highly enriched uranium from NUMEC in the
suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Author Joan Mellen writes that during the 1960's "Angleton handled the Israeli desk for CIA and she
believes it was Angleton who would view Israel's instigation of the Six Day War as necessary to protect
Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona. Mellen uncovered the fact that it was Angelton who "sabotaged John
F. Kennedy's policy to send international inspectors to Dimona, where false walls were erected,
elevators hidden, and dummy installations built to conceal evidence of the nuclear weapons
program. She also writes that Angleton went to President Eisenhower requesting permission to
assassinate Abdel Nasser. Nasser was one of the two principal leaders, spanning Nasser's presidency of
Egypt from 1956, to his death in 1970. (Source: Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen) https://spartacus-
educational.com/JFKmellenJ.htm
Great Britain and France were still the predominant Western powers in the region, yet a nationalist anti -
colonial wind was blowing, especially in Egypt. Eisenhower wanted the Arabs to stand with Washington
against Moscow, he'd have to get on their good side.
Eisenhower was in a tough spot, though, since America's traditional allies were still colonial powers.
Britain and France had drawn most of the Middle East's borders Nasser was fast becoming a leader in
region -wide Arab politics, and Eisenhower wanted what remained of the British Empire out of Egypt
entirely.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 40
Packet Pg. 46
6.2.a
Nasser put up a front by alleging he wanted US military aid and help in training his military, but instead
he was getting arms and help from the USSR. Having done such a good job pretending to be pro -
American, Nasser was given a world -class radio broadcasting network that allowed him to speak to the
entire Arab world. Nasser used it to broadcast virulently anti-American propaganda. Nasser was the first
revolutionary leader in the postwar Middle East to call for removing monarchs. Suddenly the Hashemite
monarchy in Iraq and Jordan found themselves sitting atop a volcano of popular
unrest. https://iournals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016667449
Ephraim Evron, the Minister of the Israeli Embassy in Washington in 1967, served with Israel's
Ambassador to the US, Avraham Harman and he view Johnson as a hero. President Johnson frequently
invited Evron to his Texas ranch. Several Zionists, namely Arthur and Mathilde Krim, Arthur Goldberg,
the Rostow brothers, Abe Feinberg has access to Johnson. Evron and Harman, Harry McPherson, Special
Counsel in the White House, served as a link between Johnson and the country's Jewish population and
represented their interests.
Evron greatly admired Johnson and regarded him as the greatest thing that had ever happened to
America for the "social revolution" that Johnson was "going to achieve." He believed that Johnson,
Israel's best friend, would never do anything that would hurt Israel. Johnson's affection for Jews and
Israel had more to do with their votes and financial support than sentimentality or principles. The very
generous US Jewish community, amounting to 5.5 million, supported Johnson's divisive Vietnam
policies.
John Hadden was urgently summoned to meet with Mossad Director Meir Amit on May 25,
1967. Hadden was serving in Tel Aviv as CIA's chief of station. Meir Amit simply went around Hadden
and obtained what he later characterized as a "flickering green light" from the LBJ administration to
attack Egypt. https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2014/06/23/death-of-the-masked-men/
So pervasive was the influence of Israel's supporters during Johnson's tenure that CIA Director Richard
Helms believed there was no important US secret affecting Israel that the Israeli government did not
know about in this period. The Johnson administration's supporters of Israel included McGeorge Bundy,
Clark Clifford, Arthur Goldberg, Harry McPherson, John Roche, the Rostow brothers, Walt and Eugene,
and Ben Wattenberg. Beyond the administration's supporters of Israel, one of Johnson's closest informal
advisers was Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, another warm friend of Israel's. Two of Johnson's
closest outside advisers were Abraham Feinberg and Arthur B. Krim, both strong supporters of Israel.
John P. Roche, an avid supporter of Israel, wrote Johnson's speech regarding the Straits of Tiran, which
he delivered in May 1967. Johnson promised continued support and help in re -opening the Straits of
Tiran, previously closed to Israel by Egypt. Israel had a port to the Gulf of Aqaba.
In June 1, 1967, when he returned with his "friend" Mathilde Krim who remained at the White House
with Johnson for the next week. When his aides informed him of the beginning of the war on the
morning of June 5, Johnson revealed this information to Mathilde Krim. Official records indicate that
Mathilde passed documents from Israel directly to Johnson over the duration of the crisis. Johnson did
not meet with his advisors, except Walt Rostow, or any Israeli or Arab officials during the duration of
the very short war; he knew exactly what was going on with the Israelis due to his intimate relationship
with Mathilde Krim.
On May 23, 1967, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Cyrus R. Vance instructed, Captain William L.
McGonagle, of the USS Liberty, to head for the eastern Mediterranean. Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. was
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 41
Packet Pg. 47
6.2.a
the Commander -in -Chief of the US Navy in Europe. He was responsible for the special operations being
done by the USS Liberty. Frank Raven, the G Group Chief resisted such a risky move, "The ship will be
defenseless out there if war breaks out. Admiral David L. McDonald was not told this ship had been
ordered by Cyrus Vance.
James Ennes, a member of the Liberty's crew, said the ship's mission was not to spy on the Israelis or the
British, but rather to intercept communications confirming Soviet pilots were flying Egypt's air force
fleet of Soviet -built Tu-95 bombers.
Among all of the papers about the Liberty there is one dated April 10, 1967 stamped — SECRET— EYES
ONLY. That document was "sanitized" in December 1988. It was apparently the minutes from a meeting
on April 7, 1967 that included Walt Rostow (National Security Advisor), Ambassador Foy Kohler (Deputy
Under Secretary of State), Cyrus Vance (Deputy Secretary of Defense), and Admiral Rufus Taylor (CIA
Deputy Chief). These guys formed the "303 Committee" which recommended covert operation to
President Johnson. This mission was labeled, "Frontlet 615." It was furthered defined as, "A secret
political agreement in 1966 by which Israel and the US had vowed to destroy Abdel) Nasser. The military
name for the operation was "Operation Cyanide."
An event specifically designed to create a limited nuclear war by blaming the sinking the US signals
intelligence spy ship, the USS Liberty on the USSR or Egypt. After which US Navy A-4 Skyhawk jets would
be ordered to fire precision guided air -to -ground missiles armed with a 1.8 mega ton warhead in an
attempt to kill Nasser in Cairo. The blast from each of these atom bombs would have flatten everything
in a radius of four to six miles and burnt up everything in a radius of seven to 14 miles. This attempted
US preventive nuclear war would have likely cause the Soviets to retaliate in kind. This is an example of
how much even in 1967 that the US worried about the continuation of the supply of oil and natural gas
being imported from the Middle East.
(Source: Blood in the Water: How the US and Israel Conspired in the Ambush of the USS Liberty by Joan
Mellen.
https://nationaIvanguard.org/2015/04/the-most-incredible-story-never-told-Ibis-order-to-destroy-the-
u ss-I i be rty/
The nuclear -powered submarine USS Andrew Jackson sailed into the Mediterranean Sea under the USS
Liberty. Sailing under a surface ship is one way for a submarine to avoid detection. This was carrying 16
Polaris A-2 nuclear ballistic missiles.
David G. Nes the charge d'affaires and the acting ambassador at the US Embassy in Cairo was warned to
expect an imminent bombing attack on Cairo by US planes. At once, Nes ordered the destruction of
sensitive documents. There were 500 to 600 Americans resident in Cairo.
On June 4, 1967 the Cabinet authorized the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense to decide on
pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Mordechai Bentov, a member of Israel's coalition cabinet during the
war, said, "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been
blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories."
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 42
Packet Pg. 48
6.2.a
In 1982 Menachem Begin, then Israel's Prime Minister, admitted, "The Egyptian army concentrations in
the Sinai approaches do (did) not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest
with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Egyptian airfields. Nearly the
entire Egyptian Air Force was destroyed with few Israeli losses, giving Israel the advantage of air
supremacy. Simultaneously, Israeli forces launched a ground offensive into the Egyptian -occupied Gaza
Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. The Egyptians Army was also caught by surprise.
By evening of June 5th, the Jordanian Air Force was also largely destroyed and by the second day, two
thirds of Syria's air force had been destroyed.
The Israelis continued to pursue and inflict heavy losses on the retreating Egyptian forces,
and conquered the entire Sinai Peninsula. Western media portrayed the conflict as a defensive war of
survival. Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian militaries, suffered over 20,000 troops killed while Israel lost
fewer than 1,000 of its own troops.
Melvin A. Goodman, as a junior analyst at the CIA, helped draft a report that described Israel's attack
against Egypt on the morning of June 5, 1967. There were sensitive communications intercepts that
documented Israeli preparations for an attack, and no evidence of an Egyptian battle plan. The Israelis
had been clamoring about indications of Egyptian preparations for an invasion, but Goodman said the
CIA had no sign of Egyptian readiness in terms of its air or armored power. Egypt was judged to be
unlikely to start a war with Israel while half of its army was tied down fighting in a civil war in Yemen.
The CIA had the benefit of satellite photography that showed Egyptian planes parked on airfields
wingtip-to-wingtip, which pointed to no plan to attack. So the Israelis easily destroyed more than 200
Egyptian planes on the ground. (Source: A Whistleblower at the CIA by Melvin A. Goodman)
CIA officer Haviland Smith, who was stationed in Beirut during the Six -Day War, says he was told that the
transcripts were "deep-sixed," because the US government did not want to embarrass Israel. The
National Security Agency destroyed voice tapes seen by many intelligence analysts, showing that the
Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.
Ambassador Michael Hadow, a British expert on Israel and the Middle East, sent a telegram to the
British Foreign Office, "It looks as if the Israelis started it. We have been led up the garden
path." Jordan had entered into a defense pact with Egypt a week before the war began. Yitzhak Rabin,
former Chief of Staff and then Ambassador to the United States, said, "I do not believe that Nasser
wanted war ... The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an
offensive against Israel." Rabin recognized that any country with good intelligence, like Israel, could
ascertain that Egypt had no plans to wage war against Israel.
The Israeli air force attack on USS Liberty commenced at 2:00 p.m. Israel time on June 8, 1967. The USS
Liberty was 13 miles off the coast of Gaza and moving slowly at five knots. Israeli fighter aircraft attack
with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm. After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three
Israeli torpedo boats and attacked. The Israelis were well aware that the USS Liberty was a well -marked
US signals intelligence spy ship. 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounding.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 43
Packet Pg. 49
6.2.a
A Liberty radioman Richard Sturman said Israel fighter jets were jamming five radio frequencies being
used by the Liberty, and the international distress frequency, used for Mayday messages. The Israeli
jamming capabilities did not work when they were engaged bombing the ship, and so the crew had
windows of a few seconds of opportunity in between strikes to send out a message. The Israeli fighter
jets attack the Liberty's radio antennas; the crew of the Liberty was able to jerry rig a wire antenna.
The radio jamming is by itself damning evidence that the assailants knew exactly whom they were
attacking. Such jamming requires intimate advance knowledge of the target being jammed, obtained by
extended monitoring of its signals. And this was selective jamming; it struck Liberty's frequencies and no
others.
But the attack continued for sixty six minutes after the first Mayday signal was received.
Radio operators in Spain, Lebanon, Germany, and aboard the ship itself all heard the pilots reporting to
their headquarters in Israel that this was an American ship. They attacked anyway. And when the ship
failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. The pilot's
protests were heard by (US signal intelligence-SIGINT) radio monitors at the US Embassy in Lebanon. US
Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. [4]
The following exchanges are excerpts of testimony from US military and diplomatic officials given to
Alison Weir, author of American Media Miss the Boat:
Israeli pilot to ground control: "This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?"
Ground control: "Yes, follow orders."
Pilot: But sir, it's an American ship — I can see the flag!"
Ground control: "Never mind; hit it!"
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors. He then held extensive
interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior
Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and
was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base,
where he was arrested. Years later, a dual -citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli
war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war
room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the Major said.
He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel. [4]
1 was unable to find the name of this senior Israeli lead pilot.
According to James Bamford, author of the book, Body of Secrets -- the US National Security Agency
(NSA) a US Air Force C-130 SIGINT aircraft and a US Navy EC-121M SIGINT aircraft flying nearby the USS
Liberty. The Bamford quotes by name a Hebrew -English translator on that US plane as saying the Israeli
pilots talked about completing an attack. He said "they mentioned an American flag" -- suggesting the
Israelis knew they were attacking a US ship.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 44
Packet Pg. 50
6.2.a
Bamford's other named sources include a former top NSA official who conducted a review of the attack
and an Air Force major general. Bamford writes that NSA intercepts of the Israeli pilots and sailors
remain secret to this day, although his sources say the communications would clearly show the Israelis
attacked the US ship deliberately.
A US linguist that was in one of these NSA airplanes says he heard comments about the US flag in
Hewbrew from both the fighter pilots and the crew of the torpedo boats. James Bamford said he was
able to locate this linguist and interviewed him/her.
-- Lieutenant General Marshall S. Carter, director of the National Security Agency at the time: There was
no other answer than it was deliberate."
-- Major General John Morrison, NSA deputy director of Operations at the time: "Nobody believes that
explanation. The only conjecture that we ever made that made any near sense is that the Israelis did not
want us to intercept their communications at that time."
-- Walter Deeley, the senior NSA official who conducted an internal NSA investigation of the incident:
"There is no way that they didn't know that the Liberty was
American." https://fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html
A radioman on USS Saratoga heard the message that the Liberty was being attack by unidentified fighter
jets. This Mayday message was also received and acknowledged by two US embassies in the
region. Captain Joseph Tully of the USS Saratoga checked with his navigation officer, Max K. Morris, and
was told they were 15 to 20 minutes flight time from the USS Liberty and could be of immediate
assistance. It only was then that he personally called Adm. Martin via the primary tactical radio circuit
and said he planned to launch his "Red Strike Group," but Martin was busy recalling the four nuclear -
armed planes he and Capt. Engen secretly had dispatched to Cairo, and so it only was the USS Saratoga
and not the USS America that answered the first SOS by sending jet planes to defend Liberty. Capt. Tully
launched 12 fighter bombers and four tanker planes --immediately and without authorization. Moments
later, Tully was ordered to recall his planes.
The USS Saratoga launched jets, telling the pilots were to remain over international waters and defend
themselves if attacked. Their orders were very specific: "You are authorized to use force, including
destruction as necessary, to control the situation. Do not use more force than required. Do not pursue
any unit toward land. Do not fly between Liberty and shoreline except as required."
The Soviets knew what was going because they had submarines close by and may have also intercepted
the Mayday message or possibly observed the Liberty being attacked. A Soviet Destroyer 626/4 came to
the aid of the Liberty in the aftermath of the attack and stuck by her until US forces were allowed to
approach about seventeen hours later and helicopter the wounded to the other US ships. It has been
reported that the American submarine, USS Amberjack, was standing by to sink the Liberty. The
presence of 626/4 prevented this from
happening. https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/uss-liberty-operation-
cyanide
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 45
Packet Pg. 51
6.2.a
Ted Phil, chief of staff to Rear Admiral Lawrence R. Geis, said there is confirmation that the nuclear
weapons were on deck being loaded. Captain Don Engen was commander of the USS America, a new
aircraft carrier. He launched two planes that carried "nuclear -tipped weapons toward Cairo. The
bombing of Cairo was called off only three minutes before the nuclear bomb would have been dropped.
US Air Force Captain Richard L. Block said he was told by a friend who had served on the USS America
said he heard Capt. Engen say, "I sent jet aircraft with nuclear weapons to Cairo."
A few months later, back in Washington, David G. Nes the acting ambassador at the US Embassy in Cairo
gave a talk at the National War College. Author Joan Mellen sat next to Nes at lunch, and she said Nes
confirmed the US launching of aircraft, the original mission being targets in Egypt.
Ted Phil, chief of staff to Rear Adm. Lawrence R. Geis, says there is confirmation that the nuclear
weapons were on deck being loaded. Capt. Engen launched "ready" aircraft toward Cairo, two planes
that carried "nuclear -tipped weapons."
Captain Joseph Tully of the USS Saratoga checked with his navigation officer, Max K. Morris, and was
told they were 15 to 20 minutes flight time from the USS Liberty and could be of immediate assistance.
It only was then that he personally called Vice Admiral William Martin via the primary tactical radio
circuit. But Martin was busy recalling the four nuclear -armed planes he and Captain Engen secretly had
dispatched to Cairo. Capt. Tully launched 12 fighter bombers and four tanker planes --immediately and
without authorization. His orders to the pilots was to remain over international waters and defend
themselves if attacked. Their orders were very specific: "You are authorized to use force, including
destruction as necessary, to control the situation. Do not use more force than required. Do not pursue
any unit toward land. Do not fly between Liberty and shoreline except as required."
Lt Commander Dave Lewis, Liberty's chief intelligence officer, is convinced that, had the first group of
rescue planes arrived, they would have preceded the torpedo boats, and 28 people would have
remained alive.
Moments later, Tully was ordered to recall his planes. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered Admiral Geis to call back the planes that had been dispatched to the USS Liberty by Capt.
Tully.
Adm. Geis demurred by saying, "These people are under attack!" These were men for whose lives he
was responsible. He refused to obey McNamara.
Admiral Geis requested confirmation of the order. Fifteen minutes later, McNamara was back on the
radio. "I told you to get those damned aircraft back!" he snarled. "Call them back!"
It was now that LBJ grabbed the telephone and made his wishes known. "I don't give a damn if the ship
sinks," Johnson declared. "I will not embarrass my allies."
At naval station at Port Lyautey, Morocco National Security Agency communications technician, petty
officer Julian "Tony" Hart was listening to this conversation.
Moe Schafer who was a member of the crew of the Liberty, he said he was loaded into a helicopter and
flown to the USS Davis, the flagship of Sixth Fleet commander Admiral Martin. The next morning he was
sitting on his bunk with two or three other injured men when Martin came in to see them.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 46
Packet Pg. 52
6.2.a
Schafer said, "Admiral Martin tell (told) me that four jets were on their way to the Liberty with
conventional weapons [and were recalled]; he stated that four were on their way to Cairo loaded with
nuclear weapons. He stated they were three minutes from bombing them (the Egyptians). He also said
that the jets could not land back on the carrier with nuclear arms and they had had to land in Athens. He
stated this from my beside while on the" USS Davis. (Source: Operation Cyanide, Why the Bombing of
the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War 111 by Peter Hounam, an investigative journalist)
https://nationaIvanguard.org/201S/04/the-most-incredible-story-never-told-Ibis-order-to-destroy-the-
u ss-I i be rty/
There is additional evidence the President Johnson had planned to start a nuclear war against the Soviet
Union is the following.
Acting ambassador at the US Embassy in Cairo David Nes reported that he heard on an emergency radio
that USS Liberty was being attacked by the Egyptians and that planes were being launched in a
retaliatory raid on Cairo from Saratoga. Why this is important is because it means addition US assets
were involved in spreading disinformation accusing Egypt.
Yet another indication that the US had embarked on an attack on Cairo was the hotline message LBJ had
sent to Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin apologizing for US planes crossing Egyptian territory. Johnson's
explanation, "They were going to help the Liberty."
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Blood+in+the+Water%3A+How+the+U.S.+and+Israel+Conspired+to+A
m bush+the...-a0583144915
Author Peter Hounam interviewed a retired Air Force pilot, Jim Nanjo who spent 20 years on the H-
bomb attack force. The job of such pilots who lived on US air bases was to be ready to jump into a plane
and carry out orders immediately.
Jim Nanjo told Hounam that he was stationed at Beale Air Force base in California and at how he was
awakened on the morning of June 8, 1967 between 2:00 a.m. and no later than 4:00 a.m. by an alert
that told him an emergency situation existed and he needed to man his plane immediately. Other
bomber pilots were also manning their planes and revving up their engines waiting for the "go" order
and their orders. They knew nothing about their mission. He said his airplane was armed with
thermonuclear weapons, H-bombs.
The Liberty was not attacked until 5:00 am California time. How were the American military and their
commander in chief, Lyndon Johnson, able to anticipate the attack, and yet apparently not know the
Israelis were behind it. Nanjo learned that other US Air Force bases were under the same highest alert
in Guam, Britain, Moron, Spain as well as in the US.
Years later, Navy aviator Brad Knickerbocker recounted that he had been about to take off from the USS
Saratoga and had been briefed by officers using large maps of Egypt. They highlighted surface-to-air
missile sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, port facilities, and other military targets. Knickerbocker's
plane, according to his account, did not launch at all: "The first flight of aircraft from the Saratoga was
recalled without engaging in combat, and my flight did not launch."
What is significant about Knickerbocker's account was his briefing about the defenses in Egypt. He said
that USS America, the only ship in the Sixth Fleet with nuclear capabilities.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 47
Packet Pg. 53
6.2.a
During the planned bombing of Cairo, journalists were on the USS America. Among them was Harry
Stathos, who later said he personally saw nuclear -armed aircraft launched from America. Liberty crew
member Jim Ennes later said that a chief performance officer with the Naval Security Group unit told
him that same story, as did a catapult operator who recorded nuclear weapons launched.
Retired Navy legal counsel Capt. Ward Boston said Rear Adm. Isaac "Ike" Kidd, told him Kidd believed
the attack was deliberate and that the Israelis knew the ship was American. And he said officials were
not interested in hearing the truth.
Retired Adm. Merlin Staring, who at the time was a captain and staff legal officer in London was initially
told to review the Navy court's report. Staring said that the report was taken from him before he
finished his review, but based on what he had seen, the evidence did not support the contention that
the attack on the Liberty was an accident. https://ifamericansknew.org/us ints/ul-navytimes.html
Richard Helms, CIA director at the time of the attack (on the USS Liberty), agreed that "it was no
accident." Helms also told Marine Corps Times correspondent Jordan on May 29, 2002, "I've done all I
can. I don't want to spend the rest of my life in court testifying about the incident."
Helms' book, A Look Over My Shoulder, written in collaboration with William Hood, describes
the Liberty attack as "one of the most disturbing incidents in the six days [war]."
https://www.wrmea.org/003-iuly-august/navy-captain-other-officials-call-for-investigation-of-israel-s-
attack-on-uss-liberty.html
After the attack Secretary of State Dean Rusk recommended a strong response, and Presidential
Counselor Clark Clifford advised President Johnson to treat Israel in the same manner as the US would
treat the Soviets or the Arabs if they had committed the atrocity. The US would certainly not have taken
this insult in silence had the offender been any country but Israel.
George Ball, Under Secretary of State at the time said, "American leaders did not have the courage to
punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."
State Department legal advisor Carl Salans performed an assessment of Israel's official explanation; with
only the Navy's highly incomplete and erroneous preliminary investigation to go on, he thoroughly
discredited the Israeli Government's claims of innocent error. The logical next step was to confront the
Israelis with his findings, but that was not done. The US Government's inaction was completely out of
keeping with the outrageousness of the attack.
Retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the
independent commission of inquiry. It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Admiral
Moorer, who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other
former military officials. The panel also included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.
Moorer called the Johnson White House's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty "the
most disgraceful thing I have witnessed in my entire military career." [2]
In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Captain Ward Boston, USN said
Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara ordered those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 48
Packet Pg. 54
6.2.a
that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of the attack. [2]
Court of Inquiry. The cover-up would have been impossible but for the complicity of Admiral John S.
McCain Jr. He allowed the Court of Inquiry just one week to complete an investigation - a crippling
limitation in light of the complex nature of events and the dispersion of the witnesses. Also the court
could not consider the written testimony from any of the 60 men evacuated who were unable to testify
in person. One year after the cover-up in July 1968, Johnson named McCain Commander -in -Chief of the
Pacific Command. [5] [6]
Rear Admiral Isaac "Ike" Kidd, always believed Israeli forces knowingly attacked the Liberty. "I feel the
Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a US Navy ship. That's the bottom
line. I don't care how they tried to get out of it.
Senator Adlai Stevenson III in 1980, his last year as a United States Senator called a news conference in
which he announced that he was convinced that the attack was deliberate and that the survivors
deserved an investigation. He said he would spend the remaining few weeks of his Senate term
attempting to arrange for an inquiry. Almost immediately, the government of Israel contacted the
White House and offered to settle the outstanding $40 million damage claims.
In 2002, retired Captain Boston wrote in a sworn statement that he stayed silent for years. In December
2002, following the publication of the book entitled, The Liberty Incident by A. Jay Cristol, Boston felt
compelled to "share the truth", and stated, "This book continued the cover-up". Cristol wrote that the
attack was unintentional. [2] [3]
By June 81", The Israelis had captured some Egyptians and held them in the town of El Arish. The Israelis
transformed the town into a "slaughterhouse" by methodically "butchering" their Egyptian prisoners.
They lined up sixty unarmed Egyptians with their hands tied behind their backs and, with machine guns,
slaughtered them in cold blood. They machine-gunned another group of thirty prisoners nearby. Aryeh
Yitzhaki, an Israeli army historian, and other officers collected testimony from dozens of soldiers who
admitted killing Egyptian prisoners. According to Yitzhaki, Israeli soldiers murdered about 1,000 Egyptian
prisoners in the Sinai, including about 400 in El Arish. Ariel Sharon was close to El Arish at the time of the
incidents. Yitzhaki said that the Israeli leadership, Dayan, Rabin and others knew about the
slaughter. (Source: The New York Time)
"Military historian Aryeh Yitzhaki said today that Israeli troops carried out several mass killings in 1967 in
which about 1,000 Egyptian prisoners were slain in the Sinai. Yitzhaki, who worked in the army's history
department after the war, said he and other officers collected testimony from dozens of solders who
admitted killing POWs. He said a report on the killings submitted to his superiors has been locked in a
safe at military headquarters.
"Another Israeli historian, Uri Milstein, said there were many incidents in the 1967 war in which
Egyptian soldiers were killed by Israeli troops after they had raised their hands in surrender.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 49
Packet Pg. 55
6.2.a
"It was not an official policy, but there was an atmosphere that it was okay to do it," Milstein said.
"Some commanders decided to do it; others refused. But everyone knew about it." (Source: The
Washington Post on August 17, 1995)
See pictures of a torpedo hit on the LISS Liberty: http://www.ussliberty.org/
1. http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2003/000165.html
2. http://www.rockvmounttelegram.com/news/content/news/ap story.html/Washington/AP.V9114.
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/content/news/ap story. htmI/Washington/AP.V9114.AP-
Spv-Shi p-Israel. html?urac=n&urvf=10670619268800.6680433481560745
3. http://www.itszone.co.uk/zoneO/viewtopic.php?t=1885
4. http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
5. Military Movers Community I PCS & DITY Moving Made Affordable
From: Kim Bayer
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 11:28 AM
To: Buckshnis, Diane<Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke
<Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Monillas,
Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>;
LauraJohnson@edmondswa.gov; Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: 8/10 City Council Meeting - Audience Comments regarding Mayor Nelson's Rant against
Citizens
I was planning on attending last night's council meeting; however, something unforeseen came up. The
remarks I was going to share during Audience Comments are below. I have not had the chance to
review the recording of the 8/10 meeting to see if anyone spoke up regarding Mayor Nelson's rant
against citizens, he made at the 8/3 City Council meeting, so I wanted to make sure these comments
were shared with all of you.
My name is Kim Augustavo. First, let me clear up a few things so I'm not labeled by Mayor Nelson or,
Adrienne.
1. I've lived in five different homes throughout my 40 years as an Edmonds resident and citizen:
and not always in the bowl. I understand the needs of the various areas of this city so, please
don't label me "white -privileged"
2. 1 have many diverse friends and colleagues, including a very close gay and black friend who
married my husband and I, so please don't label me "racist"
3. 1 am taking time out of my beautiful summer to "fight back" at your inept leadership which has
nothing to do with being partisan. It has everything to do with me caring deeply about
protecting and preserving our city from the "madness" you've created so please don't label me
"partisan"
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 50
Packet Pg. 56
6.2.a
4. I'm drinking only water and I drank only water at the 7/27 City Council meeting so please don't
label me as a partisan bully drinking alcohol prior to the meeting. Mayor Nelson you should be
reported on the hate portal for spreading this slander.
How dare you blame citizens for disagreeing with your failed politics and partisan agenda. The several
citizen groups I'm associated with, have both democrats and republicans so please don't accuse us of
being partisan. You are the most transparent partisan mayor we've ever had in my 40 years. We aren't
bullvinR you or Adrianne. we aren't Dartisan, we are sober as heck. and we are very uaset for what you
are doing to OUR city.
Susan, as Council President, you should be running all City Council meetings as they are not Mayor
Nelson's meetings. They are the City Council members' meetings, so why do you let him berate a
council member who disagrees with his point of view? Why do you let him run the meeting? Why do
you let him rant about the citizens who, by a narrow margin, elected him?
City Council members, please take back your meetings and demand Mayor Nelson stop his citizen
tirades and prevent this unethical, illegal, and unprofessional nonsense from occurring moving forward.
Do the right thing,
Kim
Kim Bayer-Augustavo
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2021
Page 51
Packet Pg. 57
6.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Megan Menkveld
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #248642 through #248730 dated August 19, 2021 for $624,981.91 (re -issued
check #248675 $1,903.88) and wire payment of $7,837.88.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64788 through #64791 for $588,366.94, benefit checks
#64792 through #64797 and wire payments of $589,910.63 for the pay period August 1, 2021 through
August 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 08-19-21
wire 08-12-21
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-19-21
Payroll summary 08-20-21
Payroll benefits 08-20-21
Packet Pg. 58
6.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page:
08/19/2021
7:08:33AM
City of Edmonds
L
3
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
.y
Amoun o
a
a)
248642
8/19/2021
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
48037
W WTP: ANT TREATMENT - BLDG 61
ANT TREATMENT - BLDG 600
U
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
125.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
ui
13.0(
Total:
138.0(
248643
8/19/2021
000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
10843
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl-
c
421.000.74.534.80.33.00
270,921.0(
Total:
270,921.0(
�a
248644
8/19/2021
071634 ALLSTREAM
17664676
C/A 768328
—
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
o
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
1,341.7E a
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
11.0E
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
11.0E o
Total:
1,363.71
248645
8/19/2021
065568 ALLWATER INC
081021028
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
0
a
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
Q-
Q
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
4.6( 0)
081321003
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
29.7.E E
10.4% Sales Tax
2
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3.0� U
Total:
81.65 a
aD
t
248646
8/19/2021
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
6560000090312
WWTP: 8/11/21 UNIFORMS,TOWEL
Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.99 tax = $5
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248646 8/19/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
3 lab coats @ $17.each = $0.51 +
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
656000086663
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
656000090314
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
656000090317
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
656000092657
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
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
6.3.a
Page: 2
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
52.8 -, 'D
r
U
d
0.8£
N
33.3z
3.4£
m
c
a�
63.6£
�a
6.6, 0
L
�a
a
39.3
4.0� u
4-
0
Ta
1.6• o
a
a
6.1- Q
6.1-
CD
6.1" o
6.1-
6.0£
aD
0.1 m E
U
�a
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248646 8/19/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
1.7YiPPP1rY�Y•Yd
248647 8/19/2021 064541 AURORA RENTS INC 697449-1
248648 8/19/2021 076685 BAILEY, MICHAEL E 5-21
248649 8/19/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5776992
PO # Description/Account
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
Total
PUBLIC WORKS - GRINDER & VACI
PUBLIC WORKS - GRINDER & VACI
001.000.66.518.30.45.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.45.00
Total
MIKE BAILEY BUDGET RETREAT Ff
Retreat facilitation
001.000.11.511.60.41.00
Total
ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI
ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 3
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
0.6z 'D
r
U
d
0.6z
0.6z Y
m
t
0.6z u
0.6- c
c
9.2�
0
19.1( >+
M
a
0.9,
1.9� U
271.1( 0
0
0
L
a
a
2,066.0( Q
212.8( N
2,278.8( r'
w
0
E
600.0( R
600.0(
c
aD
E
t
344.7E
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 4
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
248649
8/19/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC
(Continued)
0
m
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
34.8, u
5777288
ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI
L
ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
172.3E
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
17.4' v
5777595
ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP
ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
302.4,
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
30.5E
Total:
902.3d o
L
248650
8/19/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
27186204
ENG COPIER THRU 8/31/21
a
ENG COPIER THRU 8/31/21
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
279.8'
27186206
LEASE/COPIES DSD SN:3AP01472
Lease/copies DSD SN:3AP01472
0
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
217.4 �u
10.4% Sales Tax
o
L
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
22.6, Q
Total:
519.9( Q
248651
8/19/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
G846993
MS EA EXCH ONLN P2G SUB P/USE
N
MS EA EXCH ONLN P2G SUB P/USE
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
715.6( o0
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
74.4, E
H178835
ADOBE ACROBAT PRO DC
is
Adobe Acrobat Pro DC F/Ent - Qty 5
U
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
295.0( r-
10.4% Sales Tax
E
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
30.6E U
H679616
TECHSMITH CAMTASIA-21 LICENSI
+°
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248651 8/19/2021 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC (Continued)
H824529
248652 8/19/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY307297
248653 8/19/2021 077192 CORNELL LAB OF ORNITHOLOGY AAB-Edmonds-21-08
248654 8/19/2021 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC
248655 8/19/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
492616
21-4106
PO # Description/Account
Techsmith CAMTASIA-21 License
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
HP LASERJET PRO M404N PRINTE
HP LaserJet Pro M404N Printer
001.000.64.571.22.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.35.00
Total
WWTP: PO 636 GRIND PERF PFER
PO 636 GRIND PERF PFERD, CUTC
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
BIRD FEST DIGITAL ADVERTISING
Bird Fest digital advertising on
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
Total
E21 DA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21
E21 DA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21
126.000.68.595.61.41.00
E21 DA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
Total
CITY COUNCIL, FINANCE, PPW ME
pspp, finance, ppw, city meeting mints
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Total
6.3.a
Page: 5
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
283.3E u
L
29.4,
N
m
294.5, u
30.6' c
1,753.6F
c
�a
0
128.7E
�a
a
13.3E
142.1,
0
Ta
625.0( c
625.0( a
a
Q
N
12,216.0' CD
00
7,174.5(
19,390.5: E
2
U
c
381.6( E
381.6(
�a
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248656 8/19/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
8070021
248657 8/19/2021 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS DC-08162021
248658 8/19/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
PO # Description/Account
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total :
DIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT T
Diversity Commission grant to ECA fc
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
Total
2512 PM: BATTERIES
PM: BATTERIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2515 PM: SPRAY PAINT
PM: SPRAY PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
248659 8/19/2021 067030 EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM 8/17/2021
248660 8/19/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00025
1-00575
1-00655
Total :
SUMMER MARKET BOOTH REGIST
SUMMER MARKET BOOTH REGIST
001.000.64.571.21.49.00
Total
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY/ METI
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY WATE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME-
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME-
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST
6.3.a
Page: 6
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
335.1', u
L_
34.5-
369.6:
m
v
500.0(
500.0(
c
�a
19.9E
�a
a
2.0E
U
13.1E 0
�a
1.3; 0
36.61 a
a
Q
N
25.0( CD
25.0( o
0
E
558.6,
c
579.1 t
U
�a
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 64
6.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
248660 8/19/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
0
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.9z u
1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON
L
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2,286.1E
1-00875
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST/ METER 11
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
58.6(
1-00925
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV
c
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
58.6(
1-00935
WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILR,
sa
WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILR,
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
384.3E
1-01950
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE,
a
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE,
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.9z 'i
1-02125
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
133.0E
1-03710
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER'
o
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER'
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
58.6( Q
1-03900
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
114.4'
1-03950
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200
c
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
,n
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
1,331.3£ .�
1-05125
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE
};
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
91.11 y
1-05285
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI
E
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
95.8,
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248660 8/19/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
1-05340
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05350
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
1-05650
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71.
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71.
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05675
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP /
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05700
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05705
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
1-09650
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST/ METER i
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER i
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-09800
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-10778
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75,
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75,
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-10780
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER!
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-13975
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1-16130
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI
6.3.a
Page: 8
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
147.0(
N
546.3E
53.9z c
a�
1,578.5z
0
L
291.2E a
E
114.4E u
4-
0
�a
174.9, o
a
a
Q
95.8,
N
o�
300.5E c
E
142.3E u
c
aD
657.7< E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248660 8/19/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
248661
248662
8/19/2021 068803 EJ USA INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1-16300
1-16420
1-16450
1-16630
1-17475
1-19950
1-36255
110210059999
8/19/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR197805
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6''
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6'
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST/ METER'
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Total
SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total
AR197805 - ACCT MK5031 - EDMO�
7/21 A12434&12435 - BW USAGE
6.3.a
Page: 9
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
156.3 - 'D
U
d
170.2, 13
N
m
53.9z U
m
c
321.1
c
�a
277.2� o
L
�a
a
53.9,
U
45 114.2( 0
0
L
53.9z a
11,161.8E Q
N
O�
1,361.3, o0
0
50.0( E
2
146.7E
1,558.1( a0i
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248662 8/19/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
AR197811
AR198785
AR198788
AR198868
PO # Description/Account
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
7/21 A12434&12435- CLR USAGE
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
CONTRACT CHARGES
contract charges
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
CANON/DXC57501
bw meter usage 7/16 - 8/15/21
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr meter usage 7/16 - 8/15/21
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr meter usage 7/16 - 8/15/21
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
clr meter usage 7/16 - 8/15/21
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
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
WWTP: 7/16-8/15/21 MO. CHG
7/16-8/15/21 contract overage charge
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
Maintenance 08/21/21 - 09/20/21 Car
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
6.3.a
Page: 10
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
41.3( 'D
r
U
d
226.4(
27.8z Y
m
352.7z
m
c
36.6E
c
�a
2.4< 0
L
17.8, a
E
17.8 -, .�
w
17.8E 0
2.1- o
a
a
1.8E Q
1.8E
00
0
71.8(
M
7.4
c
a�
307.2( t
U
�a
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248662 8/19/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
AR198869
248663 8/19/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
248664 8/19/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
248665 8/19/2021 076751 FALK, NICHOLAS
248666 8/19/2021 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
248667 8/19/2021 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD
Iil<IiIIi1+7
E D H 934923
FALK, Nicholas
WAEVE182866
443-32576
PO # Description/Account
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501: accot
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
Total
DINE OUT SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Dine Out Snohomish County
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Total
LEGAL DESCRIP.: POINT EDWARC
Legal Descrip.: Point Edward SEPA
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Total
RECORDING SERVICES TRAVEL D;
Recording services travel DSD to Snc
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
Total
WATER & SEWER - SUPPLIES
WATER & SEWER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
WATER & SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total
BIRD FEST SIGNAGE
6.3.a
Page: 11
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248667 8/19/2021 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD
248669
248670
8/19/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1012215
8/19/2021 062193 FIELD INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS 177753
8/19/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 170023
PO # Description/Account
BIRD FEST SIGNAGE
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
10.5% Sales Tax
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
Total :
WATER INVENTORY & SUPPLIES
WATER - INVENTORY
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
WATER - SUPPLIES/ COPPER TUBE
WATER - SUPPLIES/ COPPER TUBE
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
WWTP: PO 626 SOLENOID VALVES
PO 626 SOLENOID VALVES
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
AUG-2021 SUPPORT SERVICES
Aug-2021 Support Services
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
6.3.a
Page: 12
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
62.2E u
L
6.5,
68.8E
m
v
4,865.3(
a�
225.2z
�a
506.0( o
L
23.4, a
E
5,106.0( u
4-
0
531.0,
11,256.9F o
a
a
Q
488.8E N
rn
40.9 , o0
0
55.1( E
584.9°
c
aD
E
265.0( U
�a
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248670 8/19/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC (Continued)
248671 8/19/2021 075536 FREGONESE ASSOCIATES
248672 8/19/2021 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC
PO # Description/Account
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total :
497-003 PROF. SERV. FREGONESE ASSOC
Prof. Serv. Fregonese Assoc. Public
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Total
41052 WATER - REPAIR KITS
WATER - 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
248673 8/19/2021 078486 GRAEBEL RELOCATION SVC WW 4-02935
248674 8/19/2021 068015 GRICE INDUSTRIES INC
248675 8/19/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
G3730
2019-256
Total :
#4201-3693775 UTILITY REFUND
#4201-3693775 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
WATER - SUPPLIES/ 75PULLING C
WATER - SUPPLIES/ 75' PULLING C
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Reimbursement - Domain Registratio
001.000.61.558.70.49.00
Total
6.3.a
Page: 13
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248676 8/19/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
248677 8/19/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
1026872 PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES FOR C
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES FOR C
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
0552236883
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET: 204T
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552236884
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET: MAIN
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET: MAIN
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241244
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241245
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241246
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241247
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241248
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241249
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241250
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B(
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B(
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0552241251
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
6.3.a
Page: 14
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
45.7E u
L
4.7,
50.5(
m
v
249.1E
a�
111.6E
0
644.9E a
E
439.6( U
4-
0
346.0( o
L
a
a
Q
120.4E .r
N
O�
120.4E o0
0
E
221.6E
c
aD
440.4E E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 15
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
248677
8/19/2021
061013 HONEY BUCKET
(Continued)
0
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,514.1, -0
0552241252
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
U
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
L
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
175.4E
0552241253
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
d
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
173.2.
Total :
4,557.21
m
248678
8/19/2021
069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC
U2116039941
SEWER - SUPPLIES
c
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1,174.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
0
122.2(
Total:
1,297.1E a
248679
8/19/2021
077398 INCREDIFLIX INC
9718 INCREDIFLIX
9718 INCREDIFLIX CLASS INSTRU(
9718 INCREDIFLIX CLASS INSTRU(
fd
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
1,050.0( o
9719 INCREDIFLIX
9719 INCREDIFLIX CLASS INSTRU(
'70
9719 INCREDIFLIX CLASS INSTRU(
>
0
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
972.0( Q
9720 INCREDIFLIX
9720 INCREDIFLIX CLASS INSTRU(
°-
Q
9720 INCREDIFLIX CLASS INSTRU(
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
2,574.0( N
Total :
4,596.0( cn
248680
8/19/2021
015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
863159
WWTP: PO 474 SODIUM HYPOCHL
o
PO 474 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
3,675.9£ 'M
WA Hazadous Substance Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
25.7(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
382.3( t
U
�a
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
248680 8/19/2021 015270 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC (Continued)
248681 8/19/2021 078487 JJL HOLDINGS LLC 1-18950
248682 8/19/2021 078418 KRAMER, GREGORY
248683 8/19/2021 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING
248684 8/19/2021 078489 LOUIS JONES
UPTOWN MARKET PERF
Description/Account
Total
#21-179999 UTILITY REFUND
#21-179999 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF
Agreement for Presentation Services:
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
4710946 SHREDDING SERVICES
shredding services
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
shredding services
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
Total
8-50235 #106634WA UTILITY REFUND
#106634WA Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
248685 8/19/2021 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIONS JC69527
248686 8/19/2021 077850 MAGUIRE, KIMBERLY D
248687 8/19/2021 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
FLOWER POLES
FLOWER POLES
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total :
8/12/21 HMP HAZEL MILLER PLAZA CONCERT
Agreement for Presentation Services:
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Total
E0141900 PUBLIC WORKS & F.A.0 - SUPPLIE
6.3.a
Page: 16
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
4,084.01 m
U
d
L_
159.4E
159.4E
m
300.0( m
300.0( a0i
c
�a
17.9E o
�a
17.9E a
35.9( E
U
4-
0
27.1 £ >
27.11 o
a
a
Q
6,660.0(
CD
692.6z c
7,352.6z E
325.0( a0i
325.0( E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
248687
8/19/2021
075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ PAIM
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ PAINT
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
SERVICE FEE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
248688
8/19/2021
078488 MARC & EMMALEE MILLER
5-15225
#21-199658 UTILITY REFUND
#21-199658 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Tota I :
248689
8/19/2021
078491 MARGARET & ERIK ROSENKRANZ
8-21725
9820 228TH PL SW, EDMONDS UTII
9820 228th PI SW, Edmonds Utility rE
411.000.233.000
Total
248690
8/19/2021
077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC
TF48647
E4MB FISHING PIER TESTING SER
E4MB FISHING PIER TESTING SER'
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
Total
248691
8/19/2021
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
356626
PM: OIL
PM: OIL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
248692
8/19/2021
072939 MULTI -CRAFT PLASTICS
1217932
COVID - TRANSFER TAPE STOCK
COVID - TRANSFER TAPE STOCK
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 17
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 18
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
248692
8/19/2021
072939 MULTI -CRAFT PLASTICS
(Continued)
Freight
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
30.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
17.0
Total:
181.1E
248693
8/19/2021
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0771348-IN
FLEET - FILTERS
FLEET - FILTERS
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
14.4E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1.5(
0771724-IN
WWTP: PO 639 CHEVRON KITS, AE
PO 639 CHEVRON KITS, ABSORB F
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
592.2(
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
58.0<
Total :
666.1 f
248694
8/19/2021
074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN 48284
PLAQUES
PLAQUES: LINDSTROM, DAHL, EN,
127.000.64.575.50.31.00
535.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00
55.6,
Total :
590.9,
248695
8/19/2021
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
050683
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
812.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
84.4�
Total :
896.8E
248696
8/19/2021
069633 PET PROS
1398
INV 1398 - EDMONDS PD - ACE & H
HOBBS FOOD -DISCOUNT
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
151.9f
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248696 8/19/2021 069633 PET PROS
248697 8/19/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
248698 8/19/2021 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
ACE FOOD -DISCOUNT
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
Tota I :
1 V20452
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1 V98687
WWTP: PO 638 MIL 48-20-1880
PO 638 MIL 48-20-1880
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
03870
248699 8/19/2021 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 457043
248700 8/19/2021 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC N8979408
Total :
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR
422.000.72.531.90.41.50
Total
INV 457043 - CUST 7522 - EDMOND
4 SUPPRESSORS - SWAT
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
4 FLASH HIDER MUZZLES- SWAT
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
Total
MAIL LEASE AUG TO NOV 2021
mail lease aug to nov 2021
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
6.3.a
Page: 19
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
106.2z u
L
27.1 ,
285.3'
m
v
52.9E
a�
5.5'
�a
0
338.0(
�a
a
35.1E
431.6:
0
Ta
4,011.5E c
4,011.5E
a
Q
N
3,218.8z CD
00
371.7E
E
373.4, .�
3,964.0,
c
aD
E
t
192.0(
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248700 8/19/2021 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC (Continued)
248701 8/19/2021 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 35300
35301
35302
35303
35304
248702 8/19/2021 075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC EOGA PMT no.2
248703 8/19/2021 072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC 18001752
248704 8/19/2021 073752 SCIACCA, MATTHEW WMS SCIACCA
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
Total :
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-PEACOCK
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-PEACOCK
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-GA
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-GA
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-SHI
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-SHI
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HAI
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HAI
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HEI
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HEI
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
Total
EOGA PMT NO.2 SERVICES THRU 7
EOGA PMT NO.2 SERVICES THRU 7
423.000.75.594.35.65.30
Total
WWTP: 55% OF HD SCREW FEEDE
55% OF HD SCREW FEEDER
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
Total
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
6.3.a
Page: 20
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
19.91 U
211.91 •L
N
m
384.0(
m
c
150.0( �
c
�a
150.0( o
�a
a
150.0(
U
150.0( o
984.0( i
0
a
a
Q
132,788.2' "
132,788.21 N
o�
00
0
33,192.5(
33,192.5(
c
aD
500.0( t
500.0( UM
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248705 8/19/2021 078485 SCOTT & KARMEN STALIN
248706 8/19/2021 078490 SKYLAR & ASHLEIGH BARRETT
248707 8/19/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
2-32675
#4201-3757518 UTILITY REFUND
#4201-3757518 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
8-32925
#5226001620-CB UTILITY REFUND
#5226001620-CB Utility refund due tc
411.000.233.000
Total
200326460
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200650851
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200748606
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200943348
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201192226
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201383270
CITY PARK GAZEBO
CITY PARK GAZEBO
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201790003
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
202114484
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202250635
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
6.3.a
Page: 21
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
351.5' u
351.5:
N
m
67.5E
67.5f
m
c
a�
13.7z
0
16.6( a
E
17.1;
0
7a
26.6( o
L
a
a
Q
N
rn
16.6(
0
E
16.2, 2
U
c
82.4f E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248707 8/19/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
202421582
248708
248709
248710
205184385
220547582
221732084
222704272
8/19/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 21-027
8/19/2021 075971 STEEL MAGIC NORTHWEST
8/19/2021 071585 STERICYCLE INC
9869 STEEL BAND
9871 STEEL BAND
3005654506
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597
VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
WWTP:7/10-8/10/21 FLOWMETER
FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 /
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
Total
Q2-21 EMS BILLING, POSTAGE & R
02-21 Ambulance billings, postage &
001.000.39.522.70.41.00
Total
9869 STEEL BAND CAMP INSTRUC
9869 STEEL BAND CAMP INSTRUC
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
9871 STEEL BAND CAMP INSTRUC'
9871 STEEL BAND CAMP INSTRUC'
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
INV 3005654506 - CUST 6076358 - E
MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
Total
6.3.a
Page: 22
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
13.7z 'D
r
U
d
29.5z
N
m
23.71 v
m
c
36.2
c
�a
83.2� o
0
�a
a
18.3,
412.9:
U
0
Ta
15,367.8( 0
15,367.8( a
Q
N
90.0( rn
00
0
90.0( E
180.0( .M
c
aD
10.3( t
10.3E
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
248711
8/19/2021
061912 SUN SUPPLY
1357477-IN
COVID - COREX STOCK
0
m
COVID - COREX STOCK
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
328.0( u
10.4% Sales Tax
L
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
34.1
Total:
362.11
m
248712
8/19/2021
078445 TAIKO KAI
UPTOWN MARKET PERF
UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF
v
UPTOWN EVENING MARKET PERF
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
250.0(
Total :
250.0(
248713
8/19/2021
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
94807
FINANCE, INFORMATION SERVICE;
Finance, Information Services & City
—
001.000.31.514.20.31.00
478.9E
Finance, Information Services & City
a
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
183.2'
Finance, Information Services & City
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
60.7z U
10.4% Sales Tax
c
001.000.31.514.20.31.00
49.8' jj
10.4% Sales Tax
c
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
19.0E a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
6.31 v
Total:
798.0f N
rn
248714
8/19/2021
078444 THE BAND LELE
WMS POMP
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
WALKABLE MAIN STREET PERFOF
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
200.0( E
Total:
200.0( n
U
248715
8/19/2021
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV70191
PM SUPPLIES: REGAL REPAIR KIT;
PM SUPPLIES: REGAL REPAIR KIT:
0
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
348.7,
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
248715 8/19/2021 027269 THE PART WORKS INC (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
INV70358 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
248716 8/19/2021 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 8414
ME-
e
248717 8/19/2021 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 131294
248718 8/19/2021 078484 THOMAS & ALKETA CARLSON 2-05400
248719 8/19/2021 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION US53022
Total :
CREATIVE DISTRICT DIGITAL ADVE
CREATIVE DISTRICT DIGITALADVE
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
VISIT EDMONDS DIGITALADS FOR
VISIT EDMONDS DIGITAL ADS FOR
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
CREATIVE DISTRICT DIGITAL ADVE
CREATIVE DISTRICT DIGITAL ADVE
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Total
MONTHLY BASE CHARGE FOR HP
Monthly base charge for HP Pagewid,
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
Total
#794865RT UTILITY REFUND
#794865RT Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI
6.3.a
Page: 24
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
36.2, 'D
U
m
L
333.0(
N
10.9-
35.7; Et
764.E i c
d
c
�a
3,200.0( o
�a
a
1,500.0(
U
3,550.0( o
8,250.0(
0
a
a
Q
N
18.2(
193.2(
0
E
114.1£
114mli
aD
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248719 8/19/2021 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION (Continued)
US53294
US53301
US53869
248720 8/19/2021 070774 ULINE INC 137229374
248721 8/19/2021 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 195966501-001
PO # Description/Account
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDE
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRANC[
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC C
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC C
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total
WWTP: PO 641 MOLDEX RESPIRAI
PO 641 MOLDEX RESPIRATOR
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
WWTP: CRANE RENTAL
CRANE RENTAL
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
6.3.a
Page: 25
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
414.9z 'D
r
U
d
43.1E
N
1,472.7�
153.11
m
c
a�
1,339.11
�a
139.2, 0
L
�a
a
1,351.9-
140.6( u
45 5,055.0( 0
7a
0
L
a
a
280.0( Q
13.0E N
rn
30.4E c
323.5z v)
E
894.0(
E
92.9E U
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248721 8/19/2021 070767 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC
248722 8/19/2021 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 674744
248723
248724
248725
690719
(Continued)
8/19/2021 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES BLD2021-1104
8/19/2021 078314 WASTE MGMT DISPOSAL SVC OF OR 0057256-2588-2
PO # Description/Account
Total :
SEWER - SUPPLIES/ GREEN & BILL
SEWER - SUPPLIES/ GREEN & BILL
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
WWTP: PO 502 FOGMASTER DRUB
PO 502 FOGMASTER DRUM FOGGI
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
Total
REFUND:BUILDING - APPLICANT C
Refund:Building - Applicant cancelled
001.000.257.620
Total
WWTP: 7/15, 7/16, 7/20, 7/21, 7/22,
X/X WASTE PICKUPS
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
Total
8/19/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 12381392 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12385625 PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.3.a
Page: 26
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
986.9E 0
U
d
L_
52.3E
N
19.3E
t
U
7.4E
m
c
d
M
980.0( -a
c
�a
33.4( o
105.3E a
1,197.9E
U
0
52.0( ii
52.0( c
L
Q
a
Q
41,494.1£ N
41,494.1 f o�
w
0
87.2E
9.0£
aD
E
t
244.0(
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6.3.a
Page: 27
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
248725
8/19/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
25.3f
12385626
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
18.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.8
12385627
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
694.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
72.2(
Tota I :
1,152.0°
248726
8/19/2021
073552 WELCO SALES LLC
8081
INV 8081 - EDMONDS PD
1000 CRIME VICTIM BROCHURES
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
526.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
54.7(
Total :
580.7(
248727
8/19/2021
069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS
2021-EDM-JUL
PROF SERV: BUILDING PLAN REV
Prof Serv: Building plan review for
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
1,080.0(
Total :
1,080.0(
248728
8/19/2021
061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS
J91223-001
UNIT 120 - PARTS/ HOSE FITTING
UNIT 120 - PARTS/ HOSE FITTING
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
78.7E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
8.1
Total :
86.9!
248729
8/19/2021
078389 ZENNER USA
0061136-IN
WATER - INVENTORY
WATER - INVENTORY
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
248729 8/19/2021 078389 ZENNER USA (Continued)
248730 8/19/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-011-1177
425-712-0417
425-712-8251
425-745-4313
PO # Description/Account
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
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
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
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
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
6.3.a
Page: 28
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
2,996.0( -0
r
U
d
258.6- .L
3,254.61 N
m
6.4'
m
c
24.4' (D
24.4<
0
24.4<
�a
a
24.4<
24.4' U
0
Ta
36.0z o
a
a
36.0< Q
N
17.0z
00
0
85.1 £
71.5E
71.5E a0i
E
t
95.3E U
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
08/19/2021 7:08:33AM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
248730 8/19/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
89 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
89 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
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
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI'
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACC[
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Total:
Bank total
Total vouchers
6.3.a
Page: 29
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
139.1- u
L_
75.7z 19
m
U
71.9,
m
c
a�
26.4,
854.5°
626,885M
�a
626,885M C
U
4-
0
Ta
0
L
Q
Q
Q
r
N
CD
O
O
N
E
2
V
a
0
E
t
V
f6
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 87
6.3.b
vchlist
08/ 12/2021 12 : 35 : 59 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
8122021 8/12/2021 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
0091 US BANK - AUGUST (EW)
APWA JOB POSTING (WATER -SEW
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
APWA JOB POSTING (WATER -SEW
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
APWA JOB POSTING (WATER -SEW
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
PNCWA JOB POSTINGS (WWTP Sl
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
PNCWA JOB POSTINGS (WWTP Sl
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
PNCWA JOB POSTINGS (WWTP Sl
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PNCWA JOB POSTINGS (WWTP Sl
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
AWC 10 JOB POSTING PACK
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
APA WA JOB POSTING (URBAN FOI
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
APA WA JOB POSTING (URBAN FOI
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
PNCWA JOB POSTING (WWTP PRE
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
PNCWA JOB POSTING (WWTP PRE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
AMAZON SUPPLY ORDER 8/3
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
AMAZON SUPPLY ORDER 8/5
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT - POL
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
DELTAAIRLINE FLIGHT - POLICE Cl
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
AMERICAN AIRLINES BAGGAGE - F
Page: 1
m
L
3
c
ea
Amoun 00
0
a
d
0
162.5( m
=a
162.5( Y
m
325.0( u
45.0(
aD
330.0(
c
�a
82.5( o
82.5( a
350.0(
65.0( IS
35.0( o
L
a
a
15.0( Q
185.0( N
N
122.2( c
m
L
537.9"
E
t
539.4(
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
08/ 12/2021 12 :35 :59 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
8122021 8/12/2021 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
SHUTTLE EXPRESS TRANSPORT F
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
BEST WESTERN HOTEL - POLICE
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
0808
US BANK - AUGUST (JNH)
NEPELRA CONFERENCE
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
0881
UTM CC JULY 2021
TOWN & COUNTRY MEAL
001.000.23.512.50.43.00
TOWN & COUNTRY LODGING
001.000.23.512.50.43.00
ALASKAAIRLINES BAGGAGE FEE
001.000.23.512.50.43.00
BUDGET CAR RENTAL
001.000.23.512.50.43.00
AMAZON ORDER - OFFICE SUPPLI
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
4697
CANVA AUGUST
Parks Maintenance Meeting
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
Canva subscription 8/2021
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
8017
ENG CREDIT CARD JULY 2021
E20CE Click 2 Mail
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
WEBCAM- HAGUE
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
IPHONE CASE- CARLOCK
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
IPAD CASE- CARLOCK
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
10.4% Sales Tax
6.3.b
Page: 2
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
30.0(
133.9(
=a
376.2( ui
Y
m
t
738.0(
m
c
a�
13.81 M
c
�a
1,382.51 —
0
30.0( sa
a
131.5, .E
ca
U
497.4• o
�a
0
172.3, a
a
Q
12.9E "
N
N
573.4E
0
m
39.8£ •3
14.9E d
E
17.9�
�a
a
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
08/ 12/2021 12 :35 :59 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
8122021 8/12/2021 062693 US BANK (Continued)
9644
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
PO # Description/Account
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
COSTCO LIFT DESKS
COSTCO LIFT DESKS
001.000.23.523.30.35.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
Page: 3
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
7.5f
m
L
552.4E =5
7,837.8f Y
7,837.8f
7,837.8f
c
a�
c
�a
0
L
Q
E
V
4-
0
0
L
Q
a
r
N
N
Q&
O
d
L
3
c
CD
E
M
a
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 90
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
6.3.c
Project Engineering
Accounting Proiect
Funding Proiect Title Number Number
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
IL STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c516 EBGA
EBFC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
2019 Traffic Calmin
E9A,%=
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
[UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
rlay Progra
i042
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
EOAB
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STIR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i
E21AB
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
STIR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
E&UaL.
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21 CC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
LWTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
�28th
St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
11W76th
Ave Overlay (196th St. to OV
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improveme
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
miral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
Ea�
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
ISTM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design EL
s022
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
Er
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement
i026
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
Civic Center Playfield (Construction
EOMA
Revised 8/18/2021
Packet Pg. 91
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
6.3.c
Funding
Project Title
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
ayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab'
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
' WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replaceme
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
LWTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
Project Engineering
Accounting Project
Number Number
c536 EOMA
c455
c478 ESDB
E21 DA
_.&5M
i058
c473
ESJB
E4FE
E4MB
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
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
Official Street Ma Update
s025
EONA
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
Perrinville Creek Flow ReductiOWprovements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EAWE
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
M
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
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
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
for ain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7F
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR Trackside Warning System
STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4t
PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
& Seaview Reservoir Assessment
PRK IYost Park Infiltration
c354 E1DA
c470
ESAA
i044
c544
E7MA
c496
E7 JE
m103
E7MA
c435
c481
ESHA
s026
c556
E21 FA
Revised 8/18/2021 Packet Pg. 92
6.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
EOAA
20 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
EODB
i0-Jh,
2020 Pedestrian Safety Progra
STR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
54gW
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)
Ir PRK
EOMA
c5361r
Civic Center Playfield (Desig
GF
r
_ EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
STR
E1CA
c368
th Ave W at 212th St SW Inte Ilion
STR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming
i057 2021 Guardrail Installations
STR
SWR
STR
PRK
E21 CA
E21 CC
E21 DA
E21 FA
i051
i059
i060
i058
c556
2021 Overlay Program
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
estrian Task Force
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
SW Slope Stabilization
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
1
ase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E21GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Proje
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
E4GC
c461=ft Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
4MB
JWc443X
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
Bikelink Project
Revised 8/18/2021 Packet Pg. 93
6.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Fundinq
Number
Number
Protect Title
STR
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
E51FD
c479
Spaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
E5GB
sol l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
s01�&
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
i024
destrian Signals
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i025 W9th
PI W Retaining W
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM
E7FA
ml05 Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
■NPDES
STM
E7FG
m013
(Students Saving Salmon
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
PRK
E71VIA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
E7MA
m103JL_
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i033Y
ADA Curb Ramps
STR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
s018 EMLLorian
Woods Stu
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c525
torm Maintenance Projec
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
8J
c523
019 Swedish Waterline Replace
UTILITIES
E8JB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
9
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
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
-
E9FA
s022Jr
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 8/18/2021 Packet Pg. 94
6.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STR
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)
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
SWR
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
EBFC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
STM
E21 FB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
SWR
E21 GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Revised 8/18/2021 Packet Pg. 95
6.3.c
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
io51
2021 Overlay Program
STIR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
EOCC
io53
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STIR
E21AA
io56
2021 Traffic Calming
STIR
E21AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
WTR
E21CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21CC
i06O
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E21DB
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STM
E71FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
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
E91FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Revised 8/18/2021 Packet Pg. 96
6.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number i
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 =
c
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA L
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA i
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA z
STM
174th St. & 71st 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
s
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD 1
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E91FA i
s
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD ;
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
s
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E71FA £
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 i
S
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA t
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
a
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA C
c
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 Z
c
c
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB s
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
e
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 s
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 8/18/2021
Packet Pg. 97
6.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
iO4O
E9DA
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STIR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i05O
EODC
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STIR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STIR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STIR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
STIR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
i061
E21 DB
STIR
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
E21 GB
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
E21 CB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
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 8/18/2021 Packet Pg. 98
6.3.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,012 (08/01/2021 to 08/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
40.00
0.00
112
ABSENT
NO PAY NON HIRED
125.00
0.00
119
SICK
Donated Sick Leave -used
23.13
884.72
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
844.00
34,699.65
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,370.00
65,874.26
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
6.00
-27.09
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
38.00
1,451.57
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
154.50
6,828.55
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
40.00
1,686.25
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
98.00
4,510.13
135
SICK
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEY
3.00
61.32
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
96.00
5,152.66
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kellv Dav Used
60.00
2,777.81
152
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME BUY BACK
1.50
41.49
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
173.90
8,572.48
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
15.30
423.16
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
71.63
1,981.12
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
16.00
857.03
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
14,853.00
650,258.94
194
SICK
Emerciencv Sick Leave
184.00
9,002.26
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
98.00
4,680.87
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
6.00
120.90
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
23.80
836.48
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
48.00
2,750.02
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,554.41
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
235.50
16,860.13
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
12.00
886.46
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
491.46
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
481.55
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,200.97
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
422.04
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
38.75
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
216.25
0.00
08/19/2021
Packet Pg. 99
6.3.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,012 (08/01/2021 to 08/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
606
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 2.0
22.75
0.00
901
SICK
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE
7.85
0.00
903
MISCELLANEOUS
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
0.00
-37.50
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
82.04
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
90.46
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
180.92
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
492.28
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
1.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI
0.00
163.96
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
123.92
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
850.86
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
773.36
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
558.38
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
6,214.38
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
440.96
fmla
ABSENT
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID
36.00
0.00
furls
SICK
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
117.00
3,343.61
fmlv
VACATION
Familv Medical Leave Vacation
8.00
279.70
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
266.41
less
MISCELLANEOUS
LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR
0.00
86.54
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
1,102.30
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
599.74
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,496.08
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
965.63
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
888.02
Iq2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
251.44
I0
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
374.16
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,268.93
Ici6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
329.00
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
307.02
Iq8
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 8%
0.00
710.88
08/19/2021
Packet Pg. 100
6.3.d
Hour Type Hour Class
mela
ABSENT
mels
SICK
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
nds
MISCELLANEOUS
pfmp
ABSENT
pfms
SICK
pfmv
VACATION
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
pto
MISCELLANEOUS
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
st
REGULAR HOURS
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
vab
VACATION
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,012 (08/01/2021 to 08/15/2021)
Description Hours Amount
Medical Leave Absent (unpaid)
8.00
0.00
Medical Leave Sick
80.00
3,213.00
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
123.92
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
186.00
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
116.54
Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup
412.37
0.00
Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
117.32
4,816.07
Paid Familv Medical Vacation
4.43
228.73
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,526.23
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
0.00
196.58
Traininq Officer
0.00
157.28
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
0.00
301.49
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
196.58
Serqeant Pay
0.00
147.44
TRAFFIC
0.00
123.92
VACATION ADD BACK
3.68
0.00
19,723.66
$863,154.48
Total Net Pay:
$588,366.94
08/19/2021
Packet Pg. 101
6.3.e
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,012 - 08/01/2021 to 08/15/2021
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit
64792
08/20/2021
bpas
BPAS
4,757.95
0.00
64793
08/20/2021
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
5,965.50
0.00
64794
08/20/2021
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
631.76
0.00
64795
08/20/2021
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,906.24
0.00
64796
08/20/2021
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
5,009.50
0.00
64797
08/20/2021
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
3,923.89
0.00
24,194.84
0.00
Bank: wire -
US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
3242
08/20/2021
awc
AW C
321, 856.39
0.00
3246
08/20/2021
edm
CITY OF EDMONDS
120.00
0.00
3248
08/20/2021
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
25,297.61
0.00
3249
08/20/2021
us
US BANK
109,942.29
0.00
3250
08/20/2021
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
102,229.31
0.00
3252
08/20/2021
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,505.69
0.00
3254
08/20/2021
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
764.50
0.00
565,715.79
0.00
Grand Totals:
589,910.63
0.00
N
O
N
00
O
U)
m
c
d
0
L
a
c
a)
E
U
�a
a
8/19/2021
Packet Pg. 102
6.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Gavin Hardwick
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Gavin Hardwick
Narrative
Gavin Hardwick
437 5th Ave, Ste 103
($250,000)
Attachments:
Hardwick, Gavin - Claim for Damages - for council
Packet Pg. 103
6.4.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Form
Received by City
Please take note that Gavin Hardwick , who currently resides at
, mailing address (see above)
home phone # 425-307-6001 (atty) work phone # same , and who resided at same as above
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against The City of Edmonds in the sum of $ $250,000 arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 11/21/-11/22/2018 TIME: 11:00 pm - 2:00 am
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Edmonds, Snohomish County, WA railroad tracks near Dimitri Bar and Grill
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
I was walking across the area near the train tracks when i stepped onto a manhole/drainage cover that was not securely fastened, and my foot
and leg went into the hole, as the manhole cover flipped. I damaged my knee, which resulted in a grade 3 MCL tear
Please see attached medical records, statement of D. Harwick, and documents from railroad pertaining to maintenance agreements
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
Devan Hardwick - see attached transcript of recorded statement
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? X Yes No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
License Plate #
Type Auto: _
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
a�
M
E
M
L
0
4-
E
U
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 104
6.4.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 ;' 1
Signature of Representative
Adam Urra
Date and place (residential address, city and county)
712012021 Brain Injury Law of Seattle, 437 5th Ave S, Ste 103 Edmonds WA
Date and place (residential address, city and county)
52581
Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable)
Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5tn Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
E
U
Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 105
6.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Resolution to Deny Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment Application
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
A private developer proposed to add the Downtown Business (BD) zones to the areas in the City of
Edmonds where the unit lot subdivision process could be used (File AMD2020-0003). The unit lot
subdivision code, as adopted in 2017, currently allows the process to be used in the General
Commercial, Multiple Residential, and Westgate Mixed Use zones.
Following a public hearing on March 24, 2021, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council
approve the proposed amendment.
The City Council first reviewed the proposal on May 4, 2021. A public hearing about the proposed
change was held on July 27, 2021, which was continued to August 17, 2021 to provide the opportunity
for additional testimony. Following the public hearing, the Council voted to deny the requested change.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt the resolution.
Narrative
Denial of the application for a code text amendment requires that the Council adopt a resolution to
finalize its action. A draft resolution is attached.
Attachments:
Resolution Denying Code Amendment Application
Packet Pg. 106
6.5.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DENYING A PROPOSED PRIVATELY
INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC SECTION 20.75.045.B,
ENTITLED "UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION — APPLICABILITY".
WHEREAS, this application was introduced to Council on May 4, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the request was opened on July 27 and continued to August
17, 2021; and
WHEREAS, a private developer, represented by Citizen Design Collaborative, has proposed to
add the Downtown Business zones to the areas in Edmonds where the unit lot subdivision
process can be used; and
WHEREAS, unit lot subdivisions are currently only allowed in the General Commercial,
Multiple Residential, and Westgate Mixed Use zones; and
WHEREAS, while this change would apply to all the Downtown Business (BD) subdistricts, the
developer would like to use the process at the site of his anticipated 14-unit townhome project at
614/616 5th Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is a Type V action that resides within the city council's legislative
discretion; and
WHEREAS, the city council expressed concern that this type of ownership structure could lead
to the use of fewer ground floor retail spaces than would be used under condominium or single
building ownership; and
WHEREAS, the city council preliminarily voted on August 17, 2021 to deny the proposal; now
therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The city council hereby denies the text amendment application submitted under file
number AMD2020-0003.
RESOLVED this 241h day of August, 2021.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR, MIKE NELSON
Packet Pg. 107
6.5.a
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: August 23, 2021
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: August 24, 2021
RESOLUTION NO.
2
Packet Pg. 108
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Chief of Police - Appointment Confirmation and Employment Agreement
Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson
Background/History
After a comprehensive recruitment and interview process, Mayor Mike Nelson has selected Acting
Police Chief Michelle Bennett as his appointee to the regular position of Chief of the Edmonds Police
Department.
The City engaged the services of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to conduct the
search process.
In order to tailor the search to the needs of Edmonds, the IACP conducted stakeholder interviews with
members of the community and City staff. They also offered a survey to the community for input on
desirable attributes of the next Chief of Police. Similarly, a survey was provided to Police Department
staff.
As part of the recruitment process selected candidates were invited to participate in an assessment
center. For the assessment center candidates completed an analysis presentation, structured interview,
and written exercise.
Finalists were then provided to the City, and each candidate had an interview with the Mayor.
From this process, three candidates for the position of Edmonds Police Chief were selected to move
forward to the final steps in the selection process.
On the morning of August 4th the Mayor met individually with the three finalists, after which the City
Council held publicly accessible interviews via Zoom with each candidate. Later that day the public was
invited to a meet -and -greet with the candidates in the Plaza Room above the Edmonds Library.
After initial introductions and brief remarks from the finalists, members of the public were invited to
chat with the candidates. An online survey was available for individuals to offer their comments
afterwards.
After gathering feedback from all groups Mayor Nelson identified Michelle Bennett as his preferred
candidate.
A full background was completed by Public Safety Testing which confirmed that Acting Chief Bennett
meets all the requirements of RCW 35.21.333.
All background items required per WAC 139-07-020 were provided and verified during the background
process, and Public Safety Testing determined that the background met all requirements of RCW
43.101.095.
Packet Pg. 109
7.1
Staff Recommendation
Confirm the appointment of Michelle Bennett to the position of Chief of Police and approve the
corresponding employment agreement.
Narrative
Attached is the employment agreement for Michelle Bennett. It should be noted that the following
items are included in the agreement and are different than other appointed Director contracts due to
the additional role the Chief of Police holds as a commissioned Police Officer.
- Bennett must continue to meet all Chief of Police eligibility requirements as set forth in RCW 35.21.333
- 2.5% pay differential to address compression issues which occur with direct reports receiving specialty
pay and overtime pay
- 4% of base salary contributed by the City into a deferred comp account (This is consistent with what
uniformed officers in Edmonds receive as a benefit)
- Holiday time off is provided as a bank of hours (due to the Police Department being a 24/7 operation)
- Employee is provided a bank of 80 hours of vacation and 40 hours of sick leave at hire
Attachments:
Bennett - Employment Agreement 8.19.2021
Packet Pg. 110
7.1.a
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
CHIEF OF POLICE
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Michelle Bennett
(the "Employee") and the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (the
"City") to describe the terms and conditions of Employee's appointment to the position of,
and employment as, the City's Chief of Police.
WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the services of the Employee as the Chief of
Police of the City of Edmonds, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and as provided by
the Edmonds City Code (`BCC"); and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to provide certain benefits, establish certain
conditions of employment, and to set working conditions of the Employee; and
WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that the Employee is appointed by the Mayor,
subject to City Council approval; that the Employee will serve at the pleasure of the Mayor;
and that nothing herein is intended to modify the Employee's at -will status; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Employee to accept employment as Chief of Police
under the terms provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Appointment and Term
In accordance with RCW 35A.12.020 and Chapter 2.10 ECC, the Mayor appoints, and
the City Council confirms, the Employee as the Chief of Police for an indefinite term
commencing Thursday, September 16, 2021. The effective date of this Agreement is
the date set forth below. Nothing in this Agreement will prevent, limit, or otherwise
interfere with the right of the Mayor to terminate the services of the Employee at any
time. Termination of employment will be subject to the provisions set forth in Section
8 of this Agreement.
2. Qualifications and Eligibility
The Employee affirms that she possesses the education, training and experience which
are an essential condition of the Employee's appointment and employment. In addition,
by her signature on this Agreement, the Employee hereby swears and affirms under
penalty of perjury that she meets the Chief of Police eligibility requirements set forth
in RCW 35.21.333. Failure to meet these requirements will automatically terminate
this Agreement, and the Employee will not be eligible for the severance provisions
outlined in Section 8 of this Agreement.
Packet Pg. 111
7.1.a
3. Duties and Authority
The Chief of Police is a department head position with executive management
responsibility for the Edmonds Police Department. As the Chief of Police, the
Employee will devote her full time and attention to faithfully performing the duties
thereof, which include but are not limited to management of all activities related to the
following:
Under direction of the Mayor, plans, organizes, controls and directs the
activities and operations of the Police Department including law
enforcement activities and the protection of life and property; employs
strategies for reducing and preventing crime; ensures efficient deployment
of personnel and equipment resources; plans and directs strategic planning
and goal development; performs departmental budgeting and human
resources functions, including staff supervision and evaluation; enforces
appropriate federal, state and city laws and ordinances; and serves as official
representative of the Department. The Chief of Police is responsible for the
operations of the Department and may delegate signing authority except as
limited by the provisions of Edmonds City Code or state or federal law.
In addition, this position will perform such other legally and ethically permissible
duties as may be assigned by the Mayor. The Employee will not engage in any other
business activity, regardless of whether such activity is pursued for profit, gain, or other
pecuniary advantage without prior written permission from the Mayor. The
Employee's position is FLSA-exempt and not eligible for overtime.
4. Hours of Work
It is recognized that the Employee must devote time outside the normal office hours to
the business of the City. To that end, the Employee will be allowed to take
compensatory time off as the Employee deems appropriate during normal office hours,
so long as the business of the Department is not adversely affected. Work in excess of
an average of forty (40) hours per week is deemed part of the professional responsibility
for which the Employee will not be paid overtime. The Employee will be allowed
flexibility in setting her office hours or hours of work when necessary to accommodate
the needs of the Department.
5. Salary
Beginning September 16, 2021, the Employee will be paid at Range 22, Step 7, with
an annual salary of $184,694 for 2021, which will be pro -rated and paid in periodic
installments consistent with the City's normal payroll procedures. This salary may be
subject to step adjustments, market adjustments, and/or annual COLA adjustment, as
determined by City Policy, City Code, the City Council and/or the Mayor. The
Employee will also be paid a two and a half percent (2.5%) pay differential to address
compression which may occur due to subordinates receiving specialty pay and
overtime. In addition, the City will contribute four percent (4%) of her base wage into
one of the City's three deferred compensation plans, as selected by the Employee.
2
Packet Pg. 112
7.1.a
6. Benefits
6.1 Holidays and Leaves
The Employee will be granted or accrue holidays, vacation, sick leave and other leave
as provided in Chapter 2.35 EMC and City policy. This includes twenty-two (22) days
of vacation, twenty-four (24) hours of management leave, and ninety-six (96) hours of
holiday leave per year, and eight (8) hours of sick leave per month. In addition, the
Employee will be granted a bank of ten days (80 hours) of vacation leave and five days
(40 hours) of sick leave at the beginning of her employment. The Employee will be
eligible to use vacation and sick leave banks at the start of her employment. The
Employee will thereafter accrue vacation and sick leave as provided in Chapter 2.35
EMC.
6.2 Insurance
The Employee will be provided the same medical, dental, disability, life insurance and
other insurance benefits as other management level employees.
6.3 Retirement
The Employee may elect to participate in one of the City's deferred compensation
programs, and is required to participate in the Municipal Employees Benefit Trust
(which is provided in lieu of federal Social Security) on the same terms as other City
employees. These programs are in addition to the mandatory DRS-managed retirement
plan, if any, applicable to the Employee's position.
6.4 Automobile and Travel
The Employee will be assigned a take home police vehicle. If the Employee uses her
personal vehicle for City business, she will be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary
travel expenses in accordance with City policy and state and federal law.
6.5 Professional Organization and Development
Within departmental budget limitations, the City will pay the Employee's annual dues
and memberships in the professional organizations necessary and desirable for her
professional development, for accomplishing her duties as Chief of Police, and for the
good of the City.
6.6 Clothing Allowance, Equipment and Uniforms
The Employee will receive a Nine Hundred Dollar ($900.00) per calendar year clothing
allowance, which will be paid in full for 2021 at the time of hire and paid up -front in
the month of January for each year of employment thereafter. The Employee will also
receive all equipment and uniforms as outlined in the commissioned officers collective
bargaining agreement.
7. Performance Appraisals
The Mayor will review the Employee's performance in December 2021 and each
subsequent December thereafter.
Packet Pg. 113
7.1.a
8. Termination and Severance Pay
The Employee is employed at -will and is subject to a six (6) month probationary period.
The Mayor may remove her from the position of Chief of Police and terminate her
appointment at any time, with or without cause. In the event the Employee is terminated
either during probation or after, without cause, she will receive severance pay equal to three
(3) months' salary and payment for any accrued but unused leave per Chapter 2.35 ECC.
Employees removed and terminated for cause, including but not limited to malfeasance in
office or conviction of a felony, are not entitled to severance pay. In the event the Employee
voluntarily resigns and gives at least two (2) weeks advance notice in writing, she will be
paid at separation for unused leave as provided in Chapter 2.35 EMC. The Mayor may
waive the notice requirement in the case of resignation due to health or family emergency.
The Employee will cooperate in every way with the smooth and normal transfer to the
newly appointed individual. The Employee will not be entitled to any severance pay or
other benefits which would have accrued to her if her employment had been terminated by
the City without cause.
9. Indemnification
The City will defend, save harmless and indemnify the Employee as set forth in Chapter
2.06 ECC, or any amendment thereof, with respect to claims and/or litigation resulting
from any conduct, acts or omissions arising from the scope or course of the Employee's
service to or employment with the City.
10. Entire Agreement / Modification / Severability
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any
other agreements, oral or written. This Agreement will prevail over any conflicting
provisions of any personnel policy, rule or regulation enacted by the City. This Agreement
will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, will be binding upon the City and
the Employee as well as their heirs, successors and assigns, and may be amended or
modified only with the written concurrence of both parties. The prevailing party in any
action brought to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement or resolve any dispute or
controversy arising hereunder will be entitled to their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
If any clause, section, sentence or provision of this Agreement is ultimately held invalid by
a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation will not affect the validity
of any other clause, section, sentence or provision.
11. Notices
All notices or other communications required by this Agreement will be in writing and will
be effective upon delivery by hand or three (3) business days after deposit in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the City at the address below, and/or at the
last known address maintained in the Employee's personnel file. The Employee agrees to
notify the City in writing of any change in her address during her employment.
CITY OF EDMONDS: Office of the Mayor
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
2
Packet Pg. 114
7.1.a
EMPLOYEE: [Deliver to last updated address in personnel file]
12.Opportunity to Confer with Independent Counsel
In signing below, the Employee expressly represents and affirms that she has read and
understands this Agreement, that she is fully aware of its legal effects, that the City
Attorney was not acting as Employee's counsel in drafting this Agreement, that she has
had the opportunity to consult with independent counsel in reviewing and deciding to
execute this Agreement, and that she enters into it freely and voluntarily based on her own
judgment and not on any representations or promises other than those contained in this
Agreement.
DATED this day of August 2021.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Michael Nelson, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
EMPLOYEE
Michelle Bennett
5
Packet Pg. 115
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Highway 99 Gateway Signs
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Sydney Hall
Background/History
On August 10, 2021, the Parks & Public Works Committee reviewed this item.
On March 2, 2021, the City Council approved the Agreement with HBB for the design of the Gateway
Signs.
Staff Recommendation
Authorization to develop conceptual designs for three sign options on the north end and three sign
options on the south end of Highway 99.
Narrative
The design of the Gateway Signs on the north and south end of the corridor are being completed by
HBB. The proposed locations on both ends of the corridor have been identified. In order to complete
conceptual alternatives for both locations (next step as part of the design phase), different architectural
sign types, lettering style, messages, lighting, and landscaping types need to be considered. These topics
were discussed during a Task Force meeting on July 19, 2021 and Community Workshop on August 4tn
2021.
Following the Community Workshop, a survey was made available on the City website, project website
and Uptown Market to obtain public input about the preferred sign options. Upon further evaluation of
survey results and based on comments from the Task Force, three sign options on the north end and
three sign options on south end were generated. The next step in the design process is the development
and evaluation of conceptual alternatives.
The design of Gateway Signs will be incorporated into the plans and specifications for the Highway 99
Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 2. The project is anticipated to begin construction in Spring
2022.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Gateway Sign Council Presentation
Attachment 2: Survey Results following August 4th Community Workshop
Packet Pg. 116
in 1 '91 'DA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
`12 1 8yIj
Packet Pg. 117
AGENDA
Present preliminary sign and gateway concepts
Survey Feedback
Discussion
DESIRED OUTCOME
► Get feedback in order to begin design of sign
and gateway concept alternatives.
Are the three concept frameworks presented
appropriate for each location?
Packet Pg. 118
May - Early April 2021
City Council Meeting #1
WSDOT Art Plan Review
Summer 2021
Task Force Meeting #4
Community Workshop #2
Task Force Meeting #5
City Council Meeting #2
Autumn 2021
90% Construction Documents
WSDOT Art Plan Approval
95% Construction Documents
100% Construction Documents
Winter 2021
Packet Pg. 119
8.1.a
Key Map
EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY CORRIDOR
(APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MI)
NORTH
238TH STREET SW
EDMONDS CITY LIMIT
244TH STREET SW
Packet Pg. 120
ANALYSIS -SOUTH A
'T,
EXISTING GUARDRAIL
V
O
a.
u
0
Cn
Z
as
El
zo
I Packet Pg. 121 1
SURVEY
FEEDBACK
Which SOUTH Gateway sign type do you prefer?
South Sign A: vertical
40% preferred
South Sign B: Horizontal
60% preferred
Packet Pg. 122
Packet Pg. 123
M
Bainbridge iiI'iW,
Packet Pg. 124
8.1.a
ANALYSIS -NORTH
im
EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY CORRIDOR
(APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MI) n
212TH STREET SW
238TH STREET SW
EDMONDS CITY LIM
NORTH
208TH STREET SW
220TH STREET SW
244TH STREET SW
Packet Pg. 125
CENTER ME[
-
Almhow NOW
momYmn
~ ~~
^ w*
�
.�^
.' �__�- -
f-----' xwnooxoummmwo
|
/
(D�
�
'
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
���
-�
........... ............. ~-~----- ..... '-~-~-�~-'��--'~-'~-�~�r'~"---�-'—�- -77, IH
\ � U
` eo
a:'
ML
North Sign A: vertical
North Sign C: vertical
Which NORTH Gateway sign type do you prefer?
23%
preferred
22%
preferred
rib
North Sign B: vertical
N
3
m
m
a
33%
,
preferred 2D
I i
ML
i
North Sign D: Horizontal
L
a
U
c
0
U
c
22% Cn
preferred
C
E
a
E
U
f4
a-.
Q
Packet Pg. 127
What should the gateway signs say?
Welcome to Edmonds
63% preferred
Welcome to Uptown Edmonds
7% preferred
Welcome to Edmonds
o% preferred "kind" or "artistic"
Other? Edmonds
9% preferred 16% preferred
"Scenic Edmonds"
"Welcome" in many languages
Packet Pg. 128
SURVEY FEEDBACK
a o w to T o ur e
WESTGATE
D I S T R I C T
Downtown
ECA Center for the Arts
FAC Anderson Center
W de James Theatre E
Ed monds Cemetery
""" Yost Park • Museum
0
Describe the character of the NORTH gateway location...
Simple N
Modern
Cn
Sea
Visual Clutter
Kindness Signs
Multicultural Linking
Health Commercial
Communities
Cars fountains
0
w
Travel
Industrial
Packet Pg. 130
0
Describe the character of the SOUTH gateway location...
Mountains
Commercial
Multicultural
a
District
E
Business
Cn
Too Many Signs
Cn
Cn
0
Fundamental
Industrial
Transitioning
Cn
Busy
International
ED
Packet Pg. 131
0
What are elements that should inspire the gateway signs?ly
3
a
r
550i Natural Elements Other Suggestions...
35% Sustainability International cultural influence
35% Light Integrative to environment, useful in some way, make noise when o
rained on
33% Sculptural Art
Inclusive
33% Culture
° Solar powered lighting o
33% Modern
U
31%Future &Vision Native history
CU
310/c Color Mountains and Sound
c�
210/c Contemporary
Z
140/c Traditional
8% History a
E
U
R
r
a-.
Q
Packet Pg. 132
0
' Should the NORTH and SOUTH gateway signs match? y
3
a
r
66%they should match each other
190/c they should each be unique
15% other suggestions„
... They could match but each have sculptural element (flower basket poles) N
.,, Vertical at north end, southend should be a hybrid with horizontal base and vertical
element at one side that mimics the one to the north
0
U
c
... They should be similar
... Related thematically and close cousins 3
... Similar in style, coordinating
E
a
r
E
U
f4
a-.
a
Packet Pg. 133
0
Should the gateway signs match other signs in Edmonds? y
3
a
r
46% prefer similar elements to other
rn
signs but overall should be unique
z2% prefer similar to Welcome to
0
Downtown Edmonds sign
CO
22% prefer similar to Edmonds
a
Wayfinding signs
9% other suggestions...
3
O
T
...Modern
3
...Like the Miami Beach sign but with wav
...Incorporate 1-2 elements from the
Z
wayfinding signs
E
...Focus on reducing distractions and hav 2
few words
a
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 134
INSPIRATION
Traditional Gateway Chara
,r
R _F
' P
If
e East Jordan ' N" z
r
�
73
VE
p,
55% Natural Elements
35% Sustainability 33%
Modern
N
C
P
R
3
v
CD
s
am
2
Packet Pg. 136
INSPIRATION Contemporary Gateway Chara -
i'iic�QRY� Est. iB74 II �
9 1
i' it
Discussion
SOUTH Gateway Alternatives
South Sign A:
• Sign Size & Shape: Vertical
• Sign Inspiration: Natural elements,
Sustainability, Modern
South Sign B:
• Sign Size & Shape: Vertical
• Sign Inspiration: Light, Sculptural art, Color
7ZIM- 0
r
ea
- m
N
d
Y � a
0
0
South Sign C:
• Sign Size & Shape: Hybrid Vertical / Horizonte n
• Sign Inspiration: Natural elements, 3
Sustainability, Modern
_
Zo
Packet Pg. 138
Discussion
NORTH Gateway Alternativ
North Sign A:
• Sign Size & Shape: Vertical with architectural
element at the back of sidewalk
• Sign Inspiration: Natural elements,
Sustainability, Modern
North Sign B:
• Sign Size & Shape: Vertical with architectural
element at the back of sidewalk
• Sign Inspiration: Light, Sculptural art, Color
a
z
1
in r_
y
r Id W
T
North Sign C:
• Sign Size & Shape: Vertical
• Sign Inspiration: Light, Sculptural art, Color
Packet Pg. 139
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
Q1 Which SOUTH Gateway sign type do you prefer?
Answered:55 Skipped:4
N
C
Vertical fn
R
3
as
c�
c�
rn
rn
Horizontal
3
a�
x
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Vertical 40.00% 22
Horizontal 60.00% 33
TOTAL 55
1 / 11 1 Packet Pg. 140
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
Q2 Which NORTH Gateway sign type do you prefer?
Answered:55 Skipped:4
Vertical sign
at back of..
Vertical sign
in median
Hori
sign at
Vertic
in media
zonta
back..
aL sign r I
n wi...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Vertical sign at back of sidewalk
Vertical sign in median
Horizontal sign at back of sidewalk
Vertical sign in median with architectural element at back of sidewalk
TOTAL
RESPONSES
21.82%
12
23.64%
13
21.82%
12
32.73%
18
55
2/11
Packet Pg. 141
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
Q3 What should the gateway signs say?
Answered:56 Skipped:3
T
Edmonds
U)
cv
Welcome t
3
Edmond
CU
rn
Welcome to
Uptown Edmonds
3
t
Welcome to
=
Edmonds
n
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Edmonds
16.07%
9
Welcome to Edmonds
62.50%
35
Welcome to Uptown Edmonds
7.14%
4
Welcome to Edmonds
5.36%
3
Other (please specify)
8.93%
5
TOTAL
56
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
I
1 South: "welcome" in our many primary languages: English, the Chinese
languages, Korean,
8/8/2021 8:47 PM
Spanish, Russian), International District; North: Welcome to Edmonds
2 too many signs already...
8/6/2021 4:22 PM
3 Nothing, these signs are a waste of money
8/5/2021 10:23 AM
4 Scenic Edmonds
8/5/2021 9:25 AM
5 edmonds
8/4/2021 12:18 PM
3 / 11 1 Packet Pg. 142
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
8.1.b
Q4 If you selected 'Welcome to Edmonds' above what would you
put in the blank space?
# RESPONSES
1 Artistic
2 Kind
Answered:2 Skipped:57
DATE
8/8/2021 9:29 PM
8/6/2021 11:47 PM
4 / 11 Packet Pg. 143
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
Q5 What should the letter style be?
Answered:52 Skippe,
c
T
s-Serif in
�a
3
a�
R
rn
rn
Script
3
a�
x
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% .
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sans -Serif 53.85% 28
Script 46.15% 24
TOTAL 52
5 / 11 1 Packet Pg. 144
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
8.1.b
Q6 What is one word or phrase that you would use to describe the
character of the corridor near the NORTH gateway location?
Answered:27 Skipped:32
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Multicultural
8/11/2021 11:43 PM
2
multi cultural food and shops should be highlighted and promoted
8/10/2021 10:59 AM
3
Too many car dealerships!
8/8/2021 9:32 PM
4
All are here/ all are welcomed
8/8/2021 9:02 PM
5
Commercial
8/7/2021 7:25 PM
6
Business linking communities
8/7/2021 8:39 AM
7
Kindness
8/6/2021 11:50 PM
8
too many signs
8/6/2021 4:23 PM
9
homeless person pushing grocery cart.
8/6/2021 2:37 PM
10
traffic
8/6/2021 6:44 AM
11
Not sure where it is
8/5/2021 5:00 PM
12
grassy
8/5/2021 2:45 PM
13
undefined ... where does the road lead? Edmonds? Mountlake Terrace?
8/5/2021 11:14 AM
14
Welcoming
8/5/2021 11:13 AM
15
Travel
8/5/2021 10:52 AM
16
Already too much distraction
8/5/2021 10:26 AM
17
Health
8/5/2021 9:36 AM
18
Sea and Mountains
8/5/2021 9:27 AM
19
Commercial
8/5/2021 8:53 AM
20
Commercial
8/5/2021 8:49 AM
21
visual clutter
8/5/2021 8:28 AM
22
Modern
8/5/2021 6:44 AM
23
Industrial
8/5/2021 6:38 AM
24
CARS!
8/5/2021 6:24 AM
25
simple
8/5/2021 6:03 AM
26
Innovative
8/4/202111:23 PM
27
ed
8/4/2021 12:18 PM
6 / 11 1 Packet Pg. 145
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
8.1.b
1
2
3
4
I
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q7 What is one word or phrase that you would use to describe the
character of the corridor near the SOUTH gateway location?
Answered:26 Skippea
RESPONSES
Multicultural
needs development
Connection to Shoreline, journey to the city (ie Seattle)
More neutral like the rest of our gateway signage- Let people know "you are here in Edmonds!"
Professional, business district
Welcoming
Passport to a good life or passport to something... that particular spot feels like you're
transitioning
Kindness
too many signs
homeless person pushing grocery cart.
view
scary
Commercial/industrial
undefined .. where does the road lead? Downton /ferry /shopping /library ????
Welcoming
Errands
Don't look at the sign, look at the guy in front of you!
International
Sea and Mountains
Cresting a hill
Busy
grass
I nstallation
PAVEMENT!
simple
Fundamental
ed
DATE
8/11/2021 11:43 PM
8/10/2021 10:59 AM
8/8/2021 9:32 PM
8/8/2021 9:02 PM
8/7/2021 7:25 PM
8/7/2021 8:39 AM
8/6/2021 11:50 PM
8/6/2021 4:23 PM
8/6/2021 2:37 PM
8/6/2021 6:44 AM
8/5/2021 5:00 PM
8/5/2021 2:45 PM
8/5/2021 11:14 AM
8/5/2021 11:13 AM
8/5/2021 10:52 AM
8/5/2021 10:26 AM
8/5/2021 9:36 AM
8/5/2021 9:27 AM
8/5/2021 8:53 AM
8/5/2021 8:49 AM
8/5/2021 8:28 AM
8/5/2021 6:44 AM
8/5/2021 6:24 AM
8/5/2021 6:03 AM
8/4/2021 11:23 PM
8/4/2021 12:18 PM
7/11
Packet Pg. 146
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
8.1.b
Q8 Thinking about the character of the Highway 99 corridor and Edmonds
overall, what are some elements that should be inspiration for the gateway
signs? Check all that apply:
Su
Futu
col
SCI
Answered:49 Skipped: 10
Modern Ot
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8 / 11 1 Packet Pg. 147
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Modern
32.65%
Sustainability
34.69%
Future & Vision
30.61%
Traditional
14.29%
Natural Elements
55.10%
History
8.16%
Contemporary
20.41%
Sculptural Art
32.65%
Culture
32.65%
Light
34.69%
Color
30.61%
Total Respondents: 49
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
1 International cultural influence
8/10/2021 10:59 AM
2 too many signs
8/6/2021 4:23 PM
3 integrative to environment / useful in some way / make noise when rained on?
8/5/2021 10:30 AM
4 Traffic, Distraction
8/5/2021 10:26 AM
5 Inclusive
8/5/2021 8:49 AM
6 simplicity. speed of travel is 35-45 mph and there are many distractions.
8/5/2021 8:28 AM
7 Solar powered lighting; native history; mountains and Sound
8/5/2021 8:20 AM
16
17
15
7 N
c
27 to
4
Y
10 U
rn
a�
16
3
16
2
17
15 t
9/11
Packet Pg. 148
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
8.1.b
Q9 Should the gateway signs at the north and south match each other or
have unique design elements?
Answered:53 Skipped:6
Theyshoul
match each.
They should b
uniqu
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
They should match each other 66.04%
35
They should be unique 18.87%
10
Other (please specify) 15.09%
8
TOTAL
53
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
1 Tbd
8/8/2021 9:32 PM
2 Vertical work much better at north end; to tie together but still take advantage of the site, south
8/8/2021 9:02 PM
end should be a hybrid with horizontal base and vertical element at one side that mimics the
one to the north
3 They could match but each have a sculptural element on top like the flower basket poles
8/7/2021 9:55 AM
downtown
4 too many signs
8/6/2021 4:23 PM
5 They should be similar
8/5/2021 9:03 PM
6 related thematically and close cousins. not two completely separate or two identical
8/5/2021 10:30 AM
7 They should match in not being there at all
8/5/2021 10:26 AM
8 Similar in style, coordinating
8/5/2021 6:44 AM
10 / 11 Packet Pg. 149
Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Community Survey #1
8.1.b
Q10 Thinking of the other signs around Edmonds below, should the
Highway 99 gateway signs match these other signs or should they be
unique? (see example photos below)
Answered:54 Skipped:5
They should
similar to 1
They should
similar to 1
They should
have element...
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
They should be similar to the Welcome to Downtown Edmonds sign 22.22% 12
They should be similar to the Edmonds wayfinding signs 22.22% 12
They should have elements that are similar to other signs in Edmonds but overall should be unique 46.30% 25
Other (please specify) 9.26% 5
TOTAL 54
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 too many signs 8/6/2021 4:23 PM
2 Modern 8/5/2021 5:21 PM
3 Like the Miami Beach sign, but with waves rather than circles 8/5/2021 3:47 PM
4 As little to read as possible, Hwy 99 already too distracting 8/5/2021 10:26 AM
5 incorporate 1-2 design elements from wayfinding signs, but no need to make signs similar. 8/5/2021 8:28 AM
c
in
ca
3
a�
R
0
rn
rn
3
t
11 / 11 Packet Pg. 150
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Landmark Tree Ordinance Extension
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4217 at the March 2, 2021 Council meeting providing
protection for landmark trees, those trees with a 24 inch diameter at breast height. In accordance with
RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council held a public hearing on Ordinance No. 4217
(Exhibit 2) at the April 20, 2021 council meeting. Resolution No. 1471 (Exhibit 3) contained findings of
fact to support the adoption of Ordinance No. 4217 and was adopted on April 27, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt the draft ordinance provided in Exhibit 1 extending the landmark tree protections and set a date
for a public hearing on this interim ordinance.
Narrative
The City Council reviewed new tree -related regulations throughout the first half 2021 culminating in the
adoption of Ordinance No. 4227. The primary focus of the updated tree regulations is retaining trees
when a property is being developed or redeveloped. During review of these regulations the City Council
expressed a potential interest in broadening tree codes and/or programs to apply to all properties, not
just properties that are being developed. To preserve the largest trees while the next stage of tree code
updates is being considered, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4217. This ordinance prohibits the
removal of trees with a 24-inch diameter at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground) on all properties
unless the tree is a hazard tree, nuisance tree, or removal has been reviewed with a building permit,
subdivision, or other land use approval. Ordinance No. 4217 is set to expire on September 2, 2021.
The next stage of tree code updates will not be completed by the time Ordinance No. 4217 expires on
September 2nd. To continue providing protection to landmark trees, a new interim ordinance is
proposed (Exhibit 1) that would extend the protection for landmark trees six months from the effective
date of this new ordinance. A place holder is in Section 5 of the draft ordinance to set the public hearing
for this ordinance within the next 60 days.
Before considering any tree code updates that might apply more broadly than the development tree
regulations that were recently adopted, a robust public engagement process will need to be
implemented and it will be some time before any additional tree codes or programs are ready for
Council review. Meanwhile, other Stage 2 tree related items are moving forward:
An updated tree canopy assessment is underway. (UFMP Goal 1.1)
Packet Pg. 151
9.1
An inventory of downtown street trees has been completed. (UFMP Goal 2.C)
An update of the street tree plan is in process. (UFMP Goal 2.D and Goal 5.E)
Tree Fund has been established and is being included in budget preparation (UFMP Goal 1.F)
The position of Urban Forest Planner has been advertised and applications are under review
(UFMP Goal 1.H)
A tree list developed by the Tree Board and City Staff has been prepared and will be made
available shortly (UFMP Goal 5.A)
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance to Extend Landmark Tree Protections
Exhibit 2: Ordinance No. 4217
Exhibit 3: Resolution No. 1471
Exhibit 4: March 2, 2021 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 5: April 20, 2021 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing)
Exhibit 6: April 27, 2021 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 152
9.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
EXTENDING FOR SIX MONTHS AN INTERIM REGULATION TO
PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES
WHEREAS, the City Council recently adopted new tree regulations with Ordinance
4227; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wants to consider adopting additional regulations that
would provide additional protection to trees that have a diameter at breast height of twenty-four
inches or greater ("Landmark Trees"); and
WHEREAS, an interim regulation was adopted for that purpose with Ordinance 4217;
and
WHEREAS, the City needs additional time to prepare, evaluate and consider the merits,
scope, and details of a permanent regulation for Landmark Trees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to extend the previously adopted interim regulation
to protect Landmark Trees while this work can be done; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this interim regulation is to temporarily protect
certain Landmark Trees from "tree removal" as that term is defined in ECDC 23.10.020.V. This
temporary protection will allow the City adequate time to adopt a permanent regulation, if such
is deemed appropriate, to govern the removal of such trees. For the purposes of this ordinance, a
"Landmark Tree" shall be defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty-
four inches or more. r
s:
Section 2. Applicability. The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall have x
w
no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree
E
s
removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval.
Q
Packet Pg. 153
9.1.a
Section 3. Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be
unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a Landmark Tree, as that term is defined in
Section 1, above, unless the Landmark Tree also meets the definition of hazard tree in ECDC
23.10.020.1-1 or nuisance tree in 23.10.020.N.
Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations. As long as the City holds a public
hearing on the interim regulations and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the interim
regulations (as contemplated by Section 5 herein), the interim regulations shall not terminate
until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner.
Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim regulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this interim regulation within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on , 2021 unless
the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No
later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council
shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its
continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful 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 Ordinance. r
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically x
w
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
E
s
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
Q
Packet Pg. 154
9.1.a
Section 8. Repealer. This ordinance, which effectively extends the substance of, and in
so doing would duplicate, Ordinance 4217, therefore hereby repeals Ordinance 4217.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
T
t
X
W
yr
d
E
s
m
Q
Packet Pg. 155
9.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the
title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
EXTENDING FOR SIX MONTHS AN INTERIM REGULATION TO
PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
T
t
X
W
yr
d
E
s
M
Q
Packet Pg. 156
9.1.b
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.4217
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO
PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A
TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE
PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Council is in the process of adopting new tree regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wants to consider adopting an additional regulation that
would provide greater protection to trees of especially significant size; and
WHEREAS, such additional regulation for the City Council's consideration may apply to
all private properties in the City;
WHEREAS, it will take several months for the City to evaluate and consider the merits,
scope, and details of such a regulation; and
N
le
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the following interim regulation to protect
landmark trees while this work can be done; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this interim regulation is to temporarily protect
certain landmark trees from tree removal as that term is defined in ECDC 23.10.020.S. This
temporary protection will allow the City adequate time to adopt a permanent regulation to govern
the removal of such trees. For the purposes of this ordinance, a "landmark tree" shall be defined
as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty-four inches or more.
Section 2. Applicability. The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall have
no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree
Packet Pg. 157
9.1.b
removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval.
Section 3. Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be
unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree, as that term is defined in
Section 1, above, unless the landmark tree also meets the definition of hazard tree in ECDC
23.10.020.G or nuisance tree in 23.10.020.K.
Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations. The interim regulations imposed by this
Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City
holds a public hearing on the interim regulations and adopts findings and conclusions in support
of the interim regulations (as contemplated by Section 5 herein), the interim regulations shall not
terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, unless it is repealed sooner.
Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim regulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this interim regulation within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on April 20, 2021 unless the
City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later
than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall
adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its continued
imposition or cancel the interim regulations.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful 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 Ordinance.
PA
Packet Pg. 158
9.1.b
Section 7. Declaration of Emergency_. The City Council hereby declares that an
emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a
majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject
to a referendum. Without the immediate adoption of these interim regulations, the City faces the
possible removal of landmark trees. Therefore, the interim regulation must be imposed as an
emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the removal
of landmark trees. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights.
Section 8. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
Section 9. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and
effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus
one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only
approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication.le
APPROVED:
f .I�
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CI ER , SC TT 151WEY
Packet Pg. 159
9.1.b
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 2, 2021
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 2, 2021
PUBLISHED: March 5, 2021
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2021
ORDINANCE NO. 4217
Packet Pg. 160
9.1.b
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4217
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 2„d day of March, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4217. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO
PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A
TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE
PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2021. Y
� L
E
EI Y CLERK, SC"'(
N
le
Packet Pg. 161
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH921288 ORDS 4216-4218 as
it was published in the regular and entire issue
of said paper and not as a supplement form
thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 03/05/2021 and
ending on 03/05/2021 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount of the fee for such public tion is
$42.0 -
Subs *bed and sworn bBfDT8. me on this Linda Phillips
z�— Y Public
day of f anlNaehington
i+xPites08z7
A.A A , f
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416
SCOW PASSEY
Packet Pg. 162
Classified Proof
9.1.b
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
of tha City dr Edmantls, Waxhlny7ldn
On the 2nd day of Mercn. 202t, she CISy Council of the Crty dl
Edmmtds, passed lfre 1' IL I Otdmancss, Ina summarlas of SWd
drdJneneee consJ3rIn of We% arm onmilded as follows:
ORDINANCE L34.4
AN ORDINANC OF EOMONDS,
WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4211 AS A
RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
CRiANANC£ 4
9
.4217
AN ORDINANC. O H Cl Y OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY
REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN
LANDMARX. TREES ON'A TEMPORARY BASIS. SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
INTERIM REGULATION. AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY
ORDINANCE NO 4218
AN ORDINANCE OF TffE--1ITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHiNGTON. REPEALING EXISi1NG TREE CUTTING
REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED
REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW
TREEFUND
The full text of these Ordinances wIII bB motion upon raquesr.
DATED this 2nd Dayat Mwcn, 2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Published: March 5, 2021, EDH921288
N
le
Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 03/08/2021 09:45:49 am Page: 2
Packet Pg. 163
9.1.c
RESOLUTION NO. 1471
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217, WHICH ESTABLISHED INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF
CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES.
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4217 on March 2, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on Ordinance 4217 on April 20, 2021 to
determine whether the interim development regulations adopted by that ordinance were justified
and should continue for the remainder of its six-month period of applicability; and
WHEREAS, several people spoke at the above -referenced public hearing, both for and against
the ordinance: and
WHEREAS, many of the arguments offered in favor of the ordinance made points consistent
with the whereas clauses of Ordinance 4217; and
WHEREAS, many of the arguments offered against the ordinance were less persuasive due to
the temporary nature of the ordinance; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The city council hereby adopts as its findings of fact to
support the adoption and continuing effectiveness of Ordinances 4217 the Whereas clauses
contained in Ordinances 4217 as well as the following supplemental findings:
A. It takes a long time for a tree to grow from its planted size to a size of twenty-four
inch DBH or larger.
B. The permanent landmark tree regulations to be adopted later this year may allow for
some removal of landmark trees in certain circumstances where removal is deemed
appropriate.
C. Careful thought and deliberation should be given to the crafting of those permanent
landmark tree regulations to ensure that any future removal of landmark trees is not
harmful to the public, health, safety, and welfare or that such harm is offset by other
competing societal values and benefits.
D. Extending the effectiveness of Ordinance 4217 for roughly another four months until
September 2, 2021 is reasonable considering how long it would take to replace
Packet Pg. 164
9.1.c
landmark trees that may be cut without sufficient justification if the ordinance were to
be repealed now.
Section 2. CONTINUANCE OF MORATORIUM. In light of the findings of fact adopted in
Section 1, above, the effectiveness of Ordinance 4217 shall continue and not terminate until
September 2, 2021, unless it is expressly repealed by earlier council action.
RESOLVED this 27th day of April, 2021.
CITY OF EDMONDS
i
MA,Y6R, MIKE NELSON
ATTEST:
C TY CLERK, SCOT-T ASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 23. 2021
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 27. 2021
RESOLUTION NO. 1471
2
Packet Pg. 165
9.1.d
canopy around the trees which he assumed was relative to the DBH size, but he doubted they actually
measured the tree crown diameter. Surveyed locations of tree are not always required and he assumed the
tree canopy diameter would be estimated.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that it would be a best guess rather than a
measurement. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan that illustrate tree locations with the DBH with some sort of
canopy around it. He pointed out a 40" tree and the canopy, a smaller tree with a smaller canopy, an 18"
tree with a slightly bigger canopy, and a grove of trees and their canopy. Site plans typically show a
canopy but he assumed it was an estimate rather than measured.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed that would be acceptable under Council President Paine's
amendment. Mr. Lien said he would expect to see that but rather than estimated crown diameters it would
be a little related to what was actual on the ground.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD "ESTIMATED" PRIOR TO "TREE CROWN
DIAMETER." COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that the tree
crown for conifers is insignificant compared to the drip line which show the broadest part of the tree.
Confers' more global shape is equivalent to the crown line of tree. She viewed this as an added step that
developers did not need to provide as the current regulations were adequate. For trees more closely
associated, the site plan illustrates protection for groups of trees.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.II TO ADD "AND ESTIMATED TREE CROWN
DIAMETER."
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.
Council President Paine suggested continuing the discussion next week and moving on to the remaining
agenda items.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
9. NEW BUSINESS
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY INTERIM REGULATIONS RELATED
TO LANDMARK TREES
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the packet contains an emergency interim
ordinance for six months that can be revisited prior to six months. The intent of the ordinance is to apply
not only to development but apply broadly to all private properties and prohibit the removal of trees
greater than 24" diameter at breast height (DBH) during the interim period unless they are hazardous. The
intent of the ordinance, proposed by Council President Paine and Councilmember L. Johnson and
supported by Mayor Nelson, was to recognize the Council intends to revisit private property tree
regulations. As that will take several months to complete, the emergency interim ordinance will preclude
cutting of those trees during the interim period.
Ms. Hope explained the ordinance also sets a public hearing date of April 20, 2021 to discuss continuing
or changing the ordinance. If approved by a super majority, the ordinance could go into effect
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 166
immediately upon adoption. She referenced Section 3 Prohibition, which states, "For as long as this
ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree."
A landmark tree is defined as 24" DBH unless it meets the definition of a hazard tree or nuisance tree.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how the ordinance will be enforced. She recalled driving down the
street recently and seeing that a row of trees had been removed from the backyard of a house and asked
how that will be prevented. Ms. Hope agreed that was the most challenging issue with this prohibition. If
a tree code is adopted in the future that applies to all properties, it will also raise issues related to review
criteria, enforcement, etc. and will require extra resources. There are definitely fewer 24" DBH trees so it
will not necessarily affect all the properties in the City. Enforcement would be via seeing it or someone
reporting it. If the emergency interim ordinance is adopted, the City will try to get the word out but
violators could be subject to penalties.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood and trees greater than 24"
DBH being topped or cut down. She pointed out once you hear a chainsaw, it is too late as the tree is
already being cut down and they usually start at the top and work their way down unless they are logging
it for the wood. She suggested once this is adopted, sending a notification to the major tree companies so
they know not to cut those trees in Edmonds without permission.
Council President Paine said she was glad to have this emergency interim ordinance drafted that protects
and preserves landmark trees which are the biggest. She was hopeful it would maintain the status quo and
allow the subdivision tree code to be completed as well as put together the resources and planning for an
effective urban forestry program, look at canopy data through the canopy study and develop a thoughtful
tree code via an extensive public process like was done in 2015. The ordinance will provide that time and
prevents impacts on the tree canopy. A lot of the tree canopy has been removed in the last couple years
and it would be a shame to lose more. The ordinance will provide time for a more thoughtful tree code
that covers all properties.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was excited about this, but it should not use a definition that is not in
the code; she suggested rather than "landmark tree," using "significant tree", and instead of 24" DBH,
using 12" DBH because a 12" DBH is 60 years old. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's
concerns and referred to an application for tree and vegetation removal that the applicant applied for after
the fact to remove 2 hazard trees and 11 additional trees. She emphasized tree are being cut down and she
preferred to err on the side of caution and use language already in the code. She concluded this is a great
step and she applaud the Council for taking it.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the Administration for hearing their concerns and for working with
them to put this together. At the bare minimum, this will protect old growth trees that could never be
replaced and grown to the size they are in our lifetime. This is the minimum that can be done; it is really
important and should have been done a while ago to protect those trees.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson, Council President Paine, Councilmember L. Johnson
and the Administration for their work on this. He appreciate the landmark tree and the focus on the 24"
DBH. He feared going down to 12" DBH would be more difficult and may be too broad a focus for an
emergency ordinance. As with the moratorium, his preference is not to legislate via emergence ordinance
and moratorium in general. He hoped having this in place for six months provided the time necessary for
public outreach and a process by the Administration and whatever resources the Administration needed to
complete that work and to work with residents to have a fuller code and ensure the Council did not
continue to legislate via emergency ordinance and moratorium.
N
O
N
N
t
Z
x
w
c
d
E
s
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 167
9.1.d
Councilmember Olson said her concern with things that arise on short order is the unanticipated
consequences. She asked if this would apply to someone doing a renovation on their property or was that
covered in another way related to the development aspect. She asked if there could be an exception or
caveat that would allow a Council hearing for a tree that someone feels they need to address in the six
month period and would provide some flexibility for things that may arise that the Council is not thinking
about right now. Ms. Hope said the ordinance does not cover trees going through a permitted
development process because that has different requirements. This is related to other areas where people
are choosing to cut trees for various reasons. As written, the ordinance would apply to roughly 90% of
properties in the City.
Mr. Lien clarified it would not impact trees being removed with a reviewed development. This ordinance
does not apply to any tree removal associated with a permit through a building permit, subdivision or
other land use approval. It is intended to preserve large trees on developed single family properties while
the other regulations are being developed. He concluded trees reviewed with a development proposal
could still be removed.
Council President Paine said she asked similar questions of Ms. Hope regarding a smaller tree diameter.
The challenge is there is not enough code enforcement as well as seeking a balance between preserving
large trees and hoping to have good compliance with the understanding the City is seeking greater tree
canopy and the ability to monitor it. She had inquired about 12" or 16" DBH and was convinced the 24"
DBH during the interim period would be more successful and not overstrain resources.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that trees associated with a permit for a short plat or
subdivision could be removed because the moratorium ends March 10'. She expressed interest in
extending the moratorium because she was uncertain the code would be approved by March 10'. She
concluded if a developer submitted a permit for a subdivision for a property with a lot of trees, they could
be removed regardless of size after March 1 Ot' when the moratorium expires. Mayor Nelson said the issue
before the Council is the emergency interim ordinance, not the emergency moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Mr. Lien's statement that this ordinance would not apply to tree
removed as part of a subdivision. She asked whether subdivisions should be included in this emergency
ordinance since the moratorium ends March 10'. Mr. Lien answered the thought was that the regulations
that the Council reviewed in the previous agenda item would be adopted; the new Section 23.10
referenced in the emergency ordinance has regulations that preserve trees with development. If that
regulation is not adopted by the time the moratorium expires (Ordinances 4200 and 4201), the regulations
would revert to the current tree code. This ordinance may need to be amended if it is adopted prior to the
other ordinance because it specifically references Section 23.10.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained when the emergency interim ordinance was drafted, it was assumed
the tree code would already be adopted and this would be next. Realizing the Council potentially wants to
make more amendments to the tree, he proposed adopting the tree code tonight with the amendments that
were made and come back next week and continue to make amendments. The result would be instead of
making amendments to a draft code, the Council would be amending an already adopted code. That
would address the concern about the moratorium expiring. He believed if the Council waited until next
week, the moratorium would be expired at the time of next week's Council meeting.
Council President Paine said as she understands the emergency moratorium, when the conservation
subdivision code is adopted, the moratorium will expire. Ms. Hope answered yes, the way it is currently
written. Mr. Taraday said there is a repealer section in Section 4 of the tree code ordinance that expressly
repeals the tree moratorium because the new tree code goes into effect. An argument can be made [Mr.
Taraday discontinued participation in the virtual meeting].
N
O
N
N
x
w
c
d
E
s
U
M
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 168
9.1.d
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday and she have been discussing the fact that approving the tree
code repeals Ordinances 4200 and 4201, the moratorium on subdivisions and short plats. If the Council
approves the tree code as Mr. Taraday suggested, she has more amendments that she feels would solidify
the tree code. She was leery of approving the tree code tonight.
Ms. Hope said the tree ordinance in the packet specifically repeals the moratorium which otherwise would
expire March 10'. If the Council adopts tree regulations as amended, and comes back next week to make
further amendments, that may be preferable to extending or creating a new moratorium.
Mr. Taraday said there is language in Ordinance 4200 that tries to avoid this situation from occurring by
stating something like the ordinance will not be presumed to have been repealed or expired but the
Council will do that by ordinance. He was uncertain that language had been tested in court; it was
included as a potential safety net. He would prefer not to rely on that language and would rather the
Council not accidentally allow the moratorium to expire.
Ms. Hope said by adopting the proposed tree regulations with the amendments approved tonight, the
moratorium would be ended, but next week Council could consider making additional amendments to the
adopted tree code. That would prevent the unintended expiration of the moratorium expiring or creating a
new moratorium on the fly. Mr. Taraday agreed.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council has gotten off subject. The issue before the Council is the
emergency ordinance and the Council should make a decision on that before deciding on other things.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained if the Council approves this emergency ordinance tonight, it refers
to definitions in the tree code which haven't been approved. If the Council approves the tree code, it
removes the moratorium. She asked if the Council could approve the tree code and remove Section 4. Mr.
Taraday said Section 4 of the tree code ordinance could be removed. He did not want to represent to the
Council that the moratorium was bulletproof and remained in effect by virtue of removing Section 4
because Ordinance 4200 specifically states it is a 4 month moratorium and the 4 months expire on March
I Oth
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTERIM EMERGENCY TREE ORDINANCE FOR
LANDMARK TREES AND MOVE BACK TO DISCUSSING THE CONSERVATION
SUBDIVISION CODE WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE SO FAR AND COME BACK NEXT
WEEK.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the emergency ordinance references code that
does not yet exist until the Council adopts the tree ordinance which is why the tree ordnance needs to be
adopted first. Mr. Taraday said the ordinances certainly were not intended to be adopted in the order that
is currently being considered but a few minutes' difference would not be a problem.
Councilmember Olson suggested an option would be holding an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon
to discuss the remaining tree code amendments and the existing moratorium issue. Mayor Nelson said he
was not available on Friday. Councilmember Olson said the Council could have a meeting without the
Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she also was not available.
Council President Paine restated the motion:
N
O
N
N
s
x
w
c
as
E
s
U
M
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 169
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT
THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO CHANGE "LANDMARK" TO
"SIGNIFICANT" AND CHANGE "24" DBH" TO THE DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TREE
WHICH IS 12" DBH. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
TO ADOPT THE AMENDED DRAFT TREE ORDINANCE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER
TONIGHT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING
EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED
REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND
ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was leery of doing this when it was not complete. There have been
examples in the past where there has been an attempt to bring ordinances forward and the minority could
not get it done. She hoped there was a promise that additional amendments could be considered, noting
she has about nine more amendments.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, "ORDINANCES 4200 (MORATORIUM) AND 4201
(ASSOCIATED INTERIM REGULATIONS) ARE HEREBY REPEALED."
Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the Council would spend quality time to consider all the amendments
and address the moratorium next week or when it expires. She felt it was premature to have Section 4 in
the ordinance.
As City Clerk Passey began to take a roll call vote (Councilmember K. Johnson abstained and 0
Councilmember Distelhorst voted no), Councilmember Olson raised a point of order that the original
cm
moratorium stated the moratorium would expire when the tree code was passed or when it expired,
N
whichever came first. Ms. Hope recalled it stated a 4-month period which would be March 10' unless
N
Council acted to repeal it sooner. Mr. Taraday read from the ordinance, "The moratorium imposed by this
2-
ordinance shall commence on the date of adoption of this ordinance. The moratorium shall not terminate
`c
until four months after the date of adoption unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the
decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to
have to occurred." He explained that is the language he referred to earlier as untested. He suggested if the
r
Council's intent is not to have the moratorium repealed right away, amending Section 4 to read, "The
x
w
effectiveness of Ordinance 4200 shall be extended to March 24, 2021" which would give the Council two
more weeks to resolve anything outstanding in the tree code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with waiting two weeks, anticipating at 10:14 p.m., the Council
s
could be meeting half the night trying to make all the amendments.
Q
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 170
9.1.d
TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, REPEALING ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO; AND
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "ORDINANCE 4200 IS EXTENDED
TO MARCH 24, 2021."
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the motion needed to include Ordinance 4201. Mr. Taraday
recommended they be handled as a package as they were originally adopted as a package. He requested
adding "effectiveness" so the motion stated, "The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 will be
extended to March 24, 2021."
Council President Paine restated the motion:
TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021."
Councilmember K. Johnson asked which ordinances these were, whether it was the moratorium
ordinance. Council President Paine answered yes and Ordinance 4201 was the associated interim
regulations.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO EXTEND FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING NO.
2. 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PUBLIC PROCESS
Due to late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported today the President and Governor announced additions to those eligible for
immediate access to the vaccine - school educators and licensed childcare workers. As more people
become eligible, hopeful the availability of vaccines will also increase. The numbers in Snohomish
County continue to drop, yesterday's report was 109 cases/100,000 (previously 119/100,000). That is still
not enough fast enough so he encouraged the public to continue wearing masks, washing hands, and
watching their distance.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Olson wished all be well and happy.
Councilmember Distelhorst said March is Women's History Month. He is honored to serve alongside his
colleagues on Council. International Women's Day is March 8', a big day in his household because in
Mongolia where his wife and two daughters are from, it is actually a national holiday. While he lived in
Mongolia, it was a widely celebrated holiday Anyone interested in learning more about notable figures,
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 171
9.1.d
the Sno-Isle Library has a recommended book list for adults and teens including a lot of graphic novels
that are more approachable and easier to read than non-fiction history books. There are also a number of
events this Sunday and Monday related to Edmonds' International Women's Day. He gave a huge shout
out to Dr. Kizzy Corbett, one of the key scientists developing the Moderna vaccine; his mom finally got
her first shot this morning.
Councilmember Buckshnis wished Jack Beven, a former Councilmember, a Happy 98' Birthday. Mr.
Bevin is doing well and often asks about the tree code. She announced the Potlatch Bistro at Edmonds
Waterfront Center is opening March 4t''. Reservations can be made at OpenTable; up to 50 people can be
seated and the view is gorgeous.
Council President Paine said she was excited about tonight's actions. She referenced the recent
difficulties with Perrinville Creek, expressing her appreciation for the Mayor and Administration's
leadership in providing an outline of what has happened and their plans; improvements that have been
needed for nearly a decade. She was glad to see the Edmonds School District representatives talking
about the capital levy. She wished everyone be safe and well.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was excited and relieved teachers are now eligible for vaccination;
they have been shouldering a huge burden with many unknowns. There was a lot of excitement in her
household when then learned teachers would be eligible.
Student Representative Roberts was delighted to hear that educators are now able to get the vaccine and
glad it was one step closer to going back to school. He was able to get the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine
a few weeks ago as a volunteer for Swedish and he encouraged everyone to get vaccinated when it is
offered to them so this virus can be put in the past. He urged the public to wear a mask, make safe choices
and check in with each other as we're all in this together.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 172
9.1.d
Public Comment for 3/2/21 Council Meeting:
From: cdfarmen
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:17 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Prposed Tree code
Dear Council Members,
Amending the proposed tree code to meet the expectations of retention and no -net -canopy
loss will be no easy task.
The terminology used throughout the proposed code is not restrictive enough to prevent the
unabated cutting of the trees the city wants and needs to protect.
Initially, I was under the impression the 35% tree retention was a requirement. But, what I
came to find out it was not a precondition nor an obligation on the developer to retain 35% of
the trees on the property. When I asked Mr. Lien about that, he said the intent expressed by
the Planning Board, was to make the 35% retention the first effort (or step) in tree retention.
That being the case, if the developer chooses not to meet that level of retention, the next
option becomes cut and replace followed by a third option of cut and pay.
No matter how you perceive the proposed tree code, clear -cutting is still a viable option for the
developer. Without some true retention requirements, how do you achieve a goal of no -net -
loss of canopy or anything ecologically related?
The statement at the top of page 7 where it says "significant trees on lots proposed for
development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows". That clearly is a
misrepresentation of reality. Doesn't the definition of "shall be" indicate that there is an
obligation to preserve rather than an option?
There are parts of the tree code where the term prohibited is used such as in the case of certain
situations within described critical areas or in the case of "protected trees". Why not prohibit
the cutting of a specified percentage of all viable trees on the property? Why not make the
applicant be a responsible partner in tree retention?
There needs to be a " stop limit" required so that, at a minimum, for example, 20% of all
existing viable/significant trees must be preserved. Such a required retention limit is needed so
the developer cannot clear-cut the entire subdivision site and "buy their way out" of any tree
retention measures.
The other weakness in the proposed code is that the Director has far too much discretion in
deciding how to apply the tree code. There are more than 12 cases where the director reserves
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 173
9.1.d
the right to take certain discretionary actions. How can the tree code be appropriately applied
under those circumstances?
It is very important that you develop a vigorous tree protection code, one that can prevail in its
first real test of its effectiveness when applied to the development of the Seaview Woods
subdivision.
Respectively submitted,
Duane Farmen
Seaview resident
From: Bonnie Kirby
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 20218:23 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree issue
Hello! I want to second the email sent to you from Johanna Malloy, my neighbor. She has stated exactly
what I would have sent to you. New tree issues really need to be addressed. Thank you. Bonnie Kirby
From: Johanna Molloy
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:33 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: New Tree Code
Dear Edmonds City Council, z
r
Thank you for all you do to maintain our beautiful town of Edmonds. As you are reviewing the
new Tree Code, we would like to call your attention to a few issues that we feel are of vital w
importance:
E
1) Safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles around street corners that are extremely a
dangerous because of overgrown trees, bushes and out of control vegetation. This includes not a
only visual impairments as people approach an intersection (both walking and driving), but
potential dangers from falling trees and limbs -especially during stormy weather.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 174
9.1.d
2) Trees that infringe on PUD, cable and/or other communication wires that can cause potential
fires, lack of quality in communication lines and repeated trimming trips to the same location to
try and keep areas clear. This can cause aesthetically negative outcomes, as well as rising costs
for consumers. (See pictures below -facing both directions and directly from across the street.)
3) Real Estate Values on "View" properties that decline because of neighbors that do not honor
other's views and financial investment by keeping the trees on their property
maintained/trimmed.
4) Please make sure that there is reasonable consideration for individual situations that may
need extra attention because of extenuating circumstances.
For example, the measurements used to address whether or not a tree is an issue in the
pictures below, may not reflect the fact that during non-Covid lockdowns, many children cross
that intersection on field trips to the water, which is one block away. There are also many
joggers, parents with strollers and dog walkers that make visiting 2nd and Edmonds their daily
routine. One can clearly see that these limbs (that now spread almost completely across the
entire street since these pictures were taken) are a danger and annoyance as people try to
avoid them, regardless of the actual measurements.
We hope that you will consider these community concerns. We know that MANY neighbors
where we live on 2nd Ave N, have complained over the years regarding the overgrown trees on
the NW corner of 2nd and Edmonds Street. PUD has approached the owner of the property
there (121 Edmonds St) and offered to remove the trees at no cost to the owner and even
provide a voucher for new trees, but the owner refused.
We love the trees here in the Pacific Northwest. However, we also love being civically pro-
active regarding safety in our community, preserving our exceptional views and keeping our
financial investments secure.
Thank you again for all your hard work.
We appreciate your time and attention to these concerns,
Johanna and Bill Molloy
PS Please forward this email to any parties that may be helpful to addressing our topics and
concerns.
From: Katy Bigelow
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:31 PM
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 175
9.1.d
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Dill, Debra <Debra.DiII@edmondswa.gov>;
Spellman, Jana <Jana.Spellman@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Notes to consider for the tree code
Basic edits are needed:
1. Revise: 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track to read
"TRAQ" not "Track"
2. Should be noted that development which contains a Critical Area are held to different
standards .. and those standards locations need to be referenced.
Questions:
1. How are 30% or 25% retention requirements determined? Is it by total tree diameters? By
best looking trees according to the developer/tree professional? By canopy cover?
2. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 8.3.e Packet Pg. 386 Attachment:
Attachment 5: Tree Ordinance (Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment) 15 1.
The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor - By determination of a tree professional?
3. Under civil penalties, "If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be
required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in
addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. " what if the tree professional L)
determines that pruning is not the best course of corrective action or can not be completed r
as the tree is close to a total loss?
N
O
Final thought: N
The City would benefit from having an actual arborist on the Tree Board. This is a strong
recommendation that could yield better advice in future rounds of edits.
Katy Bigelow
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® x
w
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist PN-6039B a
PNW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified z
U
Registered Consulting Arborist° #490 J°
Member - American Society of Consulting Arborists a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 176
9.1.d
From: Eunice Jones
Sent: Friday, February 26, 20218:02 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Citizens Housing Commission
Please vote NO to urbanize and up zone all of Edmonds.
Affordable housing will NOT be accomplished with the Urban Density proposals that are
scheduled to be presented to you on Tuesday, March 16. And our family lot suburban
neighborhood will likely be gone if you approve those policy proposals. Those consequences
would be tragic.
Please do not destroy our Edmonds.
Thank you,
E. A. Jones
From: art jones
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Citizen Housing Commission
02/26/2021
Open Letter to Edmonds City Council
RE: Citizens Housing Commission
believe the Commission should be thanked for their time and effort to achieve more
affordable housing in Edmonds.
believe their final list of 15 proposals is a VERY large negative for current residents of w
Edmonds. c
as
E
believe implementation of those proposals would have an irreversible effect on the ambience
and character of Edmonds and ultimately help produce the opposite outcome of the original a
intention.
PLEASE! PLEASE! DO NOT ALLOW SUCH TO BECOME IMPLIMENTEDH
Thank you,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 177
9.1.d
A.L.Jones
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 178
9.1.e
11. APPROVE A 10-FT DEDICATION FOR 70TH AVE W RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO
15809 70TH AVE W
12. APPROVE LOCAL AGENCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CM
DESIGN GROUP, LLC FOR THE 76TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT
13. APPROVE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AT 8609 244TH ST. SW
14. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PHASE 8 SEWERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
15. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR ISSUANCE OF KEYS TO ACCESS SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN EMERGENCIES
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 4217 REGARDING PROHIBITION
OF REMOVAL OF LANDMARK TREES
Development Services Director Hope provided an introduction to the agenda item.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien provided an overview of the ordinance, explaining Interim
Ordinance 4217 prohibits the removal of certain landmark trees for a period of six months. The ordinance
defines a landmark tree as a tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24 inches or larger with DBH
measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to temporary protect landmark
trees to allow the City time to adopt permanent regulations governing the removal of landmark trees. The
ordinance applies to all landmark trees in the City except for under two circumstances, 1) trees that are
determined to be hazard or nuisance trees as defined by the ECDC 23.10.020, and 2) trees associated with
and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval.
Mr. Lien explained when this ordinance was adopted, it was adopted at the same time as Ordinance 4218 c
which adopted the tree regulations that apply to tree retention with development, ECDC 23.10. The 2
exception for trees associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use
•5
approval was included because regulations were being adopted that dealt with tree retention with
c
development. Ordinance 4217 is similar to the subdivision moratorium adopted by the Council via
t�
Ordinance 4200 which put a hold on subdivision applications that contained a certain density of trees.
Ordinance 4200 was adopted to allow time for the City to work on tree regulations for new development
v
which the Council has been working on and adopted a revised version last week.
N
0
N
During review of the new tree regulations, Mr. Lien said the public and City Council expressed a desire for
cm
a more expansive set of regulations that provide protection for trees on all properties regardless of whether
Q
they are being developed. Ordinance 4217 provides protection for the largest trees while the next stage of
Q
tree codes are being developed, landmark trees 24" or greater. Consideration of Stage 2 of the tree code
update will begin next week at the Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not necessarily agree with Mr. Lien's comment about a subdivision
z
w
moratorium and that this emergency ordinance took the place of it. Developers can still cut down landmark
c
trees because section 2 provides that exemption. Mr. Lien said he compared this ordinance to Ordinance
a)
4200 because Ordinance 4200 was adopted to allow time for the City to develop tree regulations that apply
to development. Ordinance 4217 is not intended to replace Ordinance 4200, but was adopted in a similar
vein, where the City Council wants to adopt more expansive tree regulations that apply to all properties
Q
regardless of whether they are being developed and in the interim wanted to protect the largest trees.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 179
9.1.e
Councilmember Buckshnis said in the same vein as homeowners cannot cut trees over 24", but developers
can. That needs to be made very clear; developers can still cut down trees in subdivisions. Mr. Lien said
anyone developing their property can cut down a tree if it is approved with a building permit and subdivision
under the new tree regulations that were recently adopted. Ms. Hope clarified with development there are
permits, site plan review, etc. which is an extensive process, compared to other properties that are not being
developed, there is currently not much process unless it is a critical area.
Council President Paine recognized Councilmembers have been receiving a lot of emails from the public.
Some of the confusion is due to the code work that has done over the last several weeks; trees on vacant
properties being developed will be governed by the regulations adopted last week. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the Council has never gone over the subdivision flexible code to make
any amendments and it is not mandated so subdivisions can in fact still remove trees and developers can
still cut down significant and landmark trees.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the Council reviewed the subdivision conservation chapter extensively
every time the tree code was reviewed and had opportunity to make amendments. He was glad it had been
adopted and was now available for low impact development.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. He invited participants and described the procedures for the
public hearing.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said her parents have been trying to divide their property for 4 years and 0
so far have paid $100,000 to comply with the many city, county and fire department requirements for a
geologists, arborists, architects, surveys and engineers. The additional cost for penalties they will most
Q.
likely have due to many old trees on the property will be $100,000 - $200,000 in addition to the $100,000
they have already paid. Sadly her parents are getting older and more fragile with the recent disappointing
w
delays voted in by the City Council since November without notice on a moratorium. Moratoriums hurt
w
m
people and incomes and restrict actions to build home for people who need them. The City is targeting the
livelihood of specific property owners intending to build; this has been used as a method to manipulate the
laws in place to target specific individuals and is clearly discrimination brought on by specific Council and
—
board members. These laws are dangerous for the City's reputation. Many citizens have stated their
concerns and haven't been given any consideration. The loss of their dream of being neighbors to her
v
parents and daughter, which they were told in the beginning by planning employees was possible, is
heartbreaking. The City of Edmonds has made building new homes difficult for small contractors by
j
constantly moving the goalposts while moving building elevations to 6 stories for large contractors, mostly
N
likely contractors outside the City. Forcing out mom and pop contractors will bring large, out of town
N
contractors with money and influence to bypass these laws, clearcutting for their needs. Housing material
c
costs have doubled and tripled in the past few months; the Council is making Edmonds an unlivable place
N
for people who just want to have a home for themselves. They have a beautiful, remodeled home near the
Q
property that they used to train five young men in the construction field at their own expense. Their neighbor
has been using the City to harass them and require permits while the neighbor has done more work without
"'
permits. If these new laws stand, her parents should be reimbursed by the City for the $100,000 they have
paid to comply with City requirements and the potential loss of earnings.
w
Fred Gee, Edmonds, a 10-year resident, said he loves trees, the forest and the old growth. However, he
strongly disagreed with the new tree ordinance and did not feel it was an emergency to pass this onerous
z
restriction on private property rights in Edmonds. They have several large trees on their property and feel
to
it is their right to cut them down when they need to when they become too large. New restrictions and Q
regulations do not encourage people to plant trees, instead they discourage tree planting due to the worry
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 180
9.1.e
over possible restrictions on what can be done with them in the future. Homeowners should be allowed to
decide on their own what's best for their property. Most people like trees and want trees on their property
but he feared trees 24" in diameter would be cut down to avoid being regulated by this emergency
ordinance. He did not agree with taking away private property rights of Edmonds homeowners. Edmonds
is not a gated community with rules regulating the height of grass, bushes, etc. People live in Edmonds to
have the freedom to maintain their property in the manner they see fit for their own use.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said in the past 18 months, she has spent more than $1800 to address safety and
maintenance of a single tree. Work has been limited to safety, improving the clearance to her house,
reducing the risk of branch failure and inspecting topping done decades ago for decay and significant
cavities. She also spent a day hand -digging and transplanting a maple tree improperly planted near this tree,
just 26' from her son's bedroom. She shared this so the Council knew the significant effort citizens take to
maintain large trees on their property. She asked the Council to cancel the emergency, interim regulations
because she ardently believed the City needs to form a partnership with property owners if they want to
preserve large trees and the City's actions are contrary to the formation of that necessary partnership and
conflict with the stated goal. After receiving the emergency ordinance flyer, she was surprised to visit the
City's website and learn the extent to which the process to adopt tree regulations has already taken place.
When she moved to Edmonds in 2019, she reached out to the planning and engineering departments to
identify and discuss her interest in tree regulations and questioned why she had not been previously notified,
especially since she had previously expressed her interest to the City.
With regard to the emergency ordinance, this is not an emergency. The City's statement of urgency in the
ordinance is possible removal of landmark trees; the possible removal of trees with a diameter of 24" has
been in place since prior to the City incorporation. There is nothing about the statement of emergency that
establishes emergent new facts unless the City contends the undertaking of a normal regulatory process is
the cause of the emergency which she said was clearly established by the whereas clauses. She was upset
by the City's action because the statement of emergency is clearly a false pretense, strips citizens of their
normal, fair regulatory process by removing the right to referendum, and strips property owners from their
rights to manage property, property owners who have clearly demonstrated their desire to maintain trees.
Last year she saw a City employee in her backyard; when approached, he quickly left saying he was looking
for a water meter. She submitted a public record request to determine if he was actually trying to survey
her property for trees. Citing the lack of notice, an emergency ordinance that strips citizens of their fair,
regulatory process, and the potential illegal entry of her property, she reiterated the need to form a
partnership with landowners. Partnerships happen when people feel they are being treated fairly; cancelling
this emergency ordinance is the first step toward forming a partnership that will be necessary to preserve
large trees.
Maria Sickle, Edmonds, said citizens feel ordinances are being passed without any notification. Increasing
V_
N
N
the cost of tree cutting also increases the cost of housing development. She recalled from the March 10'
o
meeting that Snohomish County is behind in housing development. When the cost of development is
N
increased, it increases the cost of housing. Small construction companies will be unable to build in Edmonds
Q
because they cannot afford the high cost of tree cutting and the small home building companies will go
elsewhere and big, out-of-town development companies will do exactly what the City does not want, clear-
cut all the trees because they can afford to. The small construction companies care about the area and want
to make it look nice for future generations, but the tree code is going backwards on that point. The
moratorium has been a way to manipulate laws and target specific individuals with the intent to build such
w
as development in Perrinville and she feared taxpayers' money would be used to defend lawsuits. She urged
the Council to rethink laws before implementing them and consider what they are looking for before
z
approving them.
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 181
James Leach, Edmonds, observed this is a very contentious topic and suggested it be voted on. He
questioned why this was considered an emergency and assumed as an emergency ordinance, it was not
going through the standard process and when something does not go through a standard process, it looks
like an end run to avoid notice to the citizenry. He requested responses to his questions. Mayor Nelson
advised the public hearing is an opportunity for public comment, not for question and answer.
Kristina Stapleton, Edmonds, a homeowner with landmark trees on her property, spoke in favor of the
ordinance. Her neighbor has been cutting trees that block her view and she was sad to see them go because
they are part of what makes Edmonds a beautiful place. She said just because a person has landmark trees
on their property does not mean they do not support ordinances that protect them and she was happy
landmark trees were being protected.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 42+ year resident, thanked the Council for passing the ordinance, finding it
necessary while the Council works on a tree code that applies not only to developers but also to all residents
of Edmonds. The City has been working for five years to develop a tree code to preserve trees; a green
environment is Edmonds' heritage and he was pleased the City has tried to preserve it. While the City has
been working on a code that makes sense for the trees and citizens, hundreds of trees have been cut down
including clearcutting of lots for development. In his estimation, trees could have been left around the
perimeter but that is not happening so it is clear a tree code is needed to protect the trees for the betterment
of everyone. In response to some commenters, these restrictions shouldn't be a surprise; the City has been
working on this for at least five years. Two years ago the City passed an Urban Forest Management Plan
and everyone knew where Edmonds was headed. He suggested Section 2 of the ordinance needed to be
revised to clarify people are currently not allowed to obtain permits to remove landmark trees. As currently
worded, it suggests the permit process will proceed as normal and someone can apply for a permit and
begin cutting down landmark trees. The Council should also discuss why this ordinance does not apply to
significant trees, the core of the tree code. He questioned why significant trees were not used instead of
landmark trees.
Kimberly Bailey, Edmonds, spoke against the ordinance applying to residents and not developers. The
majority of large trees that are lost are on lots clear-cut for development where they take down every tree
and blade of grass and leave the dirt bare. The City Council does not have the right to tell property owners
what they can do with their own property. She also objected to reference to heritage trees and nothing about
the type or quality of the tree; if it is big enough, it counts. For example, a huge holly tree which is also an
invasive species and even Parks removes them. Size alone does not make a tree valuable. The Tree Board
cites the right tree in the right spot; sometimes after 20-25 years what was the right tree in the right spot is
no longer the right tree in the right spot. This ordinance is poorly designed and does not serve taxpayers
well.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, a 40+ year resident, said she has seen a lot of trees removed in Edmonds. She
referred to the land acknowledgement read at the beginning of the Council meeting and suggested the City
was losing its heritage due to tree removal. She believes in native trees and agreed with the previous speaker
that large holly trees are not native and squeeze out native trees. For anyone that does not know which trees
are native, they can learn about them when the Demo Garden is redone and reopens. All she sees are trees
being cut down, none being replanted to realize the Northwest heritage. She often tells kids complaining
about the rain that they are tough, Northwest kids. People in this area should be tough and should respect
their heritage. This area was forested in the past and she continues to see trees removed for development.
The world is changing rapidly and people need all the oxygen they can get. They need to think about climate
change every day and actions need to reflect that. She summarized she was in favor of trees.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
N
O
N
0
N
�L
a
Q
z
x
w
c
a)
E
z
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 182
9.1.e
Mr. Lien relayed staff s recommendation to continue the interim ordinance through its current expiration
date while staff works on the tree regulations.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the ordinance would be in effect until December 2nd and then would
expire. Mr. Lien agreed it would expire December 2nd, six months from March 2nd. Councilmember
Distelhorst clarified this was a temporary ordinance until regulations were developed.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she wanted to put this on the agenda last week so she could remove
Section 2. She asked if there were permits that had already been issued and if Section 2 were removed,
would developers be treated exactly the same as homeowners. Mr. Lien answered a number of permits have
been submitted. One of the tree cuttings mentioned during public comments was related to a permit
approved two years ago. He was aware of only one application that has been submitted that would be subject
to the new tree regulations.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when this was quickly approved on March 2nd, she wanted to add
significant trees. She asked whether significant trees could be added to landmark trees. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday said there is no legal reason but it is a significant policy change. Councilmember Buckshnis said
she knew it was a significant policy change, but the March 2nd minutes illustrate how quickly this was done
and there were not really any discussions about it. Mr. Taraday acknowledged it was a policy issue so the
Council could change its mind. He recalled from that discussion the thought was that significant trees had
been adequately addressed through the development regulations that the Council had since adopted and that
interim regulations were a tool to deal with important situations and at the time only landmark trees
warranted that treatment. That did not mean the Council couldn't adopt other regulations related to
significant, but at the time it was the Council's decision to limit it to landmark trees.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council never vetted 23.075 or 048 for which she had a number of
amendments. At the March 21 meeting, Mr. Lien provided examples related to low impact development
and then the Council suddenly approved the entire tree code and attachments without a code number. She
wanted it to be very clear how this occurred which is why there have been so many concerns about the
process. She expressed support for including significant trees in the ordinance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference between significant and landmark trees. Mr. Lien
answered the new tree code defines a significant tree as a 6" DBH and a landmark tree as a 24" DBH.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the difference was the size of the tree.
Council President Paine recalled when this emergency interim ordinance was developed, the discussion on N
March 21 included the inability to do code enforcement related to trees. She assumed there had been a lot N
of inquiries to Development Services about the possibility of trees being cut down. She asked approximately
c
how many subdivision applications the City receives a year and how many are vested under the older tree
N
code. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the past 10 years, the City averages about 10 subdivisions per year, both
6.
0
formal (5 or more lots) and short plats.
Council President Paine asked about the number of permits for vacant lots. Mr. Lien said he would need to
do more research to determine how many subdivisions are vested and how many have received preliminary
approval. Once a subdivision receives preliminary approval, the developer has five years to finalize it. He
w
would need to research the last five years to determine how many preliminary approved subdivisions were
still in process. He did not know how many vacant properties there were throughout the City. The City is
z
largely developed and vacant lots are few and far between. Some of the properties left vacant are vacant for U
a reason, primarily because they are more difficult to develop. Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 183
9.1.e
Councilmember Olson also recalled enforcement and the administrative burden of including a greater
number of trees was part of the consideration. The Council has several options, vote yes or no to continue
the ordinance or make amendments. Mr. Taraday anticipated an amendment would take the form of a new
interim ordinance as that would be the cleanest way. Councilmember Olson asked if that would require a
new hearing process. Mr. Taraday said it would.
Councilmember Olson referred to Ms. Seitzs' comments about the emergency designation of the ordinance,
recalling she understood the urgency of the ordinance. She asked if it was an issue legally to use an
emergency ordinance when trees have been growing all this time. Mr. Taraday answered the Growth
Management Act specifically contemplates that interim regulations of this type and other types would be
adopted essentially without notice with the idea that there would be a public process after the fact, especially
considering that these are just temporary regulations. That is why the GMA created this tool; it is a
temporary regulation so that the City can preserve in the short term what needs to be preserved and allow
time to have a thorough, deliberative process to determine the best policies for the City over the long term.
All the regular public hearings and public processes occur as part of the development of the permanent
regulations. These are temporary regulations and the GMA specifically contemplates that ordinances of this
nature would be adopted without notice on an emergency basis in order to preserve the status quo.
Councilmember L. Johnson clarified this ordinance covered landmark trees 24" DBH or larger and was an
effort to protect the largest trees on properties without permits while the City works on the second portion
of the code. If the Council used the definition of significant tree versus landmark trees and expanded it to
include subdivided lots, the City would be preventing the removal of any trees 6" or larger on any property
in Edmonds. Ms. Hope agreed, if the ordinance was changed to significant trees, 6" DBH, and Section 2
was removed, it would apply to all trees other than nuisance, hazard type trees. Councilmember L. Johnson
wanted it to be clear what was involved if the ordinance was expanded to include significant trees versus
landmark trees. As someone who worked on the ordinance, the effort was to protect the largest trees, those
that could not be replaced within our lifetime while the City works as quickly and diligently as possible to
craft and enact the second portion of the code.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the ordinance to any tree with a diameter of 18" DBH and
call it a landmark tree since there are no definitions in the code as it was voted down. Mr. Lien said there
is a definition of landmark tree within the ordinance itself, defining it as a tree with a 24" diameter. The
defmition is in Ordinance 4217 and not in the code because the code does not specifically address landmark
trees. Councilmember Buckshnis said the definition of landmark tree could be changed to 18", noting she
was uncertain how the definition of 24" was developed. She wanted to keep the moratorium for building
permits in Ordinance 4200 which expired March 24th
N
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, N
TO REMOVE SECTION 2. c
N
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and many other citizens found this process very disheartening. She did c.
not like how March 2nd played out as she had many amendment that will never come forth, especially in Q
20.75.048. She objected to quickly passing the tree code ordinance to create the emergency ordinance. If
Ln
homeowners are prohibited from cutting down trees, it is important to prohibit developers so everybody is
treated the same. That is the reason she is requesting Section 2 be removed. Mr. Taraday commented
x
Councilmember Buckshnis likely only wants to remove the last sentence of Section 2 as she probably likes
w
the first sentence of Section 2.
c
a�
E
Mr. Lien displayed Section 2, "Applicability. The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall have
no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal
a
associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval." He
explained the exemption in ECDC 23.10.040.A is developed single family properties not capable of being
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 184
9.1.e
subdivided that have no critical areas; those properties are exempt from the tree regulations adopted in
ECDC 23.10. The thought behind the second sentence is the City has tree regulations that apply to
development in ECDC 23.10. There are no tree regulations that apply to all tree removal on developed
properties without critical areas. The intent of the ordinance was to protect the most significant trees, the
landmark trees, while regulations are adopted. Mr. Taraday said the removal of the second sentence of
Section 2 is a major policy change that could potentially, depending on where trees were located on a
developable property, prevent development. He wanted to be sure the Council understood that.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday to repeat what he just said. Mr. Taraday said if the
second sentence of Section 2 were removed from the ordinance, landmark trees could not be removed from
even a property that is being subdivided or property with a building permit. If someone came in with a
subdivision application and the second sentence of Section 2 was removed and there were a bunch of
landmark trees on their property, those trees would have to remain and it was not feasible to build around
the trees, there would be no developable area left. Mr. Lien said that would apply not just to subdivisions
but also building permits. For example, if someone wanted to build an accessory structure, addition to their
house or an improvements that required the removal of a landmark tree, those would also be impacted. He
summarized it would affect not just subdivisions but any land development.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 23.10.040 which talks about removal of trees on improved single
family lots. She agreed with Mr. Taraday, she would keep the first sentence. This is only a temporary
ordinance to allow the City to finish the code and provide sufficient information to administration for the
existing code and the code being created and if homeowners were prohibited from removing trees,
developers should be treated in the same manner.
Councilmember Buckshnis revised her amendment to remove the second sentence from her amendment
and leave the first sentence because it refers to single family lots.
Council President Paine asked if that sentence if removed, would the ordinance need to be rewritten
followed by an additional public hearing process because it is such a substantial change. Mr. Taraday said
that would be his recommendation as that is a brand new interim regulation. Council President Paine asked
if a public hearing process would be required if the definition of landmark trees was changed. Mr. Taraday
answered he believed so.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked for clarification; at one point Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to v
remove Section 2 entirely and later she wanted to remove the second sentence so it did not apply to
development. j
N
Mayor Nelson restated the motion: N
STRIKE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 2 (THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY c
TO ANY TREE REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH AND PERMITTED THROUGH A BUILDING N
PERMIT, SUBDIVISION, OR OTHER LAND USE APPROVAL.)6.
Q.
Q
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding of the intent was to apply the emergency ordinance
equally among both developers and homeowners. She asked if removal of the second sentence would allow
landmark trees to be removed with development. Mr. Lien answered removal of the second sentence would
x
have the opposite effect. Removing it, the prohibition against removal of landmark trees would apply to w
building permits, subdivisions and land use. Including the sentence in Section 2 provides an exception for c
building permits, subdivisions and other land use approval. E
z
Councilmember Olson recalled when Councilmember L. Johnson provided the definition of significant
trees, she cited 6" DBH. The Council can define whatever term it wants such as 12" DBH for protection as Q
a significant tree. She relayed she felt very stressed and conflicted; the emergency situation has been
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 185
9.1.e
impressed upon her in the Talbot Road area with the creek and the runoff and she knows trees play a role
in rainwater so obviously no development in a forested area is better than any mitigation for stormwater.
Legally if something is zoned for construction and construction is not allowed, even if the ordinance is
temporary, there may be businesses that go out of business over this. She questioned whether the City would
then on the hook legally for those bills. The City would be well served if a philanthropist who wanted to
protect forested land in Edmonds came forward and made the landowners an offer they could not refuse
and stop monkeying around with moratoriums and other things that are just a can of worms. She felt very
stressed and after having her head in this for many months, she was unclear how to proceed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Section 2 currently excluded developers. With regard to the first
sentence, Mr. Lien explained in the original adopted tree code, developed single family properties with no
critical areas that are not capable of being subdivided are not subject to the new tree regulations in 23.10.
By excepting them in Section 2, that means the exemption does not apply when it comes to landmark trees.
There is still a prohibition on removal of landmark trees on developed single family properties. The second
sentence is in regard to tree removal associated with development; including the second sentence says the
prohibition against removal of landmark trees does not apply to building permit, subdivision or other land
use approval. What applies to building permit, subdivision or other land use approval is the tree code
adopted by the Council in 23.10. Ms. Hope pointed out 23.10 prevents clearcutting properties with
development and sets up a lot of regulations, penalties, incentives, etc. that would apply with development.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was still perplexed. She referred to the second sentence and asked
if a building permit could be single family or multi -family. Mr. Lien answered a building permit could be
single family, multi -family, commercial development, etc., anything that requires a building permit.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said removing the second sentence takes away the exemption for any
building permit. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining if the second sentence was removed and someone had a
building permit for expansion of their house or an accessory structure and there was a landmark tree in the
way, they would not be able to proceed with development if it required removal of the landmark tree. They
would have to find a way to work around the landmark tree or wait until the ordinance expires and new
regulations are adopted.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed that would apply to single family and multi -family. Mr. Lien
agreed, anything that required a building permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed if the second
—
sentence is removed it takes away the equal application. Mr. Taraday asked what she meant by equal
application. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it would apply to single family as well as multi -family.
v
Ms. Hope said it would apply to any building permit, whereas with only the first sentence, any developed
property that is not having anything done to it, they cannot cut down a landmark tree. It exempted property
j
where there was development already under the new rules, requirements, penalties and incentives adopted
N
by the Council. Since existing development does not have those rules in place, it was her understanding
N
that Council wanted to stop the removal of really large trees on those properties until there was time to
0
decide what to do about them.
N
L
Q.
Q
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this would stop construction for someone was in the middle of
building. Mr. Taraday answered no. Ms. Hope said it would only apply to applications that hadn't vested.
If someone wanted to start a new project such as a garage, it would apply.
z
x
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS,
w
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
E
z
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
Q
TO CONTINUE ORDINANCE NO. 4217 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 WHICH IS THE SIX
MONTH MARK.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 186
9.1.e
Councilmember Olson preferred to wait until next week to provide Councilmembers time to think about it
so she will not support the motion. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance requires at the very next meeting after
the public hearing, the Council adopt findings either to continue the ordinance or not. He can certainly
provide two versions in next week's packet, but it would be helpful if the Council could provide direction
tonight on the findings to be included in next week's packet.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Olson, the Council needs time to digest this.
She was uncertain what a second ordinance would include. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council has two
choices next week; 1) adopt findings to justify the continuing applicability of this ordinance until September
as originally planned, or 2) adopt an ordinance repealing the interim regulation. He was unclear which one
the Council wanted him to draft.
Council President Paine requested Councilmembers support the motion to allow the work that is being done
by Development Services on the Stage 2 to continue which is scheduled to come to Council on May 18'
following review by the Planning Board. She supported developing with all due haste a comprehensive tree
code that addresses all trees on all properties.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK INFORMATION TO
MAKE FINAL DECISION NEXT WEEK.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, asking whether that was an amendment.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the maker of the motion wants to take action tonight but findings need to
be prepared and there are two options for next week. The Council needs to give direction to the City
Attorney so he can bring back findings and a package for action next week. All the Council needs to do
tonight is give the attorney direction.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this needed to be voted on at today's meeting or next week's
meeting. Mr. Taraday said he meant next week's meeting. The ordinance states at the meeting after the
hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Council could not pass it tonight, but it could be on
c
the Consent Agenda next week. Mr. Taraday said he understood Council President Paine's motion to
0
essentially do what this amendment is expressly directing, giving him direction to bring back findings to
v
justify the continuance of the ordinance applicability until September 2" a. He appreciated the clarification
provided by the amendment and said action would be necessary next week either way.
v
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was comfortable waiting for this to come back to Council next week.
N
O
N
0
N
Councilmember Distelhorst said his interpretation was the same as Mr. Taraday's; he understood Council
Q
President Paine's motion to be moving toward adopting findings. That is the action tonight, to give the City
a
Attorney direction regarding findings to prepare for next week. The amendment and the motion seem to be
one in the same.
Council President Paine agreed the intent of her motion was to have findings prepared for approval on the
z
w
Consent Agenda next week. The findings can be pulled if further discussion is needed.
a�
E
Councilmember L. Johnson suspected the findings would be pulled from Consent which requires additional
time and suggested scheduling it on the agenda instead.
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 187
9.1.e
Mayor Nelson asked if the amendment included putting the findings on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember K. Johnson said it did not.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Paine restated the motion:
TO EXTEND THE EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO SEPTEMBER 2Nn
MAIN 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.
Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Taraday if he had the direction he needed. Mr. Taraday said based on the vote, he
will draft findings for adoption at next week's meeting that will justify the originally scheduled continuation
of the ordinance through September 2" d
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY (HASCO)
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Duane Leonard, Executive Director, HASCO,
commenting this is the first time he has presented to Council. Following Mr. Leonard's presentation,
Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson will provide slides and then she will discuss the Citizens Housing
Commission's (CHC) recommendation and next steps. Immediate action is not proposed tonight, it is
intended to set the groundwork and to consider next steps.
Mr. Leonard reviewed:
• HASCO created in 1971, celebrating its 5011 anniversary this year
What is a Public Housing Authority 2
o The US Housing Act of 1937 created the US Housing Authority.
■ Washington State passed "enabling legislation" that is now codified as Chapter 35.82 RCW
in 1939 °
0
o HASCO is a Local Government Agency established to received Federal resources with no Z
ability to assess local taxes 0
o There are 37 Housing Authorities in the State, many are similar, but all operate according to c
local housing plans. N
o Declaration of Necessity N
■ Shortage of safe, sanitary, housing that is impacting the public welfare L
■ Conditions cannot be cured by private enterprise Q
■ Remedying these conditions is a public purpose
■ Declared a matter of legislative intent to immediately work to solve the problem
What is our role in the community? z
o We work in collaboration with local government and non -profits and others to bring people w
together on housing issues c
o HASCO does this in three main way:
■ We rent units that we own. We are a landlord. z
■ We assist families with their rent
■ We collaborate and advocate on housing issues Q
Photos of HASCO communities (hasco.org)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 188
9.1.e
The Schedule of Appointments for the Planning Board was set forth by the City Council to
steadfastly move through the Decades — as it has done— providing Form and Function to the
Responsibilities of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board.
Please provide direction to the Mayor to administer the Schedule of Appointments as
established by the 1980 City Council in EMC 10.40.020.
Thank you for your time. And accept my sincere appreciation for being able to serve the City as
a member of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board in the recent past years.
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, 04-20-2021
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 20214:37 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Hearing on Emergency Ordinance 4217 Regarding Prohibition of Removal of
Landmark Trees
Council,
Please revise Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4217 to REMOVE the sentence that says:
"This ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a
building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval."
The landmark tree (>24" diameter) protection ordinance needs to apply throughout Edmonds
(no exceptions/exemptions) until the tree removal regulations are resolved for all private
properties according to the goals and objectives of the City's 'Urban Forest Management Plan.'
1 further request that you do everything possible to save the Perrinville Woods from the
r
o
planned development. Please seek funds to buy back as much of the property as possible, do
c
everything in your power by lobbying for Federal infrastructure funds, and/or seek local
N
Conservation funding to purchase the property. The damage that will be done to the
L
�-
a
environment, to the wildlife, and to the property of home owners down stream of and
surrounding Perrinville Woods will be massive if development is allowed to proceed as
proposed. Many adjacent trees on nearby properties will be compromised and cause further
x
damage in the future. A destructive domino effect is the only possible result of this proposed
w
development.
as
E
Regards,
r
Joan Bloom
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 189
9.1.e
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:45 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>;
Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Martin, Michelle
<Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING on Emergency Ordinance 4217
Dear City Council (others blind cc'd),
Ordinance 4217 claims it was effective March 2, 2021. Is this true? Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas abstained from voting on Ordinance 4217. As all 7 Councilmembers voted the night of
March 2, 2021, did not all 7 have to vote yes for the Emergency Ordinance vote to be
unanimous? Does an abstaining vote count as opposition to the Motion if there is no declared
"conflict of interest" claimed prior to the Motion?
Council also voted on March 2, 2021 under the false representation that a super majority was
required. There is no way to know how Council would have voted had Council been properly
informed that only one vote was needed for the vote on an Emergency Ordinance to fail. This
concept also applies to many other Emergency Ordinance votes in the past. How many of those
votes would have been different? There is no way to know. What a mess.
Nobody made a Motion to pass Ordinance 4217 as a regular Ordinance. No vote was taken on
anything other than the Motion that declared an Emergency. The Ordinance Title for L)
Ordinance 4217 declares an Emergency even though Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
abstained. L)
r
N
O
Are all Ordinances put forth as an Emergency Ordinance subject to referendum if they do not `"
C
receive a unanimous vote? Please explain the answer and provide legal support for the answer. N
L
Q
Q
LO
In an April 2, 2021 email, I specifically requested: Please make sure what is and isn't subject
to referendum is explained in detail to City Council and the public. This can be a confusing area w
and it would help all if a solid, detailed explanation is provided.
E
My request was ignored.
a
r
Ordinance 4217 also makes the following Declaration of Emergency: Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 190
9.1.e
The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance
take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of
the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum.
This Declaration of Emergency contains falsehoods.
City Council has been misguided about this process until very recently. Citizens recently
informed City Council that a unanimous vote is required. This has been true since 1985 when
Edmonds adopted the powers of initiative and referendum. Why have so many Emergency
Ordinance votes been taken under the representation that an Emergency Ordinance can take
effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the
Council?
For example, the motion to pass Ordinance 4189 failed 6-1. Has anybody reported the
Ordinance 4189 situation to the State Auditor yet?
Please advise all Edmonds Citizens about the unanimous vote requirement for Emergency
Ordinances mentioned in the MRSC publication (If the code city has adopted the powers of
initiative and referendum, the vote must be unanimous and include a statement of
urgency.) RCW 35A.11.090(2).
Ordinance 4217 states in Section 1. that "The purpose of this interim regulation is to
temporarily protect certain landmark trees from tree removal as that term is defined in ECDC
23.10.020.S." This is an error. The reference should be to ECDC 23.10.020.T.
Ordinance 4217 has another error in Section 3. Nuisance Tree is defined in 23.10.0201, not
23.10.020. K.
r
N
Ordinance 4218 also has at least one error. It states in 23.10.050 that removal of protected cm
trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or N
through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. ECDC 23.10.040.E deals with routine Q
landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, not Hazard and Nuisance Trees. a
LO
I believe Council passed yet another Ordinance last week that contains this same error. I do not w
believe that flawed Ordinance is effective yet. Council may want to vote to reconsider this new
Ordinance for the purposes of fixing this error and reviewing the Ordinance for other errors E
before it is effective. U
a
r
r
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 191
9.1.e
Also, how do all the problems with Ordinances 4217 and 4218 impact the Ordinance passed by
Council last week? What about the problems with Ordinances 4200 and 4201? Should any of
these Ordinances been subject to referendum?
Ordinance 4218 has great problems that City Council should consider addressing immediately.
After Council President Susan Paine suggested during the March 2, 2021 Council Meeting to
continue the discussion about Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment to the
following week, the Council moved on to New Business. That "New Business" involved what
would become flawed Ordinance 4217. After the Main Motion on Ordinance 4217 was voted
on, the "New Business" Agenda Item was finished. Instead of moving on to the next Agenda
Item, Council President Paine made a Motion related to the Draft Tree Regulations and
Subdivision Code Amendment. Mayor Nelson failed to tell her that the New Business Agenda
Item was complete and the next item on the Agenda was for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Public Process.
Council President Paine's bizarre motion was made roughly 40 minutes after she had
suggested continuing the discussion about Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code
Amendment "next week". Council President Paine's motion made no mention of an emergency
and did not declare an emergency. Despite this, the City is acting like Ordinance 4218 passed as
an Emergency Ordinance. Nobody made a motion to pass an Emergency Ordinance.
The Ordinance title for Ordinance 4218 does not declare an Emergency. The Ordinance title for
Ordinance 4217 does declare an Emergency. Despite this, the City is acting like they both were
effective March 2, 2021.
Furthermore, please appreciate the convoluted mess found in the Ordinance Title for flawed
Ordinance 4218:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING PRIOR TREE CLEARING v
REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION
SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND v
r
N
O
RCW 35A.12.130 states that no ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be c
clearly expressed in its title. The title to flawed Ordinance 4218 contains more than one 04
subject. At a minimum, establishing a New Tree Fund had to be done via a separate Ordinance
a
as it is a different subject. This flaw is in addition to what I mentioned earlier - that the
Ordinance Title does not declare an emergency.
x
w
Please stop passing new laws that contain errors. We already have plenty of errors in our city
code, a code that has needed to be rewritten since at least 2000. E
Please figure out how to properly pass Emergency Ordinances and what is and isn't subject to
referendum. Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 192
9.1.e
Finally, we are concerned that approval of the HASCO ILA will lead directly to another
recommendation by the CHC which is the 0.1% sales tax increase to go to "affordable and
supportive housing for low income households". Council member Luke Distelhorst has already
demonstrated his support of this sales tax increase by lobbying the Citizens Housing
Commission on January 14, 2021, just prior to their final votes on January 28. Here is an excerpt
from the agenda for the 1-14-21 meeting:
"Council Member Distelhorst will speak to the AHA letter at the Housing Commission's January
14 meeting."
Quote from the "letter he had supported":
"AHA would like to draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need
to support adoption of a 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing."
Again, we urge you, do NOT take action on the HASCO ILA tonight. There are a number of non-
profit organizations that provide supportive and affordable housing in Snohomish County.
There is nothing in the ILA that clarifies what "official" authority HASCO will have over future
housing and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted.
Respectfully,
Dr. Michelle Dotsch, ACE President
Joan Bloom, ACE At -Large Board Member and former Edmonds City Councilmember
From: Freddy Gee
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:17 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
U
Subject: Tree Ordinance N
0
N
To Whom it may Concern Regarding the Tree Ordinance, c
N
I strongly disagree with this "emergency tree ordinance" . Q
Q
First let me state that I love trees and grew up in Washington and spent most of my life r
here. Much time has been spent in the forest.
x
w
We currently own a home in Edmonds with some mature trees on the property. We had no
intention of cutting them down soon. However the moves the City Council is making to try and
0
punish people with trees on their property makes no sense. You should be encouraging people r
to plant trees -- not punishing them by regulation. Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 193
9.1.e
Please stop this governmental over -reach and trying to regulate what people do with trees on
their private property.
Thank you,
Freddy G, At Your Service
From: Katy Levenhagen
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject:
Good Morning,
I am writing to encourage City Council Members to reconsider the recent ordinance tonite
designed to protect the green spaces of Edmonds to preserve it's green character. While
Edmonds indeed needs to protect the existing trees in both public, city owned and privately
owned land from clear cut ...any established laws need to apply to both developers and private
homeowners alike. It is at the very least an oversite and absolutely absurd to have a law in the
city for any length of time that allows developers to clear cut or randomly cut down
the large trees (over 24" DBH) when homeowners cannot.
I strongly oppose the proposed tree cutting ordinance, allowing developers to cut down trees.
Any tree that is 24" DBH, (diameter at breast height) should be protected regardless of where it
is! Homeowners should not be the only ones restricted from cutting larger trees while the
developers are getting a free pass to cut trees "at -will".
Thank you for your consideration of my and many others' requests.
Sincerely,
Katy Levenhagen
Edmonds, WA 98026
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 6:26 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 194
9.1.e
positions 5, 6, and 7 have expiration dates that would be consistent with the original
appointments!
Why are falsehoods presented to decision makers in advance of decisions? Is there ever any
accountability when this takes place? Will the culture within Edmonds City government that
allows this conduct ever change?
There may be further problems with what is being presented to the City Council for tonight's
meeting. Hopefully, whoever is responsible for preparing the agenda item and the proposed
Ordinance amending Chapter 10.40 of the Edmonds City Code will be asked to correct all
falsehoods and provide complete information.
I encourage City Council to implement policies and procedures to address all steps that must be
followed when it becomes known that false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information
has been provided to City Council and Hearing Examiners in advance of decisions. Please
consider whether these policies and procedures should involve disciplinary action.
From: Michael Lynn
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:32 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree cutting ordinance
Good Day Edmonds City Council,
I am writing this email in opposition to the proposed tree cutting ordinance, allowing
developers to cut down trees, but not private property owners. We had a double lot behind our o
house clear cut to build 2 new houses around 14 years ago, with the very first wind storm and
subsequent wind storms within 2 months every one of our 7 plus pine, cedar and other tall
trees blew down, 2 following on different neighbors roof. N
0
N
It seems ridiculous to me that an ordinance designed to protect the green aspects of our N
beautiful city, allows developers to clear cut or randomly cut down the nice large old growth
Q.
trees. a
LO
I strongly support the moratorium on this ordinance until September so more research can be
done. Lets don't ruin our very livable and green city. x
w
Thank you for your consideration of my and many others' requests.
as
Regards
Michael Lynn
Edmonds Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 37
Packet Pg. 195
9.1.e
From: Amy Lentz
Sent: Monday, April 19, 20214:01 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Emergency Tree Code Ordinance
Dear Council Members:
I am writing in opposition to the proposed emergency ordinance related to the cutting of
trees greater than 24" in diameter.
For the second time since I have moved here, it appears the City is once again considering
legislation to limit what individual property owners can do with trees on their property. The
last time this was before the City, the public outcry was great enough to fill the entire Council
chambers and the foyer with residents who were against this type of infringement on
individual's property rights. Ultimately, the proposal was rejected.
Moreover, this is not the first time the idea of restricting individuals' ability to maintain their
property has been discussed. In 1990, when the first Tree Cutting Ordinance was adopted, the
primary concern was whether the ordinance would "take away individual property rights by not
allowing residents to cut down trees in their yards." Edmonds' New Ordinance Limits Tree
Cutting, Anne Koch, Seattle Times, October 18, 1990. However, this concern was addressed by
limiting application of the ordinance to those properties that could be subdivided into three or
more lots or that lie in environmentally sensitive areas. Now, 30 years later, it appears the
same concerns are again being raised.
I recycle. I compost. I walk and ride bicycles whenever possible. I bring cloth grocery bags to
the store. I recreate in the outdoors. I have planted trees in our yard. I am green. However, I r
N
do not support the proposed emergency ordinance. In sum, the emergency ordinance N
discourages landowners from planting, maintaining, and preserving trees on their property, N
does not apply equally to all landowners, is overreaching, and creates an unnecessary and
Q.
expensive bureaucracy. a
In anticipation of the City's potential limitation on removing large tress, we recently debated
cutting the sole large blue spruce in our backyard and even obtained several estimates. Prior to x
w
hearing about the potential limitation, we had not been overly concerned with the tree.
c
However, the threat of the City's limitation spurred the activity. This is certainly an unintended E
consequence - but foreseeable nonetheless.
a
r
r
Rather than deter homeowner's from cutting trees through penalties and invasion of Q
individual property rights, perhaps the City should figure out a way to encourage others to keep
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 38
Packet Pg. 196
9.1.e
their trees through on -going education about the benefits to all and financial incentives for
maintaining and planting new trees.
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Lentz
r
Q
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 20, 2021
Page 39
Packet Pg. 197
9.1.f
5. PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN UPDATE CONSULTANT
AGREEMENT
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser explained at the April 20' Council meeting,
she presented the purpose, components, history and upcoming process including the diversity, equity and
inclusion Public Involvement Plan and consultant selection process for the PROS Plan. Q&A on the project
ended prematurely at the conclusion of last week's meeting. She is bringing this back to Council for a
second touch and requesting Council consider authorizing the Mayor to enter into a professional services
agreement with Conservation Technix for $143,396 to provide consultant services to update the City's
PROS Plan. She requested Council approval tonight as there is some time sensitivity related to the project.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROS PLAN CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT WITH CONSERVATION TECHNIX IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,396 TO PROVIDE
CONSULTANT SERVICES TO UPDATE THE CITY'S 2022 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN
SPACE PLAN.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
During the roll call vote, Councilmember K. Johnson stated she still had questions so she would abstain.
During the roll call, Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting this was moving very
fast and asked if Councilmember K. Johnson could be allowed to ask her questions. Mayor Nelson said the
Council had already voted, and was now doing roll call. The Council spent an hour on the last item and he
was trying to get the meeting back on track as there were a lot of agenda items left. If exceptions keep being
made, the Council will never get its business done. The Council is running out of time and although he
appreciated the concern, if there is no response when he asked for discussion, he moved forward with the
vote.
9. CIVIC FIELD - REJECT ALL BIDS (Previously Consent Agenda Item 4)
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was on the Consent agenda. Many people are following the
Civic Field project and she wanted to go on record that she did not support the two proposals and wanted
to reject the bids.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO REJECT THE BIDS FOR CIVIC FIELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6. FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217 REGARDING
PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF LANDMARK TREES
z
k
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained the City Council held a public hearing last week w
on Ordinance 4217 which prohibits the removal of landmark trees, trees with a diameter of 24" or greater. c
The ordinance requires the City Council adopt findings to either continue or repeal the ordinance at the first E
regular meeting following the public hearing. Exhibit 1 is the proposed finding of fact to continue the
ordinance per the direction provided by the Council at last week's meeting.
a
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers
asking one question during their turn.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 198
9.1.f
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the proposed findings of fact on packet page 176, relaying her
impression that there would be two different findings of fact. City Attorney Jeff Taraday did not recall
being asked to prepare alternative findings, but it is not too late for the Council to go in different direction.
If the Council does not want to adopt these findings, he suggested the Council direct him to prepare an
ordinance to repeal the landmark tree protections. The Council's choices are to adopt the findings, amend
the findings, or go in a completely different direction and repeal the landmark tree ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she thought the findings would include the fact that she made a motion to
remove one sentence in Section 2, "the ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and
permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval." She asked whether the
findings were intended to summarize the meeting. Mr. Taraday explained the purpose of the findings is to
justify the continued imposition and applicability of an interim ordinance. This is an interim ordinance that
was adopted without a public hearing; the Council has now had a public hearing and has to decide whether
or not to continue the interim ordinance. He recalled Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in
amending the ordinance which would require another ordinance but he did not recall the Council directing
him to prepare an ordinance to that effect.
Councilmember Olson commented since there had already been a public hearing, any amendments could
not be materially different than the original ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered depending on the scope of
the amendment, there were two ways to proceed, one possibility would be to say the interim ordinance is
fine for the next four months but provide feedback to the Planning Board or whoever else is working on the
permanent to incorporate the amendment into the permanent regulations. If that was not acceptable and if
the amendment needed to occur sooner than four months from now, the Council could direct him to prepare
an ordinance to that effect which would likely require another interim ordinance and another public hearing.
He wanted to hear the amendment before voicing a final opinion about it. Councilmember Olson said she
did not have a specific amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis said if the Council adopts the findings, the Council is continuing the landmark
emergency ordinance. If some Councilmembers do not agree to the findings, she asked if that would be
done via a motion to repeal. Mr. Taraday said to adopt the findings in the packet, a Councilmember would
move the resolution in packet. If the Council wanted to go in a different direction and direct staff to repeal
Ordinance 4217, that could be done.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section LC which states, "Careful thought and deliberation should N
be given to crafting of those permanent landmark tree regulations to ensure that any future removal..." and N
said she was unsure the Council had careful and thoughtful deliberation on March 2"a. Mr. Taraday advised N
paragraphs A, B, C, D of Section 1 and the whereas clauses were his attempt to put in writing what he —
believed to be the Council's justification for adopting Ordinance 4217 and for continuing to leave it in
effect for the next 4 months. Paragraph C says because time is needed for careful thought and deliberation a
for the upcoming round of regulations, the Council is keeping landmark trees standing so they are not cut
down in the meantime.
z
x
w
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out landmark trees are being cut down and there is no enforcement. The };
ordinance was passed very quickly on March 2" d and she did not know that the Council really had careful m
deliberation. She was unsure how to vote since the Council had never talked about enforcement related to E
the emergency ordinance. Citizens have commented how this emergency ordinance is not helping them and M
pictures have been provided of trees that have been cut. If the Council adopts this finding, she could not a
say the Council had had careful and thoughtful deliberation on March 2n1. Mr. Taraday reiterated that is not
what the finding says; the finding is that the City needs more time to consider and adopt permanent
regulations and because it needs more time to work on the permanent regulations, interim regulations are
being adopted in the meantime.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 199
9.1.f
Councilmember Distelhorst suggested Councilmembers read packet page 176; the language is quite clear
regarding what is referred to in the findings.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS AS PRESENTED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO
SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217, WHICH ESTABLISHED INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN
LANDMARK TREES.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
7. INTRODUCTION REGARDING PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC SECTION
20.75.045.B, ENTITLED UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION -APPLICABILITY
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
8. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REPORTS
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported COVID cases are up to the point where there are more COVID cases per 100,000
in Snohomish County than there were in the first wave. According to Dr. Spitters, Governor Inslee and
State health officials, Snohomish County is in a fourth wave. This is affecting people in their 20s, 30s, 40s
and 50s, and they are being hospitalized. Because hospitalizations and the number of COVID cases are
increasing and meeting certain thresholds, if behaviors do not change, it is likely Snohomish County will
go back to Phase 2 when the next evaluation is done by the State Department of Health. The CDC issued
new guidelines regarding wearing masks outside and vaccines, but not enough people are currently
vaccinated. Vaccinations are available through the Department of Emergency Management including drive -
through vaccination sites. He encouraged people to get vaccinated, wear masks, and to avoid large
gatherings particularly indoors unless properly masked and socially distanced.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the volunteers who showed up for the Earth Day celebration at Marina
Beach where she saw several Youth Commission members, Students Saving Salmon planted trees at Yost
Park and Tree Board members and volunteers removed blackberries at the marsh. She expressed her
appreciation for all the volunteers, especially the youth, commenting volunteering is a wonderful gift to the
City. She encouraged everyone to wear a mask and get vaccinated. She got her first vaccination after waiting
in line at the Arlington Airport for 3 hours..
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 200
9.1.f
From: Carreen Rubenkonig
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 9:20 AM
To: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>;
Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>;
Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Comment for April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting
Thank you!
Carreen
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 7:03 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment for April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting
City Council should immediately repeal flawed Ordinance 4217 and start over from the
beginning.
Ordinance 4217 makes the following false Declaration of Emergency:
The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance
take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of
the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum.
Majority vote plus one has not applied to Edmonds since Edmonds City Council adopted the
powers of Initiative and Referendum in 1985.
Council voted on March 2, 2021 under the false representation that a super majority was (°
required. There is no way to know how Council would have voted had Council been properly
informed that only one vote was needed for the vote on an Emergency Ordinance to fail. This w
concept also applies to many other Emergency Ordinance votes in the past. How many of those
votes would have been different? There is no way to know. What a mess. E
Ordinance 4217 claims it was effective March 2, 2021. Is this true? Councilmember Fraley- a
Monillas abstained from voting on Ordinance 4217. As all 7 Councilmembers voted the night of
March 2, 2021, did not all 7 have to vote yes for the Emergency Ordinance vote to be
unanimous? Does an abstaining vote count as opposition to the Motion if there is no declared
"conflict of interest" claimed prior to the Motion?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 201
9.1.f
Nobody made a Motion to pass Ordinance 4217 as a regular Ordinance. No vote was taken on
anything other than the Motion that declared an Emergency. The Ordinance Title for
Ordinance 4217 declares an Emergency even though Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
abstained.
Are all Ordinances put forth as an Emergency Ordinance subject to Referendum if they do not
receive a unanimous vote? Please explain the answer and provide legal support for the answer.
Ordinance 4217 states in Section 1. that "The purpose of this interim regulation is to
temporarily protect certain landmark trees from tree removal as that term is defined in ECDC
23.10.020.5." This is an error. The reference should be to ECDC 23.10.020.T.
Ordinance 4217 has another error in Section 3. Nuisance Tree is defined in 23.10.0201, not
23.10.020. K.
Please stop passing new laws that contain errors. We already have plenty of errors in our city
code, a code that has needed to be rewritten since at least 2000.
Please figure out how to properly pass Emergency Ordinances and what is and isn't subject to
Referendum.
Please go back and address all Ordinances voted on in the past under the false
representation take they could take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus
one of the whole membership of the Council, including Ordinance 4189.
From: joe scordino
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:41 PM
To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; My
Edmonds News <teresa@myedmondsnews.com>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: State legislature passes E2SHB 1216 Concerning urban and community forestry
io
The WA State legislature passed E2SHB 1216 and it is on its way to Governor Inslee for w
implementation. c
as
Shouldn't Edmonds be heeding the State's intent in E2SHB 1216 (copy attached) concerning
urban forest management?
a
(Web link in lieu of whole bill: http://Iawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-
22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/1216-S2.PL.pdf?q=20210427144336 )
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 202
9.1.f
Section 1 of the bill should be informative to the City's current effort to hopefully implement a
viable and effective Tree Code in Edmonds. It says:
"The legislature finds that preservation and enhancement of city trees and urban forests
contributes multiple benefits, including stormwater management, carbon sequestration, local
air and water quality enhancements, and fish and wildlife habitat, and is a cost-effective way to
meet these objectives. The legislature further finds that climate change is impacting our state in
numerous ways, including summer heat waves, heavier winter rains, and lower air quality, all of
which can be improved by increased tree canopy. The legislature further finds that modern and
well -crafted urban forestry programs can have significant additional benefits related to human
health, especially when delivered in highly impacted communities with higher health disparities
and that also have lower existing tree canopy. Significant research exists demonstrating health
benefits of trees and green spaces, including air and water quality improvements, positive
emotional responses to being in nature, physical activity, and social cohesion through
interacting in public green spaces. Furthermore, the legislature finds that Washington state
faces continued urgency in adequately protecting essential salmon habitat, which is necessary
to promote salmon recovery and thus help protect our endangered southern resident killer
whale population. It is the intent of the legislature to enhance urban forestry programs that
maximize cobenefits related to human health and salmon recovery."
The necessity of adequately protecting essential salmon habitat is very pertinent to the disaster
the City has created in the Perrinville Creek watershed.
From: cdfarmen
ti
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:39 PM `"
L
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Q
Subject: Fwd: Hoy permit at 8051 184th St SW
---------- Original Message----------
x
w
From: cdfarmen
c
as
To: "Lien, Kernen" <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> E
Date: 04/23/2021 5:22 PM a
Subject: Hoy permit at 8051 184th St SW
Hi Kernen,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 203
9.1.f
Today when the contractor was back filling the foundation, they also back filled against my
fence. There was supposed to be a 30" high concrete block wall installed 6" off my fence and
then back filled up to the block wall.
It is not acceptable to have any backfill against my fence. It's bad enough that their lot will be
24" above the grade of my property. I thought they should also have weeping tile installed
along the base of the block wall so there is no drainage onto my property. I was told there
would not be weeping tile installed.
I ask that this problem be corrected before they do any more work on the job.
Thank you,
Duane Farmen
From: Bonnie Piest
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 4:37 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Emergency Ordinance 4217 Comments
I was unable to attend the full City Council meeting held on Tuesday April 20, 2021 and the
public Hearing section on the Emergency Tree Ordinance 4217. 1 did listen to the recorded
meeting on Wednesday and there were quite a few positive comments reinforcing
Edmonds direction with tree protection and specifically on trees on private properties.
As the July 2019 UFMP identifies that 83% of the tree canopy in Edmonds is controlled by
Private property owners. The Cities ability to have a long term impact on preservation of
the tree canopy can not be successful without including regulations on private properties
with a focus on preservation of Landmark and Heritage trees
I have reviewed the Chapter 23.10 ECDC that was adopted by the City Council on March
2nd. I have been advised that this is specific to development properties and not private
properties and that the development of the Phase 2 will be focused on the Private
property regulations. My understanding is that is expected to occur and be completed by
the before the end of the Ordinance 4217.
My recommendations are the following:
1. That the Emergency Tree Ordinance 4217 be modified to include the definition of "Tree
Removal". This would provide further clarification on what is considered "tree removal"
and protection against any potential severe pruning of heritage/ landmark trees during the
ordinance period. I propose modifying the ordinance to include the following language
contained in the Chapter 23.10 ECDC Definitions in section 23.10.020
23.10.020 Definitions
r
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 204
9.1.f
T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through
actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible
damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper
pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped;
poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of
more than 20 percent of the tree(s root system; or the removal through any of these processes
of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree.
2. The Emergency Tree ordinance 4217 that is for a 6 month period ending September 2,
be considered for extension until such time that the city has fully completed and adopted
the Phase 2 private property regulations.
3. That the final Phase 2 private Property regulations include the Definition of Tree
Removal as state in section 23.10.020 as well as many of the additional definitions
contained in 23.10.020.
There are many King and Snohomish County cities that have adopted tree preservation
regulations for multiple years at this point, I am specifically aware of the City of Seattle,
City of Woodinville and Lake Forest Park. In my opinion, the city of Edmonds is behind in
these efforts and needs to make a concerted effort to prioritize completing and
implementing these tree preservation regulations for all properties including development,
private and city owned properties.
I appreciate your consideration of my recommendations.
Thanks
Bonnie Piest
From: cdfarmen
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:27 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Misstatement of email information
Good morning to all of you,
I have had a good conversation with Council member Buckshnis and the issue has been
favorably resolved. I do accept her explanation that it was an honest mistake on her part.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 34
Packet Pg. 205
9.1.f
Having accepted her apology, I would like to point out that whether it was 31 or 57 trees clear-
cut, is not the real issue at hand. It is the fact too many significant trees are being removed at
an unprecedented and uncontrolled pace from the city's tree canopy. Therein lies the need for
a good tree code that works for all citizens of Edmonds.
Please continue with due diligence in developing a good tree code that can stand the test of
time. Our natural environment, whether it be trees, wildlife, or a local watershed, is as much
important as the Edmonds marsh, the Edmonds waterfront, and I will also include housing as
well. What would our city be like without trees?
Thank you,
Duane Farmen
Seaview resident
a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 27, 2021
Page 35
Packet Pg. 206
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Continued Deliberation on the Planning Board recommendation to approve an amendment to Chapter
17.75 ECDC, entitled "Outdoor Dining," and a related section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim zoning
ordinance. The Planning Board reviewed this issue at its February 10, 2021, meeting and held a public
hearing on March 24th. The Council previewed the issue on June 1, 2021 and held its public hearing on
July 27th.
Staff Recommendation
Continue deliberations and consider a final ordinance for adoption.
Narrative
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim zoning ordinance (see
Exhibit 4). The ordinance clarified conditions pertaining to outdoor dining and streamlined the process
for approving this type of use on a commercial property. The Planning Board reviewed this issue and
held a public hearing on March 24, 2021. The Board recommended making the interim provisions
regarding outdoor dining a permanent part of the code. The Planning Board's only change was a
technical edit, combining the related wording in 17.75.020 and 17.75.030 of Ordinance 4210 into a
single section. With this change, the combined wording would read as follows (the underlined words are
the relocated language from 17.75.030):
17.75.020 Outdoor dining - Secondary uses requiring permit.
Outdoor dining shall be a secondary use requiring a permit only if the use includes a component
subject to a building or fire permit. Components requiring a building or fire permit include, but
are not limited to, detached (free-standing) structures and structures attached to a building,
such as awnings, canopies, roofs, and pergolas. This use shall be established and maintained in
accordance with the terms of this chapter. Any building or structure such as a service stand,
fence, planter, kiosk, awning or other shelter utilized in serving outdoor diners shall fully comply
with all provisions of Title 19 building and fire codes.
The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance which would implement the Planning Board's
recommendation (see Exhibit 1). The minutes from the July 27th City Council hearing are in Exhibit 2.
The Planning Board's discussions and recommendation are contained in Exhibit 3. The City Council's
previous minutes related are included in Exhibit 4, and the original adopted Ordinance #4210 is included
for reference in Exhibit 5.
Packet Pg. 207
9.2
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Draft outdoor dining ordinance
Exhibit 2: City Council minutes from 7/272021 Public Hearing
Exhibit 3: PB minutes outdoor dining
Exhibit 4: City Council Minutes
Exhibit 5: Outdoor dining Ordinance 4210
Packet Pg. 208
9.2.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210, concerning outdoor dining
regulations, on December 15, 2020, as an interim zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed this issue at its February 10, 2021, meeting
and held a public hearing on March 24t'; and
WHEREAS, the Council previewed the issue on June 1, 2021 and held a public hearing
on July 27, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4210 has now expired; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic keeps the desirability of outdoor dining
spaces at a high level; and
WHEREAS, outdoor dining on commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC requires
a conditional use permit through a hearing examiner process that is more costly and time-
consuming to obtain than an ordinary administrative permit; and
WHEREAS, City staff have drafted code amendments to allow outdoor dining on
commercial properties without a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the permit process for on -site outdoor dining
have been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Outdoor Dining," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto
Packet Pg. 209
9.2.a
and incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is
shown in strike through).
Section 2. Section 17.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Other temporary buildings," is hereby amended to read as set forth below (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfoug ):
Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030 and 17.75.010, a
conditional use permit shall be required to construct a temporary
building in any zone. The permit shall be administratively
reviewed by staff and shall be valid for a period of one year;
provided, however, that said permit may be extended by the
development services director for a single one-year extension upon
submittal of a written application prior to the expiration of the
original permit. All the requirements of the zoning district shall be
met. An appeal of the staff decision granting or denying such a
permit or extension shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner in
accordance with the requirements for any other conditional use
permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
Packet Pg. 210
9.2.a
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 211
9.2.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 12021.
4840-7251-8158,v. 1
E
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 212
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 2/3
Chapter 17.75 OUTDOOR DINING EXHIBIT 1
Chapter 17.75
OUTDOOR DINING
Sections:
17.75.010 Outdoor dining — Permitted secondary use.
17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a eenditien ,' „se permit.
17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
17.75.010 Outdoor dining — Permitted secondary use.
A. Limited outdoor seating for outdoor dining is allowed as a permitted secondary use in the BN — neighborhood
business zone, BC — community business zone, BP — planned business zone, BD — downtown business zone, CW —
commercial waterfront zone, CG — general commercial zone, WMU — Westgate Mixed Use, MU — medical use
zone, and FVMU — Firdale Village mixed use zone. When To be established as a permitted secondary use, the
outdoor dining area shall etiffently ,.afnpiy of by proposed to comply with at least one of the following criteria:
1. The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially zoned property(ies)-.)i
2. The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC along the property
line(s) directly adjacent to residentially zoned property(ies�. or
3. The dining area is screened from adjoining residentialresidentially zoned property(ies) by a building and/or a
four -foot wall, hedge, or solid fence.
In addition, all outdoor dining areas shall comply with both of the following criteria:
4. Seating is -shall be limited to an additional 19-50 percent of the existing interior seating of the establishment
or 4-2-30 seats, whichever is greater.
5. An dig area adjacent to vehicle parking shall be separated by landscaping, curb stop, wall or other
suitable barrier to serve as a safety barrier.
B. For sites directly adjacent to residentially zoned property, the outdoor dining area shall be closed between the
hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
C. Areas utilized for outdoor dining shall comply with setback requirements applicable to the site. Temporary
buildings or structures used for the outdoor dining use do not require a separate conditional use permit.
D. Seating shall be located outside of public rights -of -way. Seating within public rights -of -way is reviewed as bistro
dining pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 18.70.030 or as a streatery pursuant to ECDC 18.70.030.
E. No additional parking stalls shall be required for outdoor dining usage. For any outdoor dining area that would
utilize existing non -required on -site parking spaces, at least one ADA-accessible space must remain or be located on
the site.
17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring permit.
Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 1 7 7c n 10 shall be a secondary use requiring a conditional
use -permit only if the use includes a component subject to a buildingor r fire permit. Components requiring a
building or fire permit include, but are not limited to, detached (free-standing) structures and structures attached to a
building, such as awnings, canopies, roofs, and pergolas. A4hia thezones s-tated in ECT`�.T5:A10(A)—.This use
shall be established and maintained enl�-in accordance with the terms of this chapter.
related to the outdoor dining sea4ing. All seating permitted pursuant to the eonditional use permit shall be located
outside of public rights of way. if outdoor seating is approved under th . . I no additional par -king stalls
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4211, passed December 15, 2020.
Packet Pg. 213
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Chapter 17.75 OUTDOOR DINING
Page 3/3
shall be required for the outdoor dining Any building or structure such as a service stand, fence, planter, kiosk,
awning or other shelter utilized in serving outdoor diners shall fully comply with all provisions of Title 19 building
and fire codes.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4211, passed December 15, 2020.
Packet Pg. 214
9.2.b
communities have done that under the pretense of use for kids or aging parents when very few will be
family occupied, most will be rental properties. She lives in a residential neighborhood with several
rentals on her street. Some of the rentals are well kept, some have been fabulous and some have not.
When someone owns a home, the standard of care for the home and neighbors is usually more caring and
responsible. She recommended not changing family neighborhoods which have been a safe place to raise
families. All are welcome, there is a diverse community, but leave our family zoning in place. With
regard to the portal, communist countries during WWII and the Nazis encouraged children and adults to
report anything or anyone not in line with the Gestapo or Hiders beliefs. The portal created by the
Diversity Commission where supposed bias, hate or one-sided claims can be made public is irresponsible
and dangerous for citizens. There is free speech in America; most teach their children how to present
themselves at home and in the community. People have said things in this community on Council and on
the Diversity Commission that made her feel fearful or upset; she could use the portal, but preferred to
use her voice in the town, at Council meetings and with her neighbors. Those responsible for the reporting
hate portal, the Diversity Commission, Patrick Doherty, and Councilmember Distelhorst, who supported
the idea and are responsible for its creation, should hear citizens condemn these actions.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JUAN CASTENEDA
MIRANDA & JEAN KOVATOVICH
4. MOTION TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION ON A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
5. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PHASE 2 STORMWATER
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING,"
AND A RELATED SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC
Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a follow-up to an interim zoning
ordinance the City Council adopted in December to streamline the process of approving outdoor dining
related to restaurants. The ordinance added specific criteria to the code and removed the requirement for a
conditional use permit (CUP). A CUP takes upward of three months to approve at a substantial cost.
While working within COVID restrictions, restaurants were having difficulty making their businesses
viable. When the Council adopted the ordinance it was felt the CUP did not do much beyond the specific
requirements, it only provided a public process. After the ordinance was approved, it was referred to the
Planning Board to consider whether it should be permanent. The Planning Board looked at the ordinance
and its provisions and agreed a CUP was not necessary. The only technical thing the Planning Board did
was to combine the last two sections of the ordinance into a single section.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 27, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 215
9.2.b
Mr. Chave referred to an error pointed out by Councilmember Olson that "of' was mistakenly removed in
17.75.020; the sentence should read, "...in accordance with the terms of this chapter." If the Council
agreed to eliminate the requirement for a CUP, he recommended relocating Paragraphs 4 and 5 in
17.75.010 further down in ordinance as those are intended to be conditions of all dining approvals.
Chapter 17.75.010 states one of the following provisions is necessary and what follows are Paragraphs 1,
2, and 3. That was the way the Planning Board understood it and it was a technical correction that could
be made following the public hearing and included in an ordinance that will be returned to Council for
approval.
Councilmember Olson observed there were some that were under the impression that this ordinance
included streateries; it was her understanding that it does not. Mr. Chave confirmed it does not, this
ordinance is related to outdoor dining that occurs on private property. Streateries are located within the
right-of-way.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a question brought to her attention, if an establishment has a parking
lot and they decide to turn it into outdoor dining, is that acceptable. Mr. Chave answered it depends on the
zone; if parking is required in the zone, that would not be allowed unless there was excess parking.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was referring to the zone where Walkable Edmonds is located, one of
the BD zones. Mr. Chave explained the BD zones downtown do not require onsite parking for
commercial uses. He recalled 1-2 restaurants downtown have converted parking areas to outdoor dining.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Fire & the Feast was brought to her attention. Mr. Chave said a lot of
restaurants downtown do not have parking areas. Many restaurants take advantage of bistro dining or,
more recently, the streateries. Outdoor dining for many downtown businesses would be problematic as
restaurants want it in front of the building, not behind. There are exceptions; Walnut Coffee for example
as a fairly substantial parking lot, probably more than they need, and they may be able to take advantage
of outdoor dining.
Councilmember Buckshnis concluded streateries fall under outdoor dining, but it is a separate ordinance.
Mr. Chave agreed this chapter had nothing to do with streateries.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Chapter 17.75.010.A.5 which states, all dining area adjacent to
vehicle parking shall be separated by landscaping, curb stop, wall or other suitable barrier, and Chapter
17.75.010.A.5 states dining area must be screened from adjoining residentially zoned property(ies) by a
building and/or a four -foot wall, hedge or solid fence. She asked why the two screening requirements
were not the same. Mr. Chave said the way the original ordinance was structured, in 17.75.010, in order
for outdoor dining to occur, at least one of the following criteria had to be met, 1) The site is not directly
adjacent to any residentially zoned property(ies), 2) The site complies with the landscaping requirements
found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC along the property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially zoned
property(ies), or 3) The dining area is screened from adjoining residentially zoned property(ies) by a
building and/or a four -foot wall, hedge, or solid fence. He reiterated Paragraphs 4 and 5 do not belong in
that list and are conditions of any approval and should be relocated further down in the ordinance.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board understood while they were
reviewing the ordinance that that was how the ordinance was intended to read.
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out there are a couple restaurants near Five Corners that appear to
have dining areas adjacent to vehicle parking, areas that are just screened and not permanent. Mr. Chave
said he was not familiar with the situations she was referencing. It was possible they could have been
approved previously, but if they do not adjoin a residential areas, they are not required to have
landscaping or other more permanent screening.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 27, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 216
9.2.b
Council President Paine asked where Sections 4 and 5 would be inserted. Mr. Chave answered it could be
under D or a new section. It will need to be clear that those sections apply to all outdoor dining situations.
Staff will consult with the City Attorney regarding the best way to phrase that. The provisions would
remain as stated, they would only be relocated.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Westgate Mixed Use was added, recalling there was a lengthy
planning process for that area that included looking at the parking. She relayed a question why outdoor
dining would be considered in Westgate when it is so congested and dense. Mr. Chave answered
Westgate is intended to be a walkable, multiuse center and to look a little different than it does today with
more internal circulation, more pedestrian activity, etc. It seemed like an omission not to include
Westgate in the outdoor dining provisions. Outdoor dining in this region will be seasonal, not year round.
Unlike downtown, Westgate has commercial parking requirements which would remain unchanged. He
did not think it appropriate to require parking for a use like outdoor dining which is a seasonal use
because that encourages more pavement, heat island effects and would be counter to what the City is
trying to do with more sustainable development.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Westgate as walkable area, noting that transition has not occurred
and it is unknown what will happen with the Bartell parcel since they sold. Parking continues to be a
concern with a lot of citizens. She questioned where outdoor dining could occur due to the density, other
than PCC which has outdoor dining. She relayed another question about enforcement that does not appear
to be occurring . Mr. Chave said complaints or something out of compliance would be handled by code
enforcement.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 17.75.010.A.5, commenting there are areas in Five Corners
where there is parking and outdoor dining occurring in the parking lot which although separated, could
cause problems. Mr. Chave answered staff is aware of a few situations where outdoor dining has been
established without permits and plan to follow up on those this week.
Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said the agenda packet for this item fails to include his public comment submitted
for this public hearing when it was scheduled for June 22, 2021 and he urged the City to stop providing
incomplete agenda packets. Ordinance 4210 passed by City Council on December 15, 2020 states
pursuant to RCW 36.78.390 this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first
holding a public hearing; however, the same RCW requires the City Council hold a public hearing on an
emergency interim ordinance within at least 60 days of adoption. A public hearing for this interim
ordinance was required by February 13, 2021; it is far too late to be having this public hearing. He
requested the City inform all those impacted by the Council's failure to hold a public hearing on Interim
Ordinance 4210 within at least 60 days of adoption. He questioned what happened now; how many
zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place, how does this happen who is responsible
and is there ever any accountability for anything at City Hall? The City has done this before; on March
17, 2015, Council passed Interim Ordinance 3992; 77 days later the public hearing was held on the June
2, 2015 agenda. City staff claimed the mistake was due to an oversight. Former Councilmember Bloom
abstained from the related vote due to her concern that it was not brought to Council before the 60 day
deadline. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas acknowledged that errors were made by staff, but that staff
was putting procedures in place to avoid it occurring in the future and as it served no purpose to vote
against the motion. The purpose of voting against the motion was because the 60 day time period allowed
by the law had been missed. This has been a concern of his for years; where is the leadership that is
willing to step forward and simply require that the City follow all its laws and ordinances? He questioned
whether that was the Mayor's duty and why wasn't the type of integrity exhibited by former
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 27, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 217
9.2.b
Councilmember Bloom on June 2, 2015 seen more often. Although procedures were supposed to have
been put into place to avoid this happening again, this time it has been 224 days rather than 77 days.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to address Mr. Reidy's comments. She
referred to the language in Section 3 that the ordinance sunsets after 180 days and asked whether the
ordinance had already sunseted if it had been 277 days and should there be a new ordinance or a
replacement ordinance. Mr. Chave explained the original ordinance was an interim ordinance and it has
expired. The Planning Board looked at the original ordinance and made a recommendation for a new
ordinance. The intent is an ordinance to make these provisions permanent. He agreed the interim
ordinance had sunseted. If the ordinance is brought back for Council approval, it would be an entirely
new ordinance. Mr. Taraday agreed. He could not comment on the 60 day hearing requirement as he
would need to check whether a hearing was held and if one wasn't held, he did not know why it wasn't.
Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding that the intent of this new ordinance was to make the
interim ordinance permanent, but in fact this a new ordinance. Mr. Chave responded it would make the
provisions in the interim ordinance part of the permanent code. Councilmember Olson suggested Mr.
Taraday provide input to Council this week to ensure the hearing was done properly. Mr. Taraday asked if
she was requesting he do fact finding and report back to Council. Councilmember Olson said she wanted
to ensure when the Council votes on this ordinance, that it was done in compliance with the law. Mr.
Taraday clarified the ordinance the Council would be acting on is not an interim ordinance, it is a
permanent ordinance. The Planning Board reviewed the provisions that are being recommended to
Council so there would not be any issue with the permanent ordinance which has gone through the normal
process for any permanent change to the zoning code. Any permanent change to the zoning code goes to
the Planning Board first, then to the City Council which is exactly what happened. To the extent that there
was an issue with the interim ordinance, that ship has sailed and there is nothing that can be done to fix it,
but it has no bearing on the proposed permanent ordinance before the Council. In other words, the issue
raised by Mr. Reidy relates to the validity of the interim ordinance, but has no bearing on the validity of
the permanent ordinance. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board used the interim as a starting point or
example when crafting a permanent ordinance. Mr. Reidy was referring to the process for adopting the
interim ordinance, not the process for this ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER THIS POTENTIAL NEW ORDINANCE AT
THE NEXT AVAILABLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilmember K. Johnson said due to the late hour and the fact that there is another public hearing on
the agenda, the Council should take up the content of this item next week.
Council President Paine said she was unsure there would be time on next week's agenda. Councilmember
K. Johnson said the motion was the next available City Council meeting. Mr. Chave said staff may be
able to have the ordinance in final form when the Council considers it next.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if another public hearing should be held since the interim ordinance had
expired. Mr. Chave answered this is the public hearing on the permanent ordinance; the ordinance in the
packet is an underline/strikeout of the permanent ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is
an expired ordinance, Ordinance 4210, and draft of the new chapter. She reiterated her question whether a
new public hearing needed to be held on the new ordinance. Mr. Chave said the Council's
recommendation would be to direct the City Attorney to prepare a permanent ordinance. Staff is taking
the next step in preparing the ordinance so the Council could make any amendments. He summarized the
ordinance does not require a new public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 27, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 218
9.2.b
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:20 P.M.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a decision had been made to remove New Business Agenda
Item 8.1. Mayor Nelson advised there had been no discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis observed 20
minutes was not enough time for that agenda item.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the next public hearing is 45 minutes and the New Business
item is 60 minutes which would take the meeting to approximately midnight. She did not think the
Council generally made the best decisions that late at night. She suggested taking a break to make a
decision on the New Business item. Not wanting to cause further delay, Mayor Nelson said the motion to
extend 20 minutes addressed the length of the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC
SECTION 20.75.045.11, ENTITLED UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION - APPLICABILITY
Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained the Council looked at this several months ago. A private
applicant has proposed to add the downtown business zones to the areas in the City where the unit lot
subdivision process can be applied. It currently can be used in multifamily zones, the Westgate Mixed
Use Zone and the General Commercial District. The applicant would like to use it specifically on a parcel
he is developing on 5t' Avenue South, but it would apply to all BD zoned properties. The unit lot
subdivision process has been around since 2017 and used several times and the development community
seems to like it. Unit lot subdivision provides an alternative for ownership of townhome type projects by
allowing fee simple ownership of townhome buildings. Following a public hearing, the Planning Board
recommended approval of the amendment to allow unit lot subdivision in the BD zones. If the Council
agrees, the City Attorney could be directed to prepare an ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received a lot of questions from citizens and she feared due to the
late hour, people had left the meeting. She suggested continuing the public hearing due to issues related to
this upzone.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING.
Council President Paine advised the next available date is August 17t''
City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented while it was certainly okay to continue the public hearing to allow
additional public comment at a future date, because it was noticed as a public hearing tonight, he
recommended allowing the public to speak tonight and then continue the hearing.
Councilmember Olson commented there was a very clear passage in the packet about whether parcels
could be combine and therefore have the setback on the combined parcels versus 4 or 6 sides. The packet
clearly states that is not the case; but she questioned if that could be done prior to development. Mr.
Clugston answered like condominiums, unit lot subdivisions have CC&Rs and HOAs that govern their
operation as well as a final plat that shows division of the land. While in theory one owner could buy 2-3
adjacent townhomes, they could not apply to do something with the land that was not in accordance with
the HOA and the CC&Rs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 27, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 219
9.2.c
Board Member Cloutier questioned if the Board Members have a clear understanding of exactly which properties in the
downtown are zoned BD3. If not, then he cautioned against singling them out for the change. Chair Rosen said his motion to
amend was intended to draw a smaller circle around the proposal.
THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4-2, WITH CHAIR ROSEN, VICE CHAIR CRANK, AND
BOARD MEMBERS CHEUNG AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS MONROE AND
ROBLES VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Mr. Chave advised that the Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)17.75,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70
Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, partially in response to the
limitations placed on dining during the pandemic. For several months, outdoor dining was the only way to accommodate
patrons, other than take out. It was noticed that the City's codes pertaining to outdoor dining were extremely restrictive and
required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which could take two or three months to process. The ordinance clarified the
conditions pertaining to outdoor dining and streamlined the process for approving this type of use on a commercial property.
Specifically, it eliminated the CUP requirement entirely, but still required that outdoor dining located directly adjacent to
residentially -zoned properties must comply with the landscape requirements in the existing code or be screened by a building
and/or 4-foot wall, hedge or solid fence.
Mr. Chave advised that, previous to the interim ordinance, seating was limited to 10% of the existing interior seating or 12
seats, whichever was greater. This typically equated to just a few tables, and anything beyond that required a CUP. The interim
ordinance increased the seating capacity to 50% of the existing interior seating or 30 seats, whichever was greater. In addition,
a requirement was added that any dining area adjacent to vehicle parking had to be separated by landscaping, curb stops, wall
or other suitable barrier. Although the CUP requirement was eliminated, the interim ordinance clarifies that building and/or
fire permits would still be required for some elements associated with outdoor dining such as canopies, electric heaters, etc.
He concluded that the proposed amendment would make the interim ordinance permanent.
Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. As no one indicated a desire to provide testimony, Chair Rosen closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mr. Chave recalled that, at the Board's last discussion on the proposed amendments, Board Member Pence suggested that some
of the provisions in the ordinance could be combined for greater clarity. He observed that ECDC 17.75.010 deals with the land
use standards, ECDC 17.75.020 talks about when a building or fire permit would be required, and ECDC 17.75.030 talks about
buildings and structures having to comply with the building and fire codes. Perhaps the latter two could be combined, but
ECDC 17.75.010 addresses something totally different. Again, he said the way the ordinance is currently constructed is fine,
but it might make sense to combine the last two sections. Vice Chair Crank said she would support combining ECDC 17.75.020
and ECDC 17.75.030.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ECDC 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
AMENDED TO COMBINE ECDC 17.75.020 AND ECDC 17.75.030. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note, Board Member Cheung was having technical difficulties and did
not vote)
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Planning Board Minutes
March 24, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 220
9.2.c
REVIEW OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (#4210) AMENDNG EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN
ECDC 17.70
Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim ordinance. The
main affect was to change the Outdoor Dining Permit from what had been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which required a
hearing by the Hearing Examiner and a lengthy review process, to an Administrative Approval that could be done by staff.
Because Ordinance 4210 is an interim ordinance that expires after six months, the Board is being asked to review it and
provide a recommendation about whether it should be adopted for a longer period of time or permanently.
Chair Rosen asked Mr. Chave to articulate between the "Outdoor Dining" use that is the subject of the interim ordinance and
"Streeteries." Mr. Chave explained that a variety of activities are allowed within the rights -of -way, but streeteries are a new
type of use that came about during the pandemic. They are basically the temporary use of rights -of -way to help businesses
survive. Because streeteries are allowed in ECDC 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), they are not something the
Planning Board reviews or makes recommendations on. Ordinance 4210 relates to on -site outdoor dining, which typically
occurs as an extension or accessory to a restaurant in an enclosed building. Sometimes it takes the form of patio dining or
outdoor open decks.
Board Member Robles asked if Ordinance 4210 would apply to the temporary structures (tents, etc.) that have expanded into
parking spaces. Mr. Chave answered that the ordinance is not applicable to tents and other structures that are located within
the rights -of -way. However, it could allow outdoor dining to be located in on -site parking areas, as long as the parking
spaces are not part of a business's required parking.
Chair Rosen asked how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement could potentially be impacted by outdoor
dining areas. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would still have to comply with all of the building code requirements,
including making sure that access was ADA compliant.
Board Member Pence asked if there have been any applications for outdoor dining since Ordinance 4210 was passed in
December. Mr. Chave said he believes so, but he would need to ask the Building Official for this specific information.
Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.75.010(2), and asked how the 4-foot wall, hedge or fence was arrived at. He
also asked how they arrived at the 50% or 30-seat limit. Mr. Chave said these requirements were part of the previous code
that had been in place for many years. The substantial change was not requiring a CUP for the use.
Board Member Pence observed that eliminating the CUP requirement from ECDC 17.75.020 would make ECDC 17.75.020
(Secondary Uses Requiring a Permit) functionally the same as ECDC 17.75.010 (Permitted Secondary Uses). If that is the
case, then ECDC 17.75.020 could be eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave agreed it might be possible to combine the two sections.
However, the language related to building and fire permits in ECDC 17.75.020 would need to be added to ECDC 17.75.010.
He commented that there has been some debate and uncertainty about when and how the building and fire permits apply.
Board Member Pence said he believes in having codes as neat and tidy and easy to follow as possible, and having two
separate sections that are functionally indistinguishable is not good bill drafting. He suggested that the permanent ordinance
combine the two sections in a way that accomplishes the intent. The remainder of the Board concurred.
Mr. Chave said the intent of the ordinance is to make it clear that outdoor dining must be the secondary rather than
predominant use of the property and that some buffering would be required. Chair Rosen referred to ECDC 17.75.010(A)(5),
which appears to be motivated by safety. If the intent is to separate vehicles from patrons, perhaps it should be spelled out
that the barrier must be suitable to protect the safety of the diner.
Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 24'.
CODE AMENDMENT TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS
Mr. Clugston explained that this application is a privately -initiated Development Code amendment. As a Type V application,
the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that the
Planning Board Minutes
February 10, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 221
9.2.d
With regard to the issue of light, Councilmember Olson agreed that related to equity; it could arise anywhere
and was not exclusive to the bowl. Blocking light can be an issue for someone's garden. She strongly
favored incentives, agreeing they were complicated to figure out but that was the way to go. The
environment is important, and instead of spending money on enforcement and punishment, she preferred
to provide incentives for having the right tree in the right place. She felt the City could get better results
with incentives rather than punishments.
Mr. Lien said he did not assume the Council would complete this tonight; it was intended to provide some
guidance. The Council has provided clear direction on the Heritage Tree Program. The direction regarding
tree retention on private property not related to development seemed to be no permit but tracking for the
removal of a certain number of trees. He will come back to Council to discuss views and habitat corridors
in more depth so Council can provide clearer direction. Council agreed. Mr. Lien referenced comments
regarding light, noting some jurisdictions have regulations related to solar access..
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. He relayed Council President Paine and he conferred during the
recess and decided Item 8.5 would be postponed to a future meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION
IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC
Development Services Director Shane Hope advised this is not about outdoor dining on sidewalks or streets.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this is a Planning Board recommendation on an interim ordinance
Council adopted at the end of December related to outdoor dining. Although the ordinance was listed, it
was not included in packet. He displayed the one -page ordinance and explained on private property, dining
is allowed as an outdoor use. Until the interim ordinance, an additional 10% of the indoor seating was
allowed as outdoor seating or 12 seats whichever was greater and beyond those limits a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) was required. He commented 10% of the interior seating or 12 seats was not very much and
especially during COVID, it came to the City's attention that restaurants needed more flexibility. A CUP
goes to the Hearing Examiner and costs thousands of dollars and takes up to three months for approval,
making any significant outdoor dining cost and time prohibitive for a typical restaurant/small business.
Mr. Chave explained the interim ordinance adopted by Council removed the requirement for a CUP,
clarified the need for a building permit for any structures, and for retaining any ADA accessible parking
spaces. The original code did not have a limitation on the amount of outdoor dining; the interim ordinance
had a limit up to 50% of the existing interior seating and up to 30 seats. The interim ordinance was more
generous than what was allowed without a permit, but not as open ended as the original code. The Planning
Board held a public hearing and recommended making the interim ordinance permanent. A public hearing
at City Council is scheduled on June 15t''
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how 30 seats versus 40 or 20 was decided when the original was 12. Mr.
Chave it was 12 or 10% of the indoor seating whichever was more. Thirty seats seemed like a reasonable
number, it could be lower or higher. The 50% was not a magic number but it clearly indicates that outdoor
dining was to be a secondary part of the overall operation, not the main part. Under the interim code, the
additional outdoor dining could be 50% of the interior or 30 seats. For example, a small takeout place with
just a kitchen and no interior seating could have 30 outdoor seats.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 222
9.2.d
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Planning Board minutes did not indicate how 30 seats was determined.
She recalled the Planning Board asked about safety issues. Mr. Chave said there is a provision in the interim
ordinance that states any dining adjacent to vehicle parking shall be separated by landscaping, curb stop
wall or other suitable barrier. That was not in the original code and was added to the interim ordinance as
a safety feature.
5. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
This item was postponed to future meeting.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas cautioned the Council not to throw things on the agenda for campaign
purposes. She was seeing campaigning occurring and did think that gave the citizens a fair shake if
Councilmembers were using Council meetings for campaigning.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Memorial Day was wonderful. She went to the cemetery and
visited her parents, both of whom were WWII veterans, and her nephew, a Marine serving in the Middle
East. Memorial Day is very important for those whose family members served in the military. She was very
proud of her parents and her family for serving in the military particularly during WWII.
Councilmember Olson reported she was excited to be working toward having 4th of July events. It will be
a full press from the entire village to make it happen. She invite volunteers to reach out to the Chamber of
Commerce sooner rather than later. There will be a lot of volunteer slots to fill but people with backgrounds
directing traffic are particularly needed. She thanked the sponsors and large supporters, they are needed and
appreciated.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported on the nice event yesterday at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and
thanked staff, the local VFW and also the Cemetery Board for organizing it. He relayed gun violence is
preventable; there were some victories at the legislature this year, but there are many areas where a lot more
work can be done. This is a policy choice and he hoped it will continue to be a priority for Edmonds,
reducing preventable gun violence in the community.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported June 1" is the start of Pride Month. It was sad to see the discriminatory
bills from certain state legislatures, especially targeting trans youth, which is representative of how much
work still needs to be done in Washington and in other states to ensure LGBTQ+ communities have the
same civil rights, healthcare rights, and housing rights afforded everyone. He said we can celebrate and we
can do good work.
Council President Paine recognized the start of Pride Month. She recognized all the wonderful support she
has had from managers and directors in her professional life who have been LGTBQ and the generosity of
their support and interest in learning more about public administration. Memorial Day was a lot of fun and
she was appreciative of the event at the Edmonds Cemetery and all the volunteers.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mayor Nelson for being at the end of the drive -through Memorial Day
event at the cemetery. She expressed appreciation to President Biden for honoring the victims of Black
Wall Street that marked 100 years yesterday, 100 years ago today Black Wall Street was devastated in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. She found it very heartwarming and a wonderful gesture that shows the President
recognition that things happened and the need to understand the equity aspect. She recognized the start of
Pride Month, recalling three years ago she was on a cruise ship on June l' along with Maureen Judge, a
fun time to be celebrating the joy of being a human being. She said everyone has right the right to do and
say and be happy.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 223
9.2.d
Councilmember K. Johnson said she served on the Planning and Public Works Committee with former
Councilmember Tibbott. The committee talked about how to get sidewalks built and the truth was without
grants, they would not get built because there was no money. Staff indicated the problem was the need for
a consultant to design the project, go out to bid, etc. Staff suggested hiring a sidewalk crew, two people in
Public Works.
Council President Fraley-Monillas interrupted, stating this was out of order. The Council is supposed to
be debating the CFP/CIP, but this commentary is going nowhere. She asked City Clerk Scott Passey to
rule on this. Mr. Passey said if the discussion was not driving toward a yes or no vote on the CFP/CIP
ordinance, which may include amendments, debate and votes, it was probably out of order. Mayor Nelson
agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not want to shut down Councilmember K. Johnson and
suggested issues related to the CIP/CFP would be a good topic for a retreat in 2021. Tonight is not the
time to present an 8-9 page document regarding issues with the CFP/CIP. Mayor Nelson agreed.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed and offered to work on that retreat item.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2021-2026 CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLAN, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY 2021 BUDGET
LATER TONIGHT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO APPROVE THE 2021-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS DESCRIBED IN
OUR PACKET. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS
VOTING NO.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked to change her vote on the motion to approve the CFP. Mr. Taraday said
if Councilmember K. Johnson voted in the affirmative, she can move for reconsideration.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, FOR RECONSIDERATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to change her vote from yes to no. Mr. Taraday said that
could be done via a roll call vote.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON,
PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
4. EMERGENCY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW STREATERIES IN ROW & OUTDOOR
DINING WITHOUT CU PERMIT
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
• COVID 19 has changed the way we live
• Restaurants & similar businesses hit hard
• Special Event Permit —Temporary Mitigation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2020
Page 18
Packet Pg. 224
9.2.d
o Special event permit was authorized in August to allow dining in designated vehicle parking
spaces
■ Originally thru Oct. 11
■ Extended thru Nov 8
■ Extended thru Dec 31 or Council adoption of streateries ordinance, whichever sooner
o Liked by many people
■ Helps keep small businesses alive
■ Brings festive atmosphere to community
■ Allows users to dine in public place, but still have fresh air and spacing
Two concepts for code updates to help address economic crisis
1. Streateries (parklets allowing dining/beverage service in designated vehicle parking space,
within ROW)
2. On -Site Outdoor Dining (allowing more opportunities —without CUP —for outdoor dining on
private property, not in ROW)
o Both concepts presented at:
■ City Council's Nov. 12 PSPP Committee meeting
■ City Council's Nov. 24 meeting
"Streateries" aka "Parklets" that are specifically for dining
o Streateries Concept —Highlights
■ Applicable citywide, adjacent to commercial uses where street parking spaces are
available
■ Subject to individual permits for up to one year with 6-month extensions possible
■ Dining on raised platforms, flush with sidewalk, to provide ADA accessibility
■ Maximum 2 parking spaces per use
■ Safety standards (e.g., fire & structural safety) to apply
■ Insurance and "hold harmless" agreements by applicants required
■ Some aesthetic guidelines included
■ Limitation on total number of streateries: 20
■ Must meet state & health district standards (incl for COVID protections)
■ Must have reflective lights for night-time
■ Applicants to pay cost of platforms, safety barriers, liability insurance, etc.
Note: City staff has also explored what other cities are doing for streateries
o Draft Ordinance for Streateries
■ Amends Chapter 18.70 (Street Use and Encroachment Permits)
■ Proposed as emergency ordinance
■ Timing fits with Council's intent to respond quickly to COVID impacts
■ If adopted as emergency, public hearing proposed for Feb. 2
■ Proposed to sunset on May 1, 2022 unless Council takes other action sooner
■ Sets specific standards, permit process, and inspections for streateries
■ Assures compliance with Governor orders, ADA, fire safety, & other requirements
On -Site Outdoor Dining
o On -Site Outdoor Dining Concept —Highlights
■ Allow under simple permit process, without going thru conditional use permit process
■ Allow on business property, such as on deck or patio or in parking lot
■ No requirement for additional parking spaces
■ May include canopy or awning
■ Ensure safety standards (e.g., for heaters) are met
■ Must have ADA access
■ Must meet building setback standards
o Draft Ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining
■ Amends Chapter 17.75 (Outdoor Dining)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2020
Page 19
Packet Pg. 225
9.2.d
■ Proposed as emergency interim ordinance
■ If adopted as emergency, would require public hearing, possibly February 2
■ Would be in effect for up to six months
■ While interim ordinance is in effect, Planning Board would review & propose to City
Council any longer -term ordinance
Recommended Next Steps
o Council to:
■ Adopt emergency ordinance for Streateries (with sunset date)
■ Adopt emergency interim ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining (with longer term
recommendation by Planning Board in early 2021)
■ Hold future public hearings as needed (circa Feb. 2)
o City staff to:
■ Finalize handouts and web information
■ Get word out to affected businesses
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers
asking one question at a time.
With regard to enforcement, Councilmember Distelhorst assumed the City would do an inspection when a
restaurant applied for a permit and asked if someone who observed an inconsistency should contact the
City's code enforcement. Ms. Hope answered yes.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a question she had been asked whether a restaurant had to go to the
expense of constructing a platform if they had ADA compliant seating available on the sidewalks. Ms.
Hope said there was an exception in the ordinance for those situations.
Councilmember Paine asked if a restaurant with a sidewalk cafe on the sidewalk would also be allowed to
have a streatery in the right-of-way. Ms. Hope said based on past experience, there are a few businesses
that have both sidewalk dining and a streatery, but most do not. This ordinance would allow the first 20
applicants who meet the requirements to obtain a permit, regardless of whether they have sidewalk
dining. They would need to meet all the standards, but would not be penalized for having sidewalk
dining. Councilmember Paine observed a restaurant could have both, a sidewalk cafe and a streatery. Ms.
Hope agreed they could but would have to meet the 5 foot minimum span between so ADA access could
be accomplished.
With regard to enforcement, Councilmember L. Johnson asked what resources were available to assist
businesses with enforcing health district standards such as the COVID protections. People who see things
happening can report them to code enforcement, but what is the City doing to assist businesses who may
be put in uncomfortable situations if customers do not abide by the requirements. The streateries are a
new thing and there are disagreements about what should/should not be done to protect the public's
health. If the streateries were intended to help restaurants stay in business and weather the pandemic, she
asked whether it up to them to enforce the code or were there resources to assist with people who were
not compliant. Ms. Hope answered the City does not enforce capacity limits in stores or enforce the use of
masks, etc.; businesses are expected to deal with it. If there is a serious problem, the establishment can
call the police or someone else for help. Providing information to the public regarding the rules is helpful.
Mr. Doherty said during the late summer and fall when streateries were allowed via a special event
permit, he talked to restaurants with a streatery every week; a couple restaurant owners reported having
rowdy people or people trying to join tables, or other things that weren't allowed. The restaurant owners
viewed the ability to use the street as a privilege and were very conscientious and had asked people to
leave, etc. He assured they would be encouraged to observe the governor's statewide restrictions in this
space because ultimately it was a privilege.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2020
Page 20
Packet Pg. 226
9.2.d
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled many years ago noted planner named Brooks spoke regarding
community development in downtown Edmonds. He said if the City achieved a certain density, people
would think of Edmonds as a place to eat. That has basically happened, Edmonds has become a
destination and some of the City's codes were changed, including sidewalk seating. She did not want to
dismantle that because it had been very successful. The Council is now considering other things to help
restaurants and preserve the environment for the business community. However, if two parking spaces are
dedicated for pickup and two for a streatery, she felt that was too much and did not support other uses in
downtown Edmonds. She agreed with allowing sidewalk seating and off-street seating, but preferred to be
more conservative with regard to allowing dining in parking spaces. She suggested allowing either two
parking spaces for pickup or two parking spaces for a streatery, but not both. Ms. Hope said the parking
spaces for pickup are handled by the Public Works Department who likely would not allow parking
limitations too close to other things.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson gave kudos to business owners, commenting so much has been thrown at them
with constant change and they have been resilient, flexible and adaptable. They are a special breed and
she was proud of them and encouraged them to keep up good work. Her biggest concern with what she
has seen with the streateries is ensuring the spirit of the law is upheld. It is not just about creating an
outdoor room with no ventilation, the point is for it to be healthier than eating inside. She hoped that was
implicit in the ordinance and that it was enforced because the purpose of allowing outdoor dining was
because it was safe. With regard to streateries being a privilege and the City bending over backward to
support restaurants, she pointed out with privilege come responsibility. She urged the business
community to find ways to help retailers next door, whether via a flyer attached to a takeout bag, tent
cards on tables, or word of mouth such as popcorn for sale at the movie theater, or having Glazed and
Amazed projects at a streatery during the day when it is not as busy. She thanked staff for their work on
this project.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern about impacts on businesses, for example Glazed and
Amazed that has one parking space and streateries on either each side. She asked if Glazed and Amazed
could do the same thing, allow patrons to do art projects outside. Ms. Hope it is just for restaurant -type
businesses who are closed to indoor customers. If the governor's orders change, staff will come back to
Council to discuss options for other businesses.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the decision was made to have one parking space between
streateries and why two spaces were not required if a nearby business used the parking. Ms. Hope said
people seldom get to park directly in front of the business they are frequenting; they may need to park 1-2
blocks away. The idea was to ensure restaurants could serve customers adjacent to their space,
recognizing that people may have to walk a bit to reach other businesses. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the way the ordinance is written, no more than two streateries can abut each other. Ms. Hope said another
issue that came up is whether the parking spaces between streateries are too narrow so the ordinance
requires a one foot setback on each side of the available parking space to provide some additional space.
During the special event streateries, staff worked with restaurants to provide that and it worked well.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented the ordinance allows two abutting streateries and one parking
space between. In an area with nine parking spaces, there could technically be four streateries and only
one parking space. She was concerned with how that could impact other businesses. Ms. Hope agreed it
was a challenge, but there could only be a total of 20 streateries. Where it makes the most sense to have
streateries is in areas where restaurants are concentrated. It is a balancing act, restaurants tend to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2020
Page 21
Packet Pg. 227
9.2.d
clustered together. To make it work, the streateries need to be close to the restaurants. Councilmember L.
Johnson wanted to ensure other businesses were kept in mind and it was not too difficult for them.
Councilmember K. Johnson said one issue that was discussed previously but was not addressed tonight
was the use of gas heaters and their impact on the environment. She asked what staff had learned. Ms.
Hope answered in general gas heaters will not be used due to fire protection concerns with the flames and
because few propane heaters are available. The preferred option will be electric heaters.
Councilmember Paine observed restaurants providing onsite dining did not need to restore parking spaces.
If on -street parking is constrained by streateries, she envisioned in 6-8 months there would be a lot of
congestion and not a lot of parking and the City would be in the same place it was in the summer of 2019.
She requested parking be monitored particularly when the weather gets warmer and people feel safer to
come outside. Ms. Hope assured there will be monitoring and adjustments made as needed. With regard
to the use of parking lots, it pertains mostly to businesses outside of the downtown area because few
downtown restaurants have onsite parking. There are restaurants in Five Corners or Highway 99 that have
more than enough parking and can allocate space for outdoor dining.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT
PERMITS," TO ALLOW "STREATERIES" FOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THAT THE FIRST ISSUANCE BE THROUGH OCTOBER 31ST WHICH BRINGS US
TO HALLOWEEN AND THE START OF THE HOLIDAY SEASON FOR OUR EDMONDS
MERCHANTS
Councilmember K. Johnson said the City needed to be mindful of protecting businesses and there could
be a six month extension.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested if the Council really wanted to protect businesses, they
would not have streateries in the summer because that is when downtown businesses experience the
majority of the crowds. They have crowds around the holidays but only for a few days.
Councilmember K. Johnson said Council President Fraley-Monillas was not speaking to the motion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion because the issue was more than just
around the holidays. By supporting the motion, a Councilmember was agreeing that that was when
businesses did the majority of their business which she did not think was accurate.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the interim ordinance was the second one, not
this one. Ms. Hope said the motion related to the ordinance for streateries is an emergency ordinance that
is effective for one year. A one year period would allow businesses some assurance that they could recoup
some of the costs associated with installing the necessary equipment.
Councilmember Olson said the question posted by Councilmember K. Johnson was very thoughtful and
she appreciated the reminder about the entire economic community. She trusted business owners would
look out for their neighbors and businesses would consider how to capitalize on the restaurants who were
granted the privilege of a streatery.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2020
Page 22
Packet Pg. 228
9.2.d
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING" AND A RELATED SECTION,
CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING AN IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. ADOPTION OF 2021 CITY BUDGET (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.12)
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2021 CITY BUDGET.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she pulled this to reserve the opportunity if any changes were made to
the CFP/CIP.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2021
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS NOMINATED SUSAN PAINE AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND ANOTHER 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday said once all the nominations are made, the Council will vote in the order nominations were
made and the first to have a majority will be selected.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS NOMINATED LAURA JOHNSON AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED VIVIAN OLSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM.
SUSAN PAINE WAS SELECTED 2021 COUNCIL PRESIDENT BY ACCLAMATION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON VOTED IN FAVOR OF LAURA JOHNSON AS COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
2. 2020 BOARD & COMMISSION RETIREMENTS (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.8)
Councilmember Olson thanked citizens who have served on boards and commissions and are retiring.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 15, 2020
Page 23
Packet Pg. 229
9.2.e
ORDINANCE NO. 4210
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE.
WHREAS, COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being,
which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health; and
WHEREAS, Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address
coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close or partially close
businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk; and
WHEREAS, in Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been
especially impacted by full and partial closures; and
WHEREAS, COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses have limited
or prohibited indoor dining during much of the year; and
WHEREAS, even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would
prefer to do so in an outdoor environment, rather than indoors, to be a safer environment from a
COVID-19 standpoint; and
WHEREAS, some dining and beverage establishments already have permitted bistro
dining for certain sidewalk areas per Chapter 17.70 ECDC or permitted outdoor dining on
commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC; and
WHEREAS, outdoor dining on commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC requires a
conditional use permit through a hearing examiner process that is more costly and time-consuming
to obtain than an ordinary administrative permit; and
WHEREAS, City staff have been working on potential code amendments to allow outdoor
dining on commercial properties without a conditional use permit; and
1
Packet Pg. 230
9.2.e
WEHEREAS, concepts for amending the code to allow outdoor dining without a
conditional use permit were presented in a November 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council's
Public Safety, Planning, and Personnel Committee and subsequently presented in a November 24,
2020 meeting of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the permit process for on -site outdoor dining have
been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an
emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Outdoor Dining," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown
in strike through).
Section 2. Section 17.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Other temporary buildings," is hereby amended to read as set forth below (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in s4tl£e thfough):
Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030 and 17.75.010, a conditional
use permit shall be required to construct a temporary building in any
zone. The permit shall be administratively reviewed by staff and
shall be valid for a period of one year; provided, however, that said
permit may be extended by the development services director for a
single one-year extension upon submittal of a written application
prior to the expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of
the zoning district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision
granting or denying such a permit or extension shall be reviewed by
2
Packet Pg. 231
9.2.e
the hearing examiner in accordance with the requirements for any
other conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
Section 3. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the
effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after
which point it shall have no further effect.
Section 4. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency
exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote
plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not
subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance,
restaurants would have to go through a much longer permit process before being able to offer
outdoor dining. Any delay in the ability of the city's restaurants to offer additional outdoor dining
could further jeopardize an already struggling restaurant industry. Therefore, this ordinance should
be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving
off restaurant failures and creating regulations so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to
dine for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect
immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 4, as long as it is approved by a majority plus
one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted
by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an
emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
3
Packet Pg. 232
9.2.e
Section 7. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts as findings of fact in support
of the adoption of this ordinance the "whereas" clauses above.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CI CLERK, SCOTT PASAY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED:
MOOR MIKE NELSON
December 11, 2020
December 15, 2020
December 18, 2020
December 23, 2020
4210
L,
Packet Pg. 233
9.2.e
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4210
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 15th day of December, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 4210. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC,
ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM
ZONING ORDINANCE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 15th day of December, 2020.
T-
Cit-Y-eLERK, SCOTT PA Y
Packet Pg. 234
9.2.e
CHAPTER 17.75
Exhibit A
OUTDOOR DINING
Sections:
17.75.010 Outdoor dining —Permitted secondary use.
17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a eanditien ,' use permit.
17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
17.75.010 Outdoor dining — Permitted secondary use.
A. Limited outdoor seating for outdoor dining is allowed as a permitted secondary use in the BN —
neighborhood business zone, BC — community business zone, BP — planned business zone, BD —
downtown business zone, CW — commercial waterfront zone, CG — general commercial zone, WMU—
Westgate Mixed Use, MU — medical use zone, and FVMU — Firdale Village mixed use zone. When
established as a permitted secondary use, the outdoor dining area shall currently comply or be proposed to
comply with at least one of the following criteria:
1. The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially zoned property(ies).
2. The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC along the
property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially zoned property(ies).
3. The dining area is screened from adjoining residentially zoned property(ies) by a building and/or a
four -foot wall, hedge, or solid fence.
4. Seating is limited to an additional 4&50 percent of the existing interior seating of the establishment
or 4-2-30 seats, whichever is greater.
5. Anv dining area adiacent to vehicle narking shall be senarated by landscaping, curb stop, wall or
other suitable barrier
B. For sites directly adjacent to residentially zoned property, the outdoor dining area shall be closed
between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
C. Areas utilized for outdoor dining shall comply with setback requirements applicable to the site.
Temporary buildings or structures used for the outdoor dining use do not require a separate conditional use
permit.
D. Seating shall be located outside of public rights -of -way. Seating within public rights -of -way is reviewed
as bistro dining pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 18.70.030 or as a streatery pursuant to ECDC
18.70.030.:
E. No additional parking stalls shall be required for outdoor dining usage. For any outdoor diningspace
pace
that would utilize existing on -site parking spaces, at least one ADA-accessible space must remain or be
located on the site,
17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a permit.
Outdoor dining not meeting the requi eme 4s of Errs , 7 7c 0 non property outside of the public ri hg t of
way shall be a secondary use requiring. a conditional „so permit only if the use includes a component
subject to a buildingor r fire permit. Components requiring a buildingor r fire permit include, but are not
limited to, detached (free-standing) structures and structures attached to a building, such as awnings,
canopies, roofs, and per og las •_����� �. This use shall be established
and maintained e*ly-in accordance with the terms of a eenditional use permit approved 1.y thethis chapter.
0
Packet Pg. 235
9.2.e
17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures.
Any building or structure such as a service stand, fence, planter, kiosk, awning or other shelter utilized in
serving outdoor diners shall fully comply with all provisions of the State Building Code an
community development code inel ,. ing but not limited to design revieT Title 19 building and fire codes.
7
Packet Pg. 236
9.2.e
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Dicy Sheppard being first duly swom, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH915965 ORDS 4206-4211 as
it was published in the regular and entire issue
of said paper and not as a supplement form
thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 12/18/2020 and
ending on 12/18/2020 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount of the fee far such publicatign is
$68.60. rr+
Subscribed 9nd swo
�
rn o me on this
�day of
Lw
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416
SCOTT PASSEV
Lin7PhillipsNoState My Appointm
Packet Pg. 237
Classified Proof
9.2.e
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
of Ih4 Clty of
pn 1ha 15rn day oEam
emix,2ria CilymCaune+l 11 nthe Cso0ohWa6NnflWn
ft6eecuwpwoyaf
Etld
ordlnances
"irrals" of Mfes are wldad as foli—
ORDI
ORDiNANCOF
�NQ. 4208
AN NANG THY
EOMOND3,
jqWASHINGTON. CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING
TIMES OF 0 Ty COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE MEETINGS. REINSTATING THE SECOND
TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ESTABLISHING
REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES PRIOR TO THE
SECOND TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
OR01NAiI ENO. 4207
AN ORDINANCE OF OF EDMONDS.
WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 410 AS A
RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
OR0jNANO F NO.4208
AN ORDINANCE OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGtON. ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
ORDi YA NCE NO- 4209
AN QRDINANC��OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
WASHINGTON. AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECOC.
ENTITLED 'STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT
PERMITS; TO ALLOW 'STREATEAWS' FOR DINING IN
THE PUOLIC R[GHT-OF-WAY, DEM-ARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION
AN D EFFECTIV ENESS OF THIS OR DINANC E
ORDINANCE HO- A210
AN ORDINANCE P THE C1TY OF EDMONDS,
YVASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17-75 ECDC,
ENTITLED 'OUTOOOR DINING,' AND A RELATED
SECTION IN CHAPTER 17,70 ECDC, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO-4211
AN ORDINANCE A T FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2021.
The full Iex1 of thaw ❑lanan[es vtV be mabd upon requoul.
DATED Ih15 15th Day of December, 2020.
CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY
PubUehod; December 18, 2020- E01-1916965
Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 12/18/2020 08:47:48 am Page: 2
Packet Pg. 238
9.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedure
Staff Lead: City Clerk
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
In 2013, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1295, which adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its
parliamentary authority for the conduct of City Council meetings. In December 2013, the Council passed
Resolution No. 1306 adopting a Code of Conduct and in June 2015, the Council approved a Code of
Ethics by motion. On January 25, 2021, the Council adopted a new Code of Conduct by motion.
Because Resolution No. 1295 is limited to parliamentary procedure in the context of Council meetings,
such rules do not address many other processes and procedures in the conduct of City business. It is
thought that a more comprehensive set of rules would provide greater understanding and transparency
about the roles, rights, and responsibilities of councilmembers and facilitate the orderly conduct of
business within the context of council meetings.
The draft rules of procedure encompass detailed information about Council organization, duties of
officers, agenda preparation, meeting management, consent agenda, public testimony, decorum, and so
forth. The draft also includes Council's recent adoption of a Code of Conduct as Section 6 in order to
consolidate all applicable rules into one document.
It is important to note that many provisions of these rules of procedure are already governed by other
codes, statutes, and rulings. Any provision that is footnoted with a citation to the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW), the Edmonds City Code (ECC), or other statute or ruling is included for ease of
reference only and is not intended to be adopted as a rule because it already constitutes governing law.
Provisions that are not footnoted with a citation to the RCW or ECC are adopted by City Council
resolution as the Council's procedural rules and may be amended at any time by subsequent resolution.
On April 6, 2021, the Council passed Resolution 1470, which established that the Council adopted its
own Code of Conduct separate from that which applies to the Mayor and members of City boards,
commissions, committees, and work groups. The proposed Rules of Procedure and the Code of Conduct
were presented and discussed on February 4, 2020, January 26, 2021, and April 6, 2021. For comparison
purposes, prior drafts of the rules of procedure are included in the online Council meeting packets of
February 4, 2020 and March 3, 2020.
On April 6, 2021, a motion was passed to table consideration of the draft Rules of Procedure for a period
of three weeks. The draft rules were scheduled on the June 1, 2021 council agenda, but consideration
was postponed due to lack of time.
Packet Pg. 239
9.3
On August 3, 2021, the Council considered the draft rules, made amendments, and instructed the city
attorney to bring back additional language for potential amendments to various sections of the rules.
That work is reflected in the mark-up version of the draft rules provided in the agenda packet.
Staff Recommendation
Pass resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedure.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
Resolution 1295
Resolution 1306 Code of Conduct
CODE—OF—ETHICS-1
Resolution 1470
E020420
E012621
E040621
Resolution adopting Rules of Procedure
Exhibit A - Council Rules of Procedure
Packet Pg. 240
RESOLUTION OF i OF OF r • r
WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO.
RULES OF PROCEDURE• r OF •
ADOPTING`#: OF ORDER it i
THE CITY • OF "i r '
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution No.- 292 in 1974, which adopted rules of
procedure for conduct of council meetings; and
WHEREAS, it has been recommended that thecitycouncil use Robert's Rules of Order
with modifications identified by the city council, now therefore,
Section 1. REPEALERResolution No. 292 is hereby repeale&
Section
ii • OF O ,. council•v adopts Robert'sof
Order Newly Revised, 1 11h Edition,official rules forconducting •meetings.
councila official serving as parliamentarian should consult this versionof
Robert's Rules when asked to provide guidance on a procedural question. City council members
wishing to use a shorter version of Robert's Rules for their own convenience should use Robert's
Rules of Order In Brief, but the council does not recognize this volume as an authority nor as the
Section 1 MODIFICATIONS TO ROBERT'S RULE& The city council hereby adopts the
following modifications to the Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11 ffi Edition:
1. Contrary to the'** footnote on Page 35 and first bullet point on page 488, motions before
the city council must be seconded.
2. Contrary to page 43, line 23 of Robert's Rules of Order, the Mayor participates in discussion
and debate only with the permission of the Council and does not make motions. Tiebreaker
votes by the Mayor will be as provided by Washington State law.
SectionR r. Any matter of order or procedure n• • - • by
modifications •rth in this resolution shall be - •-■ by presiding pursuant to state
law, city ordinance, and Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11' edition (in that order of
priority),and advice of •
Packet Pg. 241
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. Robert's Rules of Order as modified in Section 3 wiIJic-thr.
• rules • procedure for the conduct of council meetings effective August 6, 2013.
CITY OF EDMONDS
00,
—ap-�
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
. ......... . .
CITY CLERK, SAND RA CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07-12-2013
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIh 07-16-2013
RESOLUTION NO. 1295
I Packet Pg. 242
9.3.b
RESOLUTION NO: 1306
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING A CODE OF CONDUCT
FOR THE MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, AND ALL MEMBERS OF CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, OR WORK GROUPS.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that City business should be conducted publicly, in an atmosphere of respect
and civility,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the following Code of Conduct is adopted and shall apply to the Mayor,
City Councilmembers, and members of all City Boards, Commissions, or work groups.
In the course of their duties, all group leaders will:
1) provide all members a fair opportunity to participate,
2) not permit any member to dominate proceedings or intimidate other members, and
3) not permit any disrespectful behavior toward participants.
In the course of their duties, all participants, including leaders, will:
1) respect the individual talents and contributions of others,
2) avoid offensive comments and behavior,
3) avoid intimidating comments and behavior,
4) listen courteously and attentively,
5) conduct public business in an open and transparent manner,
6) assist leaders in ensuring fair treatment of all members, and
7) assist leaders in controlling disrespectful or intimidating behavior.
When speaking officially, all leaders and members will respectfully convey the position of their group. When
speaking personally, all leaders and members will disclose that their comments are their own, and not made as a
representative of their group.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted this 10th of December, 2013.
ATTESTI -NTICA
CITY C K, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 6, 2013
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2013
RESOLUTION NO: 1306
Packet Pg. 243
9.3.c
CODE OF ETHICS
The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality
of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct
of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official
capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions).
We shall:
• Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government.
• Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and
maintain a sense of social responsibility.
• Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and
personal relationships.
• Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve
the best interest of all the people.
• Keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage
communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize
friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve
the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens.
• Seek no favor; do not personally benefit or profit by confidential information
or by misuse of public resources.
• Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but
also in appearance.
Approved by the Edmonds City Council on 06-02-2015.
Packet Pg. 244
9.3.d
RESOLUTION NO: 1470
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL REPEALING RESOLUTION 1306
AND IMPLEMENTING A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE MAYOR AND ALL MEMBERS
OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, OR WORK GROUPS.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that City business should be conducted publicly, in an atmosphere of
respect and civility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted its own Code of Conduct; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Code of Conduct makes the references to the City Council in Resolution 1306
unnecessary;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Resolution 1306 is repealed.
Section 2. The following Code of Conduct is adopted and shall apply to the Mayor and members of
all City Boards, Commissions, or work groups.
In the course of their duties, all group leaders will:
1) provide all members a fair opportunity to participate,
2) not permit any member to dominate proceedings or intimidate other members, and
3) not permit any disrespectful behavior toward participants.
In the course of their duties, all participants, including leaders, will
1) respect the individual talents and contributions of others,
2) avoid offensive comments and behavior,
3) avoid intimidating comments and behavior,
4) listen courteously and attentively,
5) conduct public business in an open and transparent manner,
6) assist leaders in ensuring fair treatment of all members, and
7) assist leaders in controlling disrespectful or intimidating behavior
When speaking officially, all leaders and members will respectfully convey the position of their group. When
speaking personally, all leaders and members will disclose that their comments are their own, and not made
as a representative of their group.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
RESOLVED this 61h day of April, 2021.
A4e /10-0�t/�/' .;
miKONELSON, MAYOR
Packet Pg. 245
9.3.d
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY"G°LERK, SCOTT7AS Y
FILED WITH THE CITYCLERK: April 2, 2021
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. April 6, 2021
RESOLUTION NO: 1470
a
Packet Pg. 246
9.3.e
recognized another potential reason to have lodging in proximity to the waterfront environment was rental
events at the Waterfront Center. He did not envision a hotel of greater than 40-50 rooms could be
accommodated in any of the existing buildings. A hotel would complement activities on waterfront.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested obtaining hotel vacancy rates from the existing waterfront hotel,
especially in the summer months.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed there hasn't been any specific interest in the past couple years about
repurposing an existing building. Mr. Doherty said there was an inquiry a couple years ago when one of the
buildings was for sale; a potential purchaser was interested in the possibility of a hotel if it were allowed.
No one has specifically identified a building for purchase for a hotel. There was an inquiry in November
whether hotels were allowed in the waterfront area; he told them no, but that it would be considered in
2020.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
City Clerk Scott Passey explained after the election, he met with the Mayor and new Councilmembers to
discuss City processes. Those discussions included ways to promote more understanding and cooperative
working relationships and he mentioned the Rules of Procedure that the Shoreline City Council adopted.
The draft rules are based on Shoreline's rules and modified to fit Edmonds. In Shoreline, these rules
facilitated mutual understanding about procedures as well as promoted collegiality and cooperative
interaction among Councilmembers, the Mayor and Staff. For the most part, the rules articulate processes
the City already follows but there are a few changes. Tonight is an introduction; the packet includes a
resolution to adopt the rules.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled financial policies were adopted via resolution and posted on the City's
website. She suggested doing the same with the Council Rules of Procedure.
Councilmember Olson suggested reviewing the Rules of Procedure sequentially.
Councilmember L. Johnson said as a new Councilmember, she needed something to help her understand 2
the processes. Updated, comprehensive rules of procedure will provide clear direction on how the Council
should conduct business. She suggested posting it on the City Council's webpage so constituents are clear
regarding procedures. N
0
Councilmember Paine said the Rules of Procedure are wonderful and it will be nice to know the rules of N
0
the road. She particularly liked the addition of behavior outside Council Chambers. w
c
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule 60 minutes on a future agenda to review the proposed Rules E
of Procedure section by section. Councilmembers were encouraged to send questions to Mr. Passey in
advance.
a
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported at approximately 5 a.m. today, a gentleman turned onto an access road that
paralleled the BNSF train tracks at the Dayton intersection and his truck was sideswiped by a train. Mayor
Nelson said he asked Public Works to contact BNSF to request a barrier or signage to prohibit future access
to the road. As a temporary measure, Public Works has erected temporary barriers.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 12
Packet Pg. 247
9.3.f
with Mr. Taraday; there is nothing the Council would run afoul of as far as policy. What the Council is
considering is outside of current policy which is why the Council is addressing it via an employment
agreement rather than current policy. The Council can choose to compensate Mr. Lawless in the manner
they wish to and there is no issue as long as it is within the pay band established for the Police Chief.
With regard to Council President Paine's question, Ms. Neill Hoyson said the additional compensation for
6 months for 2 steps rather than 1 step would be $4,187.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of Councilmember K. Johnson's motion was to
increase Acting Chief Lawless from Range 22 Step 5 to Range 22 Step 7. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that
was how she understood Councilmember K. Johnson's motion, rather than a 1-step increase to take him
to Step 6, a 2-step increase to Step 7. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for that motion.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if he could withdraw his motion or should it be handled in the way Mr.
Passey previously stated. Mr. Passey advised it would be in order to withdraw the motion.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she believed this Council owed a debt of gratitude to Acting Chief
Lawless. This would be one way in which the Council could express that gratitude while still
acknowledging that the City was headed on new path for a Police Chief.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES.
2. COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.2)
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND 6.2.A TO REMOVE "AVOIDING AGGRESSIVE" SO THAT THE SECTION READS
"USING RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE AND TONES."
Council President Paine recalled this had been voted on at the last meeting and questioned what had
changed. Councilmember Buckshnis answered nothing had changed, she and Councilmember Olson r
discussed this due to her concern this was extremely subjective and Councilmember Olson suggested she N
present it to Council for consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said aggressive tones can be defined in c
many different ways. She was concerned the new code of conduct was very subjective and the most w
subjective was aggressive tones. She observed Councilmembers, the Mayor and others can say someone c
is using aggressive tones because it is a question of definition. E
z
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said use of aggressive tones has been one of issues the Council has had
in the last 1'/2 years. She agreed it was subjective, but it would be up to Council to decide whether they a
believed an aggressive tone was used or perhaps it was the individual themselves. She did not support this
amendment to the code of conduct.
Councilmember Olson recalled one of things the subcommittee discussed and was included in the
finishing language of the code of conduct was that it be something the whole body was behind. In the
final analysis, if this such a sticking point and something that members were significantly opposed to, it
would be better for the order to remove that item. She expressed support for removing the language.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the phrase begin with "use" rather than "using" as that was correct
grammar. She preferred the statement read, "use respectful language." Unless someone can provide an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 248
9.3.f
example of an aggressive tone used in the last year or the problem this language seeks to solve, it was her
opinion that no one had been beyond the range of appropriate behavior.
Council President Paine pointed out the Council had just approved the minutes that included the
discussion from last week; there was a 3-4 vote on this same amendment last week. She questioned
whether this motion was proper. She heard what Councilmembers were saying, but the Council voted to
include "avoiding aggressive." Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Passey if the motion was proper. Mr. Passey
advised Councilmember have the right to pull items from Consent because it implies unanimous consent;
items can be pulled for a separate vote.
Councilmember Olson asked for clarification, if a specific element had been voted on during a previous
meeting, it can be revisited by pulling it from the Consent Agenda and voting again. Mayor Nelson said
that was his understanding.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he hears the conversation and was surprised. Being respectful and civil
along with other language in the code of conduct about inflammatory and insulting language, conduct and
decorum was expected of the Council, in business or in a volunteer organization. He hoped that everyone
could follow that language and decorum. He worried when conversations strayed into what has happened
in the past, as one of the goals of the subcommittee was to have a global document that was not based on
past experience but a document that would apply now as well as in the future and keep Council in its
conduct focused on policy, decorum and working toward solutions. He was struggling slightly, especially
with the self -enforcing nature of the document; he did not expect that Councilmember would continually
be sending emails entitled code of conduct reminder, but rather that this would be a self -reference guide
much the same as the Council uses Robert's Rules of Order.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this new code of conduct is too subjective, it sets the stage for retribution n
by a simple majority and can create a tribunal setting. Resolution 1306 that covered the Mayor, Council, -°a
boards and commissions and working groups was sufficient despite the fact the reason for this new code M
of conduct was never stated. In her opinion, the reason to divert to this very subjective and expansive c
code of conduct was to define that Councilmembers can put themselves in jeopardy, particularly those in
the minority and she has seen that happen. She did not support this code of conduct because it was far too w
subjective and the biggest issue was the reference to aggressive tones. She pointed out that is not
addressed in Robert's Rules and she preferred Resolution 1306.
T
N
to
cm
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out Robert's Rules of Order, which the Council has previously
adopted, includes a chapter on tribunals and trials of Councilmembers and, therefore, it was not w
contemplated in the code of conduct. The subcommittee had not considered that other than recognizing it
existed in Robert's Rules.
z
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, Q
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO STRIKE "THE CITY ATTORNEY" IN THE CHAPTER HEADING OF 6.2,
SO IT READS, "CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF, Tuz+ CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNCIL
LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she thought that had been done last week. Councilmember
Distelhorst answered it was removed from 6.2.13, but not from the title of 6.2.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 249
9.3.f
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO STRIKE UNDER 6.E THE LAST WORDS, "OR OTHERWISE INTRUDING
ON THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS."
Councilmember K. Johnson said this was too broad a statement. It is the Mayor prerogative to tell the
Council what they can and can't do.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this language provides clarity to the Council's responsibilities. She
received more complaints last year regarding Council's abrupt interaction with staff such as walking into
offices and demanding staff do certain things. This clarifies for Council that that is not their role. She
encouraged Councilmembers to vote against removing this language.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO STRIKE 6.3.E, THAT DISCUSSES WHEN ATTENDING A NON -CITY SPONSORED
EVENT, MEETING, CONFERENCE OR OTHER ACTIVITY, COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL DO
SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ONLY.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained when she attends many events, she is there because she is a City
Councilmember and is expressing that point of view. She is not there as Kristian Johnson, citizen of the
City of Edmonds, but as an Edmonds City Councilmember. She said her experience should provide some
weight to this. Due to COVID, many Councilmember have not had the experience of going to meetings,
conferences or other activities, but she guaranteed when they attended, they were there as a
Councilmember, not as an individual.
Council President Paine commented she reads 6.3.E differently, to her that sentence means a person is
acting as their own self as a Councilmember and not representing the full Council and she believed that
was the interpretation during abundant discussion last week. This same motion was made last week and
the situation has not changed. She did not support deleting that section.
T
Councilmember Distelhorst said he had the same understanding, recalling a lengthy discussion last week m
cm
where the section was reworded to make it clearer. Including "Councilmembers shall do so" clarified that
a Councilmember was representing themselves as an individual Councilmember and not the Council as a w
body. What the maker of the motion stated is consistent with the language in this section; a
Councilmember represents themselves as a Councilmember, but were not representing the Edmonds City
E
Council.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. Q
JOHNSON, TO AMEND 6.3.E, TO READ "...SHALL DO SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL
COUNCILMEMBER CAPACITY ONLY...".
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING
YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 250
9.3.f
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented during the BLM rally, a Councilmember spoke and
indicated they were representing the City which can lead to a dangerous situation. This amendment may
resolve that.
8.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE CODE OF CONDUCT AS AMENDED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT #2
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is an amendment to the employment agreement with
Maureen Judge that addresses her continued employment for 2021. As with past renewals of this
employment contract, it goes from February 1 of the current year through January 31 of the following
year. Her evaluation may have been completed; if not, the Council can still choose to proceed with the
agreement.
Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated administration drafting the employment agreement and asked
whether that was a legislative role that should be handled by the Council President. Council President
Paine explained said she asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to put this on the Council's agenda and make the
presentation about the changes to the contract to ensure it was in compliance with standard practices for
Non -Represented employees.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled as a contract employee previously, Ms. Judge did not have benefits. M
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she is a full-time regular employee and receives benefits in the same manner c
as other Non -Represented employees. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was proposal, and asked
whether she received benefits in the past or was she strictly a contract employee without benefits. Ms.
Neill Hoyson answered it appears she has always had access to City benefits. The one difference in her
contract is she accrues vacation leave at a higher rate than a Non -Represented employee based on years of r
service; she accrues leave at 10 hours/month which is higher than she would receive based on her years of N
service if she were a regular Non -Represented, non -contracted employees. There is no proposed change to c
that in the proposed agreement amendment. w
c
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council previously agreed to provide the E
legislative/administrative assistant a higher leave rate versus a higher salary. Her evaluation has not been
completed but is in process. She has heard only good things about the Council's legislative/administrative
assistant. This last year has been monumental due to her assisting with the training of four new a
Councilmember during a pandemic. Ms. Judge has put energy into making everyone feel welcome and
assisted and her evaluation will reflect that.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR
LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INTRODUCTION DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE
AMENDMENT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 251
9.3.g
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was uncomfortable with the proposed change and did not
understand the reason for incorporating 1306 in 1470. Adopting a new resolution makes it clearer.
Councilmember Distelhorst said that language remains in Resolution 1470. The only changes are the
redlined text at the beginning, removing the City Council. He recalled the intent was to establish a
separate Code of Conduct for the City Council and then remove the City Council from Resolution 1306
via adoption of Resolution 1470 to avoid the City Council being covered by two codes and making it
clear for Council that there is one Code of Conduct and one Code of Ethics for the City Council.
Resolution 1470 adopts a Code of Conduct for the parties referenced in the resolution. All the language in
Resolution 1470 is applicable to the parties mentioned in Section 2 of the resolution; the only change is
removing the City Council.
Council President Paine said she was also confused by the motion. Resolution 1470 simply removes the
City Council from this Code of Conduct. She expressed support for the resolution as proposed.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was not suggesting that Resolution 1470 be changed; this is the new
Code of Conduct for the Mayor and members of all City Boards, Commissions or work groups. It used to
include Councilmembers so she was suggesting the language in the resolution be incorporated into the
new Code of Conduct for Councilmembers.
As a member of the subcommittee, Councilmember Olson assured those elements were represented in the
Council's Code of Conduct. She asked for clarification that the Code of Ethics had not changed with
regard to its applicability to Council. Councilmember Distelhorst indicated it had not.
Council President Paine suggested this motion was better in the next discussion as this agenda item is
related to the resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
SECOND.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
T-
N
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE o
0
As Items 8.3 and 8.4 were very citizen related versus 8.3 which was Council related, Councilmember w
Buckshnis suggested this item be moved to 8.4.
E
Council President Paine suggested this item would not take more than 60 minutes and the Council could
then consider the agenda items related to hazard pay and Walkable Main. a
City Clerk Scott Passey recalled these Council Rules of Procedure were introduced over a year ago, but
due to the pandemic and other competing priorities, they fell by the wayside. These rules are fairly
comprehensive and go beyond parliamentary procedures. While they continue to recognize Robert's
Rules of Order as the parliamentary authority for Council meetings, they provide additional clarity about
Council organization, duties of officers, agenda preparation, public comment and decorum, conduct, etc.
The Council's recent approval of a Code of Conduct has been incorporated as Section 6. The rules are
also footnoted; the footnotes are to City codes and state laws and other applicable rules and are consistent
with other statutes and precedents. For the most part, the rules articulate the rules the Council already
follows. It is useful to document the processes in one place for the Council's benefit as well as City staff
and the public so everyone understands the ground rules under which the Council operates.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 252
9.3.g
Mr. Passey explained there are some provisions that may constitute a change in the status quo. In those
instances, he felt the change would facilitate understanding, improve process and lay a foundation for
orderly meetings. There is a provision for a regular review of the rules and the rules can be amended
whenever the Council wishes. There is also flexibility to suspend the rules for a particular situation as
long as the rule is not governed by other laws or statutes or a fundamental parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Passey explained when the Council procedures were first introduced over a year ago, the Council was
directed to send any proposed changes to him for incorporation into the draft. A few Councilmembers
submitted changes; some were minor additions to provide clarification and others proposed a very
different policy or procedure. He chose to omit the more controversial items and allow Councilmembers
to propose amendments during the legislative process.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mr. Passey for his work developing the proposed Council Rules of
Procedure, commenting this would have been very helpful for new Councilmembers as well as anyone
considering a Council position. The procedures will also assist the public with their knowledge of the
legislative process.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged the Council was provided this a year ago; she requested
information from that time and received nothing. She agreed the Council Rules of Procedure was a very
valuable document but could not recall last year's discussion and was concerned with subjectivity in the
document. She recalled Councilmember K. Johnson suggested several changes but they did not seem to
be reflected in the document. Mr. Passey said 3-4 Councilmembers submitted suggested changes that
were incorporated into the document. Councilmember K. Johnson's suggested changes, which related to
selection of the Council President, were not included as he felt that was a discussion the Council would
want to have and address via an amendment process. He provided Councilmember K. Johnson the
changes she suggested last year and she could propose them tonight.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Mr. Passey created this document based on his expansive work at
the City of Shoreline and the City of Edmonds. Mr. Passey agreed, noting the suggestions from
Councilmembers that were incorporated in the document provided clarification and represented m
improvements to the document.
0
w
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested having a couple weeks to review the document as it made a c
lot of changes and the Council needed time to review it. She commented Shoreline was very different a)
from Edmonds. z
Council President Paine referred to a new section added to the Council Rules of Procedure, Section 12. Q
Reimbursement of Expenses.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested tabling this for three weeks, commenting much of the information
was subjective, she would like to see the original document and she wanted time for the Council to do
their homework.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS TO TABLE THIS FOR THREE
WEEKS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 253
9.3.g
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
3. HAZARD PAY FOR GROCERY EMPLOYEES EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised he worked with Mayor Nelson today on revisions to the ordinance in
the packet which were distributed to the Council this afternoon. He reviewed the changes made to the
ordinance in the packet:
• 100.015 Employee coverage
For the purposes of this ordinance:
A. Covered employees are limited to those who perform work for a covered employer at a retail
location in the City unless expressly excepted from coverage in subsection C, below.
B. Time spent by an employee in the City solely for the purpose of travelling through the City
from a point of origin outside the City to a destination outside the City, with no employment -
related or commercial stops within the City except for refueling or the employee's personal meals
or errands, is not covered by this ordinance.
C. The ,following opes of employees are not covered by this ordinance: administrative or
executive employees whose workplace is limited to the non-public portion(s) of the store or other
buildings where the public is not invited; tractor -trailer drivers who make deliveries to the
rg ocery store.
• 100.025 Hazard pay requirements A. Employers shall provide each employee with hazard pay at a rate of four dollars per hour for c
each hour worked in the City, PROVIDED THAT if this ordinance is adopted to take immediate v
effect, the obligation to provide hazard pay shall not occur until 12: 01 am on April 8, 2021 and a
FURTHER PROVIDED THAT, if this ordinance is not adopted to take immediate effect, the
obligation to provide hazard pay shall begin at 12: 01 am on the effective date. c
• 100.100 interpretations M
To the extent that any provision of this ordinance is ambiguous, the administration, in c
consultation with the city attorney, is authorized to interpret the ordinance in the manner that is
most consistent with applicable law, the city council's legislative findings (Section 1), and other 75
manifestations of legislative intent, PROVIDED THAT any interpretations shall be in writing
with copies provided to the city council.
T
N
to
Mr. Taraday referenced the findings in the ordinance that would be used in the event there are any
ambiguities. He provided an overview of the ordinance: the ordinance would require an extra $4/hour of w
hazard pay. Hazard pay is defined in the ordinance as additional compensation that has been specifically
designated as additional compensation being paid due to the increased risk of contracting COVID-19. He a)
relayed his understanding that one of the unions for PCC employees has already negotiated $4/hour z
hazard pay; he believed that was due to expire soon. The ordinance is not intended to add $4/hour of M
hazard pay on top of hazard pay already negotiated. For example, if a union has negotiated $4/hour of a
hazard pay, this ordinance would not increase that to $8/hour; it would have no effect in that situation. If a
union has negotiated $2/hour of hazard pay, the ordinance would impose a regulation that an additional
$2/hour of hazard pay be paid so all grocery workers operating in the City that meet the coverage of the
ordinance would receive $4/hour in hazard pay.
Mr. Taraday pointed out the ordinance defines grocery businesses as one of two categories, the first is
over 10,000 square feet in size and primarily engaged in retailing groceries for offsite consumption.
Groceries is defined as including fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned
and frozen goods, dry food, beverages, baked foods. The ordinance also states other household supplies
and other products shall be secondary to the primary purpose of groceries. The second category of
grocery business would be 85,000 square feet in size with at least 30% or more of its sales floor area
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 6, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 254
9.3.h
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 1295 ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES
OF ORDER FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS, AND ESTABLISHING COMPREHENSIVE
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CODE OF CONDUCT
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, Chapter 35.A.12.120 RCW gives the City Council of each code city
the power to set rules for conducting its business within the provisions of Title 35A RCW;
and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1295, which adopted
Robert's Rules of Order as the parliamentary authority for the conduct of Council meetings;
and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive set of procedural rules and code of conduct
combining all applicable statutes will provide the most expedient means of conducting
Council Meetings and other city business; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution No. 1295 is hereby repealed.
Section 2. ADOPTION OF COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE. The Council Rules of
Procedure are established as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
RESOLVED this day of August, 2021.
APPROVED:
MIKE NELSON, MAYOR
1
Packet Pg. 255
9.3.h
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: August, 2021
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: August, 2021
RESOLUTION NO.
2
Packet Pg. 256
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
y
L
d
0
L
a
4-
0
COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY
0
U
1.1 Intent of Policies............................................................................................
1 ar
1.2 Effect/Waiver of Rules....................................................................................
1
1.3 Footnotes and References.............................................................................
1 a
0
SECTION 2. COUNCIL ORGANIZATION
c
2.1 Oath of Office.................................................................................................
1 0
2.2 Election of Council President and Council President Pro Tern .......................
1
2.3 Duties of Officers............................................................................................
2 0
2.4 Appointments to Boards and Commissions....................................................
2 aNi
2.5 Filling a Council Vacancy
2 w
SECTION 3. AGENDA PREPARATION
3.1 Role of City Clerk............................................................................................3
3.2 Placement of Items on the Agenda.................................................................3
3.3 Format for Agenda Memos..............................................................................3
3.4 Agenda Item Priority.......................................................................................4
3.5 Readings for Ordinances.................................................................................4
SECTION 4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4.1 Establishment of Consent Calendar............................................................... 4
4.2 Adoption of Consent Calendar....................................................................... 4
4.3 Removal of Item from Consent Calendar....................................................... 4
SECTION 5. COUNCIL MEETINGS
5.1 Open Public Meetings................................................................................. 5
5.2 Meeting Cancellation....................................................................................5
5.3 Regular Meetings.........................................................................................5
5.4 Forms of Address.........................................................................................6
5.5 Seating Arrangement...................................................................................6
5.6 Quasi -Judicial Items.....................................................................................6
5.7 Council Committees.....................................................................................6
5.8 Executive Sessions..................................................................................... 7
5.9 Special Meetings......................................................................................... 7
5.10 Emergency Meetings................................................................................. 8
5.11 Meeting Place............................................................................................ 8
II
Packet Pg. 257
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
y
L
5.12 Notice of Meetings, Public Hearings..........................................................
8
U
5.13 Quorum......................................................................................................
8
0
5.14 Attendance, Excused Absences..................................................................8
a
5.15 Online Meetings..........................................................................................8
4-
0
5.16 Role of Clerk................................................................................................8
a�
SECTION 6. COUNCIL CONDUCT
6.1 General Conduct............................................................................................
9
6.2 Conduct with City Staff, and the Council Legislative Assistant .......................
9
0
6.3 Conduct with Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Outside Agencies ....
10
V
6.4 Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement............................................11
a
0
SECTION 7. PUBLIC TESTIMONY
0
7.1 Regular Meetings.........................................................................................
11
0
7.2 Group Representation..................................................................................
12
.o
7.3 Speaking on behalf of an Organization.........................................................12
7.4 Quasi -Judicial Items......................................................................................12
0
7.5 Recognition by Chair.....................................................................................12
U)
W
7.6 Decorum........................................................................................................12
�-
7.7 Identification of Speakers..............................................................................12
r
7.8 Instructions for Speakers...............................................................................12
0
7.9 Rules for Public Hearings.............................................................................12
.2
7.10 Donation of Speaking Time........................................................................13
T)
SECTION 8. MOTIONS
8.1 Voice Votes...................................................................................................13
8.2 Motions that do not Receive or Require Seconds.........................................13
8.3 Tie Votes......................................................................................................
13
8.4 Nature of Motion............................................................................................13
8.5 Request for Written Motions..........................................................................13
8.6 Discussion Following a Motion.....................................................................
13
8.7 Council Consensus......................................................................................
13
8.8 Withdrawal of Motions..................................................................................
13
8.9 Motion to Table..............................................................................................13
8.10 Motion to Postpone to a Time Certain........................................................
13
8.11 Motion to Postpone Indefinitely...................................................................13
8.12 Motion to Call for the Question..................................................................
14
8.13 Motion to Amend........................................................................................
14
8.14 Repetition of the Motion Prior to Voting .....................................................
14
8.15 Voting.........................................................................................................
14
8.16 Recusal......................................................................................................
14
8.17 Silence and Abstention...............................................................................
14
8.18 Prohibition of Voting by Proxy....................................................................
14
8.19 Close of Discussion....................................................................................
14
8.20 Motion to Reconsider.................................................................................
14
m
Packet Pg. 258
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
y
L
8.21 Questions of Interpretation.........................................................................
14
U
0
L
SECTION 9. ITEMS REQUIRING FOUR VOTES...............................................15
a
4-
0
SECTION 10. ITEMS REQUIRING A UNANIMOUS VOTE................................15
N
a�
SECTION 11. COUNCIL REPRESENTATION
W
11.1 Correspondence..........................................................................................15
11.2 Use of City Resources.................................................................................15
3
11.3 Controversial Communications...................................................................
15
0
SECTION 12. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF RULES
c
12.1 Suspension of Rules...................................................................................15
a
12.2 Amendment of Rules
0
...................................................................................15
0
SECTION 13. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
c
13.1 Allowed Expenses.......................................................................................15
r
13.2 Disallowed Expenses..................................................................................16
0
c
13.3 Reimbursement Process.............................................................................16
N
a�
In
Packet Pg. 259
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Section 1. Authority.
1.1 These rules constitute the official rules of procedure for the Edmonds City
Council. In all decisions arising from points of order, the Council shall be
governed by the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order," a copy of which is
maintained in the City Council Office.
1.2 These rules of procedure are adopted for the sole benefit of the members of the
City Council to assist in the orderly conduct of Council business. These rules of
procedure do not grant rights or privileges to members of the public or third
parties. Failure of the City Council to adhere to these rules shall not result in any
liability to the City, its officers, agents, and employees, nor shall failure to adhere
to these rules result in invalidation of any Council act.
1.3 Any provision of these rules of procedure that is footnoted with a citation to the
Revised Code of Washington, the Edmonds City Code, or other statute or ruling
is included here for ease of reference only and is not intended to be adopted as a
rule herein because it already constitutes governing law. Likewise, any conflict
between such a provision and the law cited in the footnote shall be resolved in
favor of the law cited in the footnote. Provisions herein that are not footnoted with
a citation to the Revised Code of Washington or the Edmonds City Code have
been adopted by City Council resolution as the Council's procedural rules and
may be amended at any time by subsequent resolution.
Section 2. Council Organization.
2.1 New Councilmembers shall be sworn in by a judge, the Mayor, or the City Clerk.
2.2. The Council shall elect a Council President and Council President Pro Tem for a
one-year term. The election of the Council President shall be conducted by the
City Clerk. No one Councilmember may nominate more than one person for a
given office until every member wishing to nominate a candidate has an
opportunity to do so. Nominations do not require a second. The Clerk will repeat
each nomination until all nominations have been made. When it appears that no
one else wishes to make any further nominations, the Clerk will ask again for
further nominations and if there are none, the Clerk will declare the nominations
closed. A motion to close the nominations is not necessary. After nominations
have been closed, voting for Council President takes place in the order
nominations were made. Councilmembers will be asked to vote by a raise of
hands. As soon as a nominee receives a majority vote (four votes), the Clerk will
declare him/her elected. No votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. If
none of the nominees receives a majority vote, the Clerk will call for nominations
again and repeat the process until a single candidate receives a majority vote.
The same process is conducted for the election of the Council President Pro
Tem.
Packet Pg. 260
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
2.3 Duties of Officers
A. The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all Council Meetings except
Council Committee Meetings. In the absence of the Mayor, the Council
President shall become Mayor Pro Tern and act as the Presiding Officer,
performing the duties and responsibilities with regard to conduct of
meetings and emergency business. In the absence of both the Mayor and
the Council President, the Council President Pro Tern shall act as a
temporary Presiding Officer.
B. It shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to:
1. Call the meeting to order.
2. Keep the meeting to its order of business.
3. Control discussion in an orderly manner.
a. Give every Councilmember who wishes an opportunity to
speak when recognized by the chair.
b. Permit audience participation at the appropriate times.
C. Require all speakers to speak to the question and to observe
Robert's Rules of Order.
4. State each motion before it is discussed and before it is voted
upon.
5. Put motions to a vote and announce the outcome.
C. The Presiding Officer shall decide all questions of order, subject to the right
of appeal to the Council by any member.
2.4 Appointments to Boards and Committees'
The Council President shall appoint Councilmembers to Council subcommittees
and outside boards and committees that are not otherwise specified or governed
by other rules. Prior to appointment, the Council President shall solicit interest
from Councilmembers for their preferred appointments. The Council President
shall then circulate the final appointment list to the Council at least seven (7)
days prior to appointment. The Council President shall make his or her
appointments as soon as practicable, following election of the Council President.
2.5 Filling a Council Vacancy
A. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Councilmember, the Council will follow
the procedures outlined in the Revised Code of Washington2. In order to
fill the vacancy with the most qualified person available until an election is
ECC 1.02.031(B)
RCW 42.12.070
Packet Pg. 261
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
held, the Council will widely distribute and publish a notice of the vacancy
at least two weeks in advance, the procedure by which the vacancy will be
filled, and an application form.
B. The Council will draw up and approve an application form to aid the
Council's selection of the new Councilmember.
C. Those candidates selected by Council will be interviewed by the Council
during a regular or special Council meeting open to the public. The order
of the interviews will be determined by drawing the names; in order to
make the interviews fair, applicants will be asked to remain outside the
Council Chambers while other applicants are being interviewed.
Applicants will be asked to answer questions posed by each
Councilmember during the interview process. The interview process will
be designed to be fair and consistent. Since this is not a campaign,
comments about other applicants will not be allowed.
D. The Council may recess into executive session to discuss the
qualifications of all candidates. Nominations, voting and selection of a
person to fill the vacancy will be conducted during an open public meeting.
Section 3. Agenda Preparation.
3.1 Under the direction of the Council President and Mayor, the City Clerk will
prepare an agenda for each meeting of the full Council and Council committees,
specifying the time and place of the meeting and setting forth a brief general
description of each item to be considered by the Council. Agendas are subject to
review and/or modification by the Council President.
3.2 An item for a Council meeting may be placed on the agenda by one of the
following methods:
A Majority vote or consensus of the Council.
B. By the Council President or Council President Pro Tern when acting in the
absence of the Council President.
The Council President will make every effort to place an item Council approved
by consensus or majority vote on an agenda. If time is not available for the
requested date, it shall be placed on the next available agenda.
3.3 Agenda memos shall be in a standard format. The Mayor shall determine the
format.
3.4 Agenda items will generally be prioritized in the following order of importance: 1)
Packet Pg. 262
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
joint meetings or presentations involving outside agencies; 2) items scheduled for
statutory compliance; 3) advertised public hearings; 4) continued items from a
prior meeting; and 5) items scheduled for convenience, such as those involving
outside consultants.
3.5 Ordinances scheduled for Council action will generally receive three readings
(with the exception of items that have had a public hearing before the Planning
Board).
A. The first reading will be the scheduling of the item on the Council
Extended Agenda by title or subject. If reasonably possible the item
should be listed on the Extended Agenda at least two weeks prior to the
second reading. The Council President may authorize exceptions for items
of an emergency or unexpected nature requiring immediate action. The
applicable portion of the Council Extended Agenda will be appended to
the meeting agenda and distributed and posted along with the agenda.
B. The second reading will be scheduled for review and discussion by the full
City Council or a Council Committee. Items of a minor or routine nature
may bypass this meeting and be scheduled directly to a Consent Agenda.
In such cases Council shall by motion, waive the second reading as part
of the adopting motion.
C. The third reading will be Council review and action at a subsequent
meeting.
Section 4. Consent Calendar.
4.1 The Mayor, in consultation with the Council President, shall place matters on the
Consent Agenda which: (a) have been previously discussed by the Council, or
(b) based on the information delivered to members of the Council, by the
administration, can be reviewed by a Councilmember without further explanation,
or (c) are so minor or routine in nature that passage is likely.
4.2 The motion to adopt the Consent Agenda shall be non -debatable and have the
effect of moving to adopt all items on the Consent Agenda.
4.3 Since adoption of any item on the Consent Agenda implies unanimous consent,
any member of the Council shall have the right to remove any item from the
Consent Agenda. Councilmembers are given an opportunity to remove items
from the Consent Agenda after the motion is made and seconded to approve the
agenda. If any matter is withdrawn, the Presiding Officer shall place the item at
an appropriate place on the agenda for deliberation at the current or future
Council meeting.
Packet Pg. 263
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Section 5. Council Meetings.
5.1 All Council meetings shall comply with the requirements of the Open Public
Meetings Act'. All Regular Meetings, Committee Meetings, and Special Meetings
of the Council shall be open to the public. A Council meeting is defined as a
properly noticed meeting in which a quorum of the Council transacts official City
business as defined by the OPMA. Meetings under the OPMA require an
agenda, public notice, and an official record in the form of meeting minutes.
Meetings attended by Council members which do not involve the transaction of
City business are not considered meetings under the Act. If a quorum of Council
members attend such meetings, they are encouraged to sit separately, refrain
from discussing City business, and only participate as passive observers.
5.2 Any Council meeting may be canceled by a majority vote or consensus of the
Council. The Council President may cancel a Council meeting for lack of official
business.
5.3 Regular Meetings" of the City Council shall be held on the first four Tuesdays of
every month, at 7:00 p.m. Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held in
the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds,
Washington. Council meetings shall adjourn no later than 10:00 p.m. on the day
initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority
of the Council as a whole plus one.
Order of Business for Regular Meetings. The order of business shall
generally be as follows:
Regular Meeting (7:00 p.m.)
1. Call to Order, Flag Salute
2. Land Acknowledgment
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of the Agenda
5. Presentations
6. Public Comment
7. Approval of the Consent Agenda
8. Unfinished Business: The following procedures shall be used:
• Introduction of item by Presiding Officer
• Presentation by staff
• Public Hearings, if any noticed
• Council motion to move adoption of legislation
• Council discussion and possible action
9. New Business: The following procedure shall be used:
s RCW 42.30
° ECC 1.04.010(A)
Packet Pg. 264
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
• Staff Presentation
• Council discussion
10. Mayor's Comments
11. Council Comments
12. Executive Session, if needed
13. Adjournment
5.4. At all meetings, the Mayor shall be addressed as "Mayor (surname)." The
Council President shall be addressed as "Council President (surname)."
Members of the Council shall be addressed as "Councilmember (surname)."
5.5. At all meetings, the Mayor shall sit in the Presiding Officer's seat, and the Council
President shall sit at the right hand of the Mayor. Other Councilmembers are to
be seated in a manner acceptable to Council. If there is a dispute, seating shall
be in position order.
5.6 Prior to commencement of discussion of a quasi-judicial item, the Mayor will ask
if any Councilmember has a conflict of interest or Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine concern which could prohibit the Councilmember from participating in
the decision -making process. If it is deemed by the Councilmember, in
consultation with the City Attorney, that it is warranted, the Councilmember
should step down and not participate in the Council discussion or vote on the
matter. The Councilmember shall leave the Council Chambers while the matter is
under consideration.
5.7 Council Committees5. The City Council shall have the following Standing
Committees: Finance ("FIN"); Parks and Public Works ("PPW"); Public Safety,
Planning and Personnel ("PSPP"). Regular meetings of the City Council standing
committees shall be held in accordance with the meeting schedule adopted in
Edmonds City Code 1.04.010. The audio and/or video of Council Committee
meetings shall be recorded, posted online, land, if possible, bookmarked �o allow
easy access to portions of the audio recording that correspond with each item on
the Committee's agenda.
A. Business items considered by a City Council committee should only be
forwarded to the City Council Consent Agenda with the unanimous consent of
the committee members.6
B. Committee business items that have not received unanimous support of the
committee to be forwarded to the Consent Agenda may be discussed at a
forthcoming committee meeting if additional committee work is likely to
produce unanimity. Alternatively, the Council President may place the item on
a future Council agenda for further deliberation and/or action by the City
5 ECC 1.04.010(B)
b ECC 1.04.050(A)
Commented [TBl]. I just thought, the way technology ch
and sometimes breaks down, it might be good to give yourseh
little wiggle room on bookmarking.
Q
Packet Pg. 265
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Council.'
C. The Council President shall be a nonvoting ex-officio member of all Council
committees, except when a regular committee member is absent, in which
case the Council President may vote. When a committee chair is absent, the
other regular committee member shall serve as the committee chair.'
D. The Mayor and Council members from other committees may attend
committee meetings of which they are not members and may join the
discussion and ask questions about a committee business item if they have
been present during the entire discussion of that business item; provided, that
only committee members, or the Council President when substituting for an
absent committee member, may vote on committee business. Presence of a
quorum of the City Council at a committee meeting shall not change the
character of the meeting from a committee meeting to a City Council
meeting.'
5.8 The Council may hold Executive Sessions or Closed Sessions from which the
public may be excluded, for those purposes set forth in the Revised Code of
Washington10. Before convening an Executive Session, the Presiding Officer
shall announce the purpose of the Session and the anticipated time when the
Session will be concluded. Should the Session require more time, a public
announcement shall be made that the Session is being extended.
Councilmembers should keep confidential all written materials and verbal
information provided to them during Executive Sessions, to ensure that the City's
interests are not compromised. Councilmembers should refrain from taking notes
in Executive Session because such records may be subject to public disclosure,
thereby compromising the confidential nature of the matters discussed.
Confidentiality also includes information provided to Councilmembers outside of
Executive Sessions when the information is considered to be exempt from
disclosure under the Revised Code of Washington. If a Councilmember
unintentionally discloses Executive Session discussion with another party, that
Councilmember shall make full disclosure to the Mayor and/or the City Council in
a timely manner as soon as the error is discovered.
5.9 Special Meetings" may be held by the Council subject to notice requirements
prescribed by State law. Special Meetings may be called by the Council
President, Mayor, or any four members of the City Council by written notice
delivered to each member of the Council at least twenty-four hours before the
time specified for the proposed meeting. The notice of such Special Meetings
shall state the subjects to be considered, and no subject other than those
7 ECC 1.04.050(B)
8 ECC 1.04.050(C)
9 ECC 1.04.050(D)
0 RCW 42.30.110 and RCW 42.30.140
" RCW 42.30
Packet Pg. 266
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
y
L
specified in the notice shall be considered. The order of business for Special
U
Meetings shall generally follow Section 5.3A.
0
a
5.10
An Emergency Meeting"is a special Council meeting called without the 24-
0
hour notice. It deals with an emergency involving injury or damage to persons or
y
property or the likelihood of such injury or damage, when time requirements of a
0
24-hour notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such
injury or damage. Emergency meetings may be called by the Mayor or the
Council President with the consent of a majority of Councilmembers. The
minutes will indicate the reason for the emergency.
0
5.11
Special Meetings and Emergency Meetings will be at a time and place as
c
Council directs.
a
5.12
The City shall comply with the public notice provisions of the Revised Code of
0
coo
Washington13. Unless specified otherwise, the public shall receive notice of
upcoming public hearings through publication of such notice in the City's official
0
newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
3
0
In
5.13
At all Council Meetings, a majority f the Council (four membersl shall constitute -( Deleted:
a quorum for the transaction of business. In the absence of a quorum, the
members present may adjourn that meeting to a later date.
r
5.14
Members of the Council may be excused from attending a City Council meeting
Y 9 Y 9
c
'y
by contacting the Council President prior to the meeting and stating the reason
for his or her inability to attend. If the member is unable to contact the Council
President, the member shall contact the Mayor, who shall convey the message to
the Council President. Following roll call, the Presiding Officer shall inform the
3
Council of the member's absence, state the reason for such absence, and inquire
m
if there is a motion to excuse the member. This motion shall be nondebatable.
0
Upon passage of such motion by a majority of members present, the absent
member shall be considered excused and the Clerk will make an appropriate
a
notation in the minutes. Councilmembers who do not follow the above process
0
will be considered unexcused and it shall be so noted in the minutes. A motion to
m
excuse a Councilmember may be made retroactively at the next meeting.
3
Removal of a sitting Councilmember for three (3) consecutive unexcused
absences is authorized by RCW 35A.12.060.
U
c
3
5.15
Online Meetings: When online meetings are permitted, Councilmembers must
0
have video and audio capabilities and enable them during the meeting whenever
.
possible. Any participant (Council, staff, or presenter) must enable their video
Q
and audio when speaking, unless technical difficulties do not allow. Participants
must attempt to contact the technology department in order to resolve any
problems prior to the meeting. If the problem cannot be resolved, then the
K
w
RCW 42.30
C
RCW 35A.12.160
Packet Pg. 267
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
participant must inform the Council President and/or the Mayor prior to the
meeting.
5.16 The City Clerk or an authorized Deputy City Clerk shall attend all Council
meetings. If the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk are absent from any Council
meeting, the Mayor shall appoint a Clerk Pro Tempore. The minutes of the
proceedings of the Council shall be kept by the City Clerk and shall constitute the
official record of the Council.
Section 6. Council Conduct.
The City Council finds that Councilmembers should seek to continually improve the
quality of public service and ensure public confidence in the integrity of local
government and its effective, transparent, and equitable operation. Councilmembers
have a public stage and privileged platform to show how individuals with contrasting
points of view can find common ground, demonstrate problem -solving approaches, and
achieve solutions that benefit the community as a whole. Central to these principles is
that civility and decorum shall apply to all Councilmember conduct in relation to city
business. To this end, the following Code of Conduct for members of the Edmonds City
Council is established.
6.1 General Conduct
A. Councilmembers shall focus discussions and debates on vision, policies,
and their implementation.
B. No Councilmember shall dominate proceedings during Council or other
public meetings.
C. Personal, insulting, or intimidating language, body language and actions,
are not allowed. Councilmembers may raise a point of order for ruling by
the Chair or by the Body to address inappropriate remarks.
D. Ensuring that all meeting participants feel welcome is a vital part of the
democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice, or disrespect should
be evident on the part of Councilmembers toward any individual
participating in a public meeting. Every effort should be made to be
respectful in listening to Council, staff and public testimony and
discussions.
E. Technology allows words written or said to be distributed far and wide.
Councilmember written notes, voicemail messages, texts, email, or other
electronic communications, are public records and shall follow this code.
6.2 Conduct with City Staff, and the Council Legislative Assistant
Packet Pg. 268
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
The community is best served when the abilities, experience, and knowledge of
staff and contract employees work alongside councilmembers, and
councilmembers will value these resources and relationships by:
A. Using respectful language and avoiding aggressive tones.
B. Whenever possible, provide questions ahead of public meetings and
otherwise avoid surprises.
C. Recognize that calls and emails may not be returned outside of business
hours.
D. Expressing concerns about performance only to the Mayor, in the case of
staff, and the Council President, in the case of Council legislative aide.
E. Understanding that Council, as a legislative body, directs City business via
policy change initiated by majority Council vote only; councilmembers
acting individually shall refrain from directing staff or otherwise intruding
on the City's administrative functions.
6.3 Conduct with Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Outside Agencies
A. The City maintains several boards and commissions as a means of
encouraging and gathering community input. Residents who serve on
boards and commissions are a valuable resource to the City's leadership
and shall be treated with appreciation and respect.
B. Councilmembers are appointed as non -voting members to serve as the
primary two-way communication liaison between the Council and boards,
commissions, and committees. Councilmembers are not to direct the
activities or work of the board, commission, or committee.
C. Councilmembers may attend any board or commission meeting to which
they are not appointed but shall do so as a member of the public. Personal
comments or positions, if given, will be identified as such and shall not be
represented as the position of the City or Council.
D. Councilmembers shall not contact a board or commission member to
lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or organization, with the
exception of the hearing examiner or architectural design board. It is
acceptable for Councilmembers to contact boards or commissions and
their members, so long as all interactions are in line with the Edmonds
Code of Ethics.
E. When attending a non -city sponsored event, meeting, conference, or other
activity, Councilmembers shall do so in an individual Councilmember
10
Packet Pg. 269
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
capacity only. Likewise, a Councilmember may be authorized to represent
the City only in compliance with RCW 35A.12.100.
6.4 Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement
As an expression of the standards of conduct that best serve the City, the Code
of Conduct is intended to be self -enforcing and is most effective when members
are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.
A. This Council Code of Conduct shall be included in the regular orientations
for newly seated Councilmembers. Members entering office shall sign a
statement affirming they read, understand, and will comply with the City of ( Deleted: and understood
Edmonds Council Code of Conduct.
B. The Code of Conduct shall be reviewed and reaffirmed annually by the
City Council.
C. When a breach of this code occurs, Councilmembers are encouraged to
remind one another of the Code of Conduct terms. These communications
may be documented with the subject line, "Code of Conduct Reminder."
D. Repeated breaches, or egregious instances, may be dealt with according
to the terms set out in the Council's adopted Robert's Rules of Order or
other applicable laws and regulations.
Section 7. Pubk Commend. Commented [TB2]: This section is really about the public
comment portion of the meeting. "Testimony" makes it sound
7.1 Regular Meetings.
it's about testimony at a hearing or something, not public com
��Deleted: Testimony
A. Members of the public may address the City Council at any Regular
Meeting under' ublic Commen�Duri� this ortion of the meeting
individuals may speak to agenda items or any other topic pertaining to city
business except those scheduled for a public hearing or as noticed as a
closed record review. Individuals may speak for no more than three
minutes, If time is available, the Presiding Officer may call for additional
unsigned speakers. Public Comment should not be used to promote or
oppose any ballot measure or candidate for public office. In election years,
a campaign officially starts when a candidate officially files their candidacy
with the State or a county election office and runs through the election.
B. If during a Regular Meeting an agenda item is before the Council for the
first time and is not part of the consent agenda, public comment for that
item will follow the staff presentation but precede Council review.
Individuals may speak for three minutes or less.
Deleted: Audience
Deleted: s
—{ Deleted: or less
Deleted: No person may use p
Deleted: comment
Gl
t
x
w
Q
Packet Pg. 270
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
7.2 When large numbers of people are signed up �o speak on the same topic, the Commented [T63]: Would it beagood idea to add, "...
rte
Presiding Officer may request that the group(s) select a limited number of no orionofeac,eommeati°°°°`iisseatema`ivetosno
amount of time for comment on that issue."?
speakers to cover their view and then ask all those who agree with that position
to stand at the conclusion of each presentation.
7.3 When representing the official position of a local agency or organization within
the city's jurisdiction, a speaker may be given five minutes and it will be recorded
as the official position of that organization. Requests for a five-minute
presentation must be made in advance and granted by the Council President or a
Council majority. Each organization shall have only one (1) five-minute
presentation per year.
7.4 Public testimony authorized in Section 7.1 and 7.2 may not include comments or
information on any quasi-judicial matter pending before the City Council, or on
any topic for which Council has closed the public record.
7.5 No person shall be allowed to address the Council while it is in session without
the recognition of the Presiding Officer.
7.6 It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a Council meeting to do any
of the following: Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or
boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet,
whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or
similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs
the peace and good order of the proceedings of the Council.14
7.7 Persons testifying shall identify themselves for the record as to name, City of
residence and any organization represented.
7.8 An instruction notice for speakers will be available at the meeting. Speakers will
be advised by the Presiding Officer that their testimony is being recorded.
7.9 Therulesaoverning any legislative Public Hearing shall be the same as
the rules for Public Commentl
7.10 Time cannot be donated by one speaker to another.
Section 8. Motions.
8.1 Unless otherwise provided for by statute, ordinance, or resolution, all votes shall
be taken by voice or hand raise, except that at the request of any
Councilmember, a roll call vote shall be taken by the City Clerk.
8.2 To take action, a Councilmember should make a motion, which is seconded by
14 Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2013), Id., at 816
12
Deleted: following
Deleted: shall be observed during
Deleted:: ¶
A. Individuals will be allowed up to three minutes to
B. The Presiding Officer may allow additional time fo
receipt of written testimony when needed. ¶
n
C. The Clerk shall be the timekeeper. ¶
D. Prior to closing the hearing, the Presiding Officer
inquire if there are any additional speakers other than
that have signed up and previously spoken, and if the
they shall be allowed to testify.
m
L
1
cJ
o
aU
4-
0
rn
N
c
0
0
U
a�
c
a
0
0
c
0
0
to
a�
r
c
0
.y
a�
3
m
0
a
4
0I
to
d _
7
C
3
0
U
a_
L
x
w
r
c
a�
E
L
V
ca
Q
Packet Pg. 271
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
another Councilmember, on the topic under discussion. If the motion is not
seconded, it fails for lack of a second. Some motions do not require a second
nominations, withdrawal of a motion, request for a roll call vote, and point of
order.
8.3 In case of a tie vote on a motion, the motion jails for lack of a majority. If the
motion is an item for which the Mayor may break the tie vote, the Mayor may
vote on the motion.
8.4 Motions shall be clear and concise and not include arguments for the motion.
8.5 Motions shall be reduced to writing when required by the Presiding Officer or any
member of the Council. All resolutions and ordinances shall be in writing.
8.6 After a motion has been made and seconded, Councilmembers may discuss
their opinions on the issue prior to the vote. If they wish to do so, they may state
why they will vote for or against the motion.
8.7 When the Council concurs or agrees with an item that does not require a motion,
the Mayor will summarize the Council's consensus at the conclusion of the
discussion.
8.8 A motion may be withdrawn by the maker of the motion, at any time, without the
consent of the Council.
8.9 A motion to table is nondebatable. It requires a majority to pass. If the motion to
table prevails, the matter may be "taken from the table" only by adding it to the
agenda of a future meeting, at which time discussion can continue. If an item is
tabled, it cannot be reconsidered at the same meeting.
8.10 A motion to postpone to a specific time is debatable, amendable, and maybe
reconsidered at the same meeting. It requires a majority to pass. The motion
being postponed must be considered at a later time in the same meeting or a
specific future meeting.
8.11 A motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable, is not amendable, and may be
reconsidered at the same meeting. It requires a majority to pass. The merits of
the main motion may be debated.
8.12 A motion to call for the question shall close debate on the main motion and is
nondebatable. This motion must receive a second and fails without a two-thirds
(2/3) vote. Debate is reopened if the motion fails.
8.13 A motion to amend is defined as amending a motion that is on the floor and has
been seconded, by inserting or adding, striking out, striking out and inserting, or
substituting.
13
Deleted: dies
Deleted: shall be considered lost
7�
Packet Pg. 272
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
8.14 When the discussion is concluded, the motion maker, Mayor, or City Clerk, shall
repeat the motion prior to voting.
8.15 The City Council votes on the motion as restated. If the vote is unanimous, the
Mayor shall state that the motion has been passed unanimously according to the
number of Councilmembers present, such as 7-0" or "6-0." If the vote is not
unanimous, the Mayor shall state the number of Councilmembers voting in the
affirmative and the number voting in the negative and whether the motion passes
or fails.
8.16 If a Councilmember has a conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness c
question under state law, the Councilmember may recuse themselves from the a
issue and shall leave the Council chambers during discussion and voting on the
-00
issue. That Councilmember shall be considered absent when voting occurs.
M
c
8.17 If a member of the Council is silent on a vote, it shall be recorded as an
r
affirmative vote. If a member of the Council abstains, the member shall state the
reason for the abstention and it shall be recorded as an abstention and not
u0i
included in the vote tally.
8.18 No vote may be cast by proxy.
r
c
8.19 Once the vote has been taken, the discussion is closed. It is not necessary for
0
Councilmembers to justify or explain their vote. If they wish to make their
'5
positions known, this should happen during the discussion preceding the vote.
m
8.20 After the question has been decided, any Councilmember who voted in the
majority may move for a reconsideration of the motion. The motion for
'30
reconsideration must be made at the same or next regular meeting.
0
0
L
8.21 The City Attorney, in consultation with the City Clerk, shall decide all questions of
a
interpretations of these policies and procedures and other questions of a
0
parliamentary nature which may arise at a Council meeting. All cases not
m
provided for in these policies and procedures shall be governed by the current
3
edition of Robert's Rules of Order. In the event of a conflict, these Council rules
of procedures shall prevail.
U
c
Section 9. Vote Needed for Passage -Special Circumstances
U
There are circumstances where the vote needed for passage is something more than a
,
simple majority of those present. (Majority of those present could be as few as three
Q
votes, where five or fewer councilmembers are present for a meeting.) The special
Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline r -
circumstances described below are exemplary and are not intended to be an exhaustive
1
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: (Default) T ii
II lit. /
New Roman, No underline K J
-
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: (Default) T'ii LLJ 1
/
I ReqirinFour Affirmative Votes. The passage of n ordinance, grant or
New Roman
1
-Items
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stop �
0.5", Left + Not at 0" J
L
14
t)
Q
Packet Pg. 273
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
revocation of franchise or license, any resolution for the payment of money or
approval of warrants shall require the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the
whole membership of the Council (4 votes),15 .
9.2 Items Reauirina Five Affirmative Votes. The followina reauire five votes
-
A. a motion to extend a regular meeting beyond its regular end time (ECC_ �\
1.04.010);
B. a motion to waive the interview requirement contained in 2.10.010.D;
C. ordinances that are not subject to referendum and which are intended to take
immediate effect;
D. overrides of a mayoral veto.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: (Default) Tit
New Roman
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stop.
0.5", Left + Not at 0"
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: (Default) Anal
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:
C, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned
Indent at: 0.75", Tab stops: 0.5", Left + Not
9 3 Jtems Requirin�c a Unanimous Vote. An ordinance must be adopted unanimous t Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stop.
only where both of the following conditions exist: 1) the ordinance is subject to _ o.s", Left +Not at o"
referendum under RCW 35A.11.090, as limited by Leonard v. City of Bothell, 87 Deleted: Section 10.
Wn.2d 847, 852-53, 557 P.2d 1306, 1310 (1976) ("If the grant of power is to the Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline
city as a corporate entity, direct legislation is permissible insofar as the statute is
concerned. On the other hand, if the grant of power is to the legislative authority
of the city, the initiative and referendum are prohibited."), and similar case law,
and; 2) the ordinance is proposed to take immediate effect under RCW
35A.11.090(2)1
Section 10. Failed Votes on Ordinances Drafted to Take Immediate Effect.
This section addresses ordinances drafted to take immediate effect.
10.1 Where an ordinance is drafted to take immediate effect. and where such
ordinance also contains an alternative effective date clause that contemplates
passage by only four votes, any motion on the ordinance, absent an amendment
to change the effective date language, shall be understood to move the
ordinance as drafted, including the possibility of either effective date being
implemented, depending on the final vote count.
10.2 If the ordinance does not contain language contemplating an alternative effective
date, in the absence of a vote sufficient for immediate effect, after the failed vote,
the council can amend the ordinance on the floor and vote to pass it without
immediate effect.
10.3 If the ordinance contains language contemplating an alternative effective date,
the council can amend that language on the floor, prior to the vote on the main
motion, to ensure that a failed vote for immediate effectiveness requires that a
subsequent main motion be brought forward.
10.4 If the ordinance contains language contemplating an alternative effective date,
after a vote that was only sufficient to take effect per applicable law, but not
sufficient to take immediate effect, a councilmember who voted in the majority
and who would like to allow more time for council deliberation and action at a
subsequent meeting, may move to reconsider the vote.
15 RCW 35A.12.120
15
Commented [TB5]: There are a number of instances pepp
throughout state law where a supermajority vote is required,
sometime supermajority of a quorum and other times, supenn
of the full council. It would not be worth it to parse through at
possible instances where a supermajority vote is required.
In an email on Aug. 3, I explained the challenges in Section l
would delete both section 9 and 10 because they are an atteml
not necessarily successful, to restate the law.
Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: (Default) Ar
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5", Tab stop.
0.5", Left + Not at 0"
Packet Pg. 274
Exhibit A — COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Section 11. Council Representation.
11.1 Once the City Council has taken a position on an issue, all official City
correspondence regarding the issue h ould reflect the Council's adopted Deleted: Will
position.
11.2 Email, City letterhead, and related materials shall not be used for
correspondence of Councilmembers representing a dissenting point of view from
an official Council position.
111.3 As a matter of courtesy, letters to the editor, or similar media editorial statements Deleted: other
which do not egress the majorityopinion of the Council, h� ould be e ailed tom Deleted: communication
the full Council at least 24 hours prior to publication �\ Deleted: of a publicly conveyed
Deleted: controversial
\\ \ Deleted: nature
Section 12. Suspension and Amendment of Rules. \l Deleted: shall
\ ` Deleted: presented
12.1 Any provision of these rules not governed by state law, City code, fundamental Commented went: Council asked that this paragraph be
parliamentary procedure, or other statute or rule may be temporarily suspended clarifiea.Here°smyshotatit.
by a majority vote of the Council. Commented [jt7R6]: I have made some additional edits.
12.2 It is the intent of the City Council that the rules of procedure be periodically
reviewed as needed or during odd -numbered years. These rules may be
amended, or new rules adopted, by a majority vote of the Council, provided that
the proposed amendments or new rules shall have been distributed to Council at
least two weeks prior to such action.
Section 13. Reimbursement of Expenses.
13.1 Allowed Expenses. Each councilmember may obtain reimbursement for
necessary expenses incurred in connection with the due performance of their
official duties or to obtain information about special aspects of a task, vote, or
issue before them. In determining the propriety of a reimbursement request, the
councilmember seeking reimbursement must be able to demonstrate and
document that the expense incurred relates to a matter in which the city council
has an interest, or that the expense affects municipal rights, process, or
property. Ultimately, there must be a nexus between the expenditure and the
welfare of the Edmonds community and its inhabitants, such that the benefit of
the expenditure accrues primarily to the public, not the councilmember. The
regular and usual expenses associated with councilmember training, travel,
mileage, and office supplies are not included in the reimbursement limit.
16
Deleted: ,
c
O
U
a�
c
a
O
r
O;
O
rn
a)
W
Q
Packet Pg. 275
Exhibit A - COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
13.2 Disallowed Expenses. Reimbursement shall not be allowed for any expense that
would secure a special privilege or exemption for the councilmember or an
associate of the councilmember. Nor shall reimbursement be allowed for
expenses incurred due to the fault or neglect of the councilmember. Ultimately, if
the benefit of the expenditure accrues primarily to the councilmember and not the
public, the expense should be disallowed. A non -exhaustive list of such
expenditures would include reimbursement for diningl that isn't associated with
essential travel, entertainment, non -essential travel, and parking infractions.
13.3 Reimbursement Process. Each councilmember shall be entitled to seek
reimbursement for up to $250 per calendar year of allowed expenses as
described in 13.1, above. To seek reimbursement, the councilmember shall
submit a description of the expenditure, an explanation as to how the expenditure
satisfies the criteria for an allowed expense, and sufficient receipts, statements,
or other documentation to demonstrate that the expense was actually incurred.
As long as the councilmember's expenses remain below the $250 annual
threshold, no preapproval of the expenditure is required. Preapproval from City
Council would be required once the $250 annual threshold is exceeded. The
description, explanation, and other documentation described above shall be
placed on the consent agenda for approval, PROVIDED THAT when the council
acts on the reimbursement request, it shall be deemed approved and the
expense shall be paid unless the request is disapproved by a majority plus one of
the full city council.
To the extent that there is any conflict between the policies and procedures in
this Section 13 and the policies and procedures in the August 19, 2014
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursements Policy, this
Section 13 shall control. In the absence of any conflict, this Section 13 should be
harmonized with other city policies and procedures regarding expense
reimbursement.
ADOPTED BY:
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
AMENDED BY:
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
17
Commented [TB8]: Are we sure this should be here? I w<
think councilmembers often find themselves in situations whe
are traveling for council purposes and dining should be
reimbursable, and situations where they attend a regional mee
even order food in between committee and council meetings.
just thinking there are situations where dining expense should
allowed, so 1 don't think it's a good example in this context.
Commented [TB9]: There was a request to clarify this set
Here's my cut at it:
Each councilmember is provided a $250 annual expense accoi
section 13.1 allowed expenses. As long as a councilmember's
expenditure remains below this limit, no preapproval is neede
to obtain reimbursement, the councilmember must submit (1)
description of the expense, and (2) sufficient receipts or other
documentation of the actual cost. Any expense over this limit
requires city council preapproval or ratification. The request f
reimbursement should be placed on the Consent Calendar and
approved by majority vote of the quorum present; a disapprov
requires a majority plus one of the quorum present at the meet
m
L
U
0
a`
4-
0
fn
a�
.0
C
3
0
U
C
a+
a
0
0
c
0
0
In
N
Packet Pg. 276
10.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2021
Outside Boards and Committee 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
Buckshnis and Distelhorst.
Attachments:
5_27_21SRC_Summary
SCT Transmit BLR Co Council COMBINED 8-12-21
Packet Pg. 277
10.1.a
PUGETSOUND
6,40PARTNERSHIP
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (SRC)
Meeting Summary May 27, 2021— 9:30 a.m. — 3:00 p.m.
Virtual Zoom Meeting
ATTENDEES
Representing
BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE Skagit Dairy Farmer
BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE WA Policy Center
BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE WA Forest Protection Association
CITIES
COUNTIES
ENVIRONMENT Long Live the Kings
ENVIRONMENT WA Environmental Council,
Stewardship Partners
FEDERALEPA
FEDERAL NOAA
FEDERAL USDA/NRCS
RECREATIONAL FISHING
TRIBAL Lummi Nation
TRIBAL Makah Tribe
TRIBAL Nisqually Tribe
TRIBAL Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
TRIBAL Point No Point Treaty Council
TRIBAL Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
TRIBAL Skokomish Tribe
TRIBAL Suquamish Tribe
TRIBAL Swinomish & Sauk-Suiattle
TRIBAL Tulalip Tribe
STATE Department of Agriculture
STATE Ecology
STATE Puget Sound Conservation Districts
STATE WDFW
STATE WDNR
STATE WSCC
STATE PSP
WATERSHEDS Cities
WATERSHEDS Puyallup/Chambers WRIA 10 & 12
WATERSHEDS Nisqually WRIA 11
WATERSHEDS South Sound WRIA 13 & 14
WATERSHEDS West Sound WRIA 15
WATERSHEDS Hood Canal Coordinating Council WRIA 16 &17
In Attendance
Jason VanderKooy
Todd Myers
Jason Callahan
Chance Berthiaume
Megan Dunn, Brynn Brady
Jacques White
Mindy Roberts,
David Burger
Peter Murchie, Lisa Chang
Elizabeth Babcock
Nick Vira
Ryley Fee
Victor Johnson
Stephanie Martin
David Troutt
Randy Lumper
Cynthia Rossi
Paul McCollum
Dave Herrera
Rob Purser
Amy Trainer
VACANT, Patti Gobin
Evan Sheffels
Tom Buroker, Colin Hume
Bill Blake
Julie Watson, Jay Krienitz
Alex Smith
Ron Shultz
Laura Blackmore, Larry Epstein
Chance Berthiaume
Lisa Spurrier
Chris Ellings
Tye Menser, Amy Hatch-Winecka, Evan
Bauder
Tom Ostrom, Kathy Peters
Scott Brewer, Alicia Olivas
Packet Pg. 278
10.1.a
Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Summary, May 27, 2021
Page 2 of 6
WATERSHEDS NOPLE Dungeness & Elwha WRIA 18 & 19
WATERSHEDS San Juan WRIA 2
WATERSHEDS Skagit WRIA 3 & 4
WATERSHEDS Stillaguamish WRIA 5
WATERSHEDS Island WRIA 6
WATERSHEDS Snohomish WRIA 7
WATERSHEDS Lake WA/Cedar/Sammamish WRIA 8
WATERSHEDS Green/Duwamish WRIA 9
Absent
ENVIRONMENT League of Women's Voters
FEDERAL USACOE
TRIBAL Stillaguamish Tribe
WATERSHEDS Nooksack
WELCOME AND COUNCIL BUSINESS
CHAIR'S REPORT
Hansi Hals
Jamie Stephens, Sam Whitridge
Richard Brocksmith
Kit Crump
Janet St. Clair, Dawn Spilsbury Pucci
Keith Binkley, Gretchen Glaub
Diane Buckshnis, Jason Mulvihill -Kuntz
Matt Goehring
Ann Aagaard
Laura Boerner
Jason Griffith
Robert Warinner
• Vice Chair Bill Blake opened the meeting and thanked everyone for attending and welcomed new
and returning SRC members including Nick Vira from the NRCS.
MEETING SUMMARY
• Ron Shultz MOTIONED to approve the March 25, 2021 SRC meeting summary as presented. Diane
Buckshnis SECONDED the motion and the SRC members in attendance APPROVED the meeting
summary.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
• Amber Moore provided an update on the PSAR rapid response revolving fund — we have money
available and the next review is June 18. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis. Contact Carrie
Byron for more information
• Please review the new PSAR policy manual document and briefing memo included in your meeting
packet and provide comments to Carrie.
• The PSAR dashboard is now live- https://www.pugetsoundinfo.wa.gov/PSARDashboard
• The Salmon Recovery Funding board will make project funding decisions at their September
meeting.
NORTH PACIFIC ANADROMOUS FISH COMISSION Presentations Weitkamp, Saunders
Presenters: Laurie Weitkamp, NOAA and Mark Saunders, International Year of the Salmon
Highlights:
• Laurie provided an overview of returns in all 6 salmon species since the "blob" in 2014, from
California to Alaska.
Packet Pg. 279
10.1.a
Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Summary, May 27, 2021
Page 3of6
• Trends in all species — except for Bering Sea populations — are not good. Salmon are a cold -water
species, and warming sea surface temperatures negatively impact them across the board.
• Mark provided an overview of International Year of the Salmon (IYTS) initiatives, which among other
things assess what's going on in the "black box" of the open ocean.
• Marine heat waves are certainly an issue, but there's also some evidence that in the eastern North
Pacific, carrying capacity is being reached and simply releasing more hatchery salmon into the
system won't get us more fish back in our freshwater systems.
• An upcoming effort is a winter 2022 high seas expedition, jointly between Russian, Canadian, and
American research vessels, to assess ecological conditions on the high seas in winter.
• Why care about what's going on in the open ocean, if we can't do much about it?
o Potential for an index to inform forecasts
o Informing high seas fisheries enforcement (e.g. focusing where the fish are)
o Informing climate change vulnerability assessments
o Recovery of species at risk
o Informing hatchery management, including release timing
o Raising confidence in management agencies by looking into the black box
• More information is available on the IYTS website and social media International Year of The Salmon
I Conservation & Habitat
Discussion:
• Members discussed what we can do with this information. How can we process it, and make it
useful for our policy?
o Look at the "likely suspects" framework. Onus is on IYTS partners to get this information to
decision -makers, so they can act on it.
o How can we "bring" the ocean back to our management regimes on land?
• This is a wake-up call that things are going to get ugly, and fast. Oceans have absorbed the vast
amount of extra heat in the world, and we need to work both internationally to reduce emissions
and locally to increase diversity and resilience of salmon stocks, so they can have the greatest
opportunity to weather the changes ahead.
• This is a good opportunity to get the international community behind our habitat restoration efforts
here in Puget Sound.
• How can we talk with people who say things like "why would we put all these resources into salmon
recovery, when ocean conditions will mask any positive impacts of our efforts?" If we're going to
hold on to salmon populations, we need to do all we can — especially in freshwater — to make sure
salmon have all the opportunities possible to thrive. Until the ocean can heal, our work here at
home is crucial.
Decision/Next Steps:
• The suggestion was made to give the combined ocean conditions presentations to local, state, and
federal decision -makers.
Packet Pg. 280
10.1.a
Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Summary, May 27, 2021
Page 4 of 6
MARINE SURVIVAL STUDY Briefing Memo, Presentation
Presenters: Michael Schmidt, LLTK
Highlights:
• Michael provided an overview of our current understanding of factors contributing to lower survival
of salmon and steelhead in the Salish Sea.
• Scientific research looks at both bottom -up and top -down impacts.
• Climate change and human population growth are likely contributing in a big way. Timing
mismatches of when food is available, and when salmon are entering the marine environment and
needing that food, are potentially culpable. There may also be a mismatch in size of Chinook and
size of their food — e.g. crab larvae that are too large for Chinook to eat, since they're hatching
earlier in the year.
• Predation is also a major contributor. In a nutshell, lots of young Chinook are being consumed but
it's hard to tease out exactly how many steelhead are being consumed, as there just aren't that
many of them going through at any given time. Abundance of seals is the issue, as is the absence of
their primary prey (forage fish) at the right times and places.
• Disease and toxins are also important at local scales.
• Research is also pointing to the importance of healthy estuaries in contributing to returning adults,
especially wild fish.
• Michael also reviewed associated management recommendations, underneath all categories.
Project leads are working to integrate these into updates to the Salmon Recovery Plan regional
chapter, as well as into local chapter updates.
Discussion:
• Members discussed how to apply the management recommendations, and expressed appreciation
for the immense amount of coordination by LLTK and partners to keep this work in motion.
• Watersheds that are working on updates to their recovery plans are encouraged to reach out to
Michael and Iris for help in incorporating this information into their plan updates. Jacques is also
happy to give presentations like these to local watershed forums.
REGIONAL CHAPTER UPDATE Briefing Memo, Presentation
Presenters: Stephanie Suter and Amber Moore, PSP
Highlights:
• Stephanie introduced the next two topics, which are complementary to one another. Thanks to the
SRC for all its contributions to help us develop the Action Agenda, and Salmon Recovery Plan
update. SRC engagement has helped us coordinate and draw connection points between the two
very much related efforts.
• Amber presented on the regional chapter update. Today's content is timely, since we've already
been talking about climate change impacts to salmon this morning.
• Previous conversations on the regional chapter update have focused on strategies related estuaries
and human population growth.
• Amber set expectations for what will be included in the Plan update, including that we expect it to
guide the work of the region and help ensure accountability. She also reviewed what will not be
Packet Pg. 281
10.1.a
Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Summary, May 27, 2021
Page 5 of 6
included in the Plan update, including those actions that are relevant to Puget Sound recovery but
not salmon recovery specifically.
Discussion:
• Meeting participants divided into break-out groups to discuss feedback on the draft climate change
strategies in the Plan update.
Next Steps:
• Next steps are to bring the results of these break-out group conversations to the consultant team
supporting the regional chapter update, which will utilize them to update the chapter narrative for
climate change strategies. The SRC will have another opportunity to review this content — as well as
other sections of the chapter update — before it's final.
2022-2026 ACTION AGENDA UPDATE Briefing Memo, Presentation
Presenters: Dan Stonington, PSP
Highlights:
• Dan, Kaitlin, and Don reviewed the steps leading up to the current phase of 2022-2026 Action
Agenda development, including the Leadership Council's adoption of desired outcomes and the
incorporation of human wellbeing outcomes and strategies, per direction from partners and the
Leadership Council.
• Strategies in context of this update "describe effective approaches for advancing progress toward
desired outcomes, Vital Signs, and overall recovery". Don reviewed what strategies in this context
are and are not expected to do.
• Strategies come from a variety of sources, including Implementation Strategies, LIO plans, Tribal
priorities, and other materials that describe recovery priorities of the region. We also convened
expert work groups to guide the development of content for human wellbeing and climate change,
in particular.
• Members of the Action Agenda Coordination Group reviewed elements of the process to develop
draft strategies that the SRC is reviewing today — including how the strategies incorporate content
from Implementation Strategies, local needs and priorities, reflect participation and buy -in from
EPA, and clarify institutional responsibilities to ensure critical outcomes are addressed.
Discussion:
• No clarifying questions were raised prior to break-out group convening.
Next Steps:
• Notes from break-out groups will be captured as part of overall feedback that's being collected from
now through June 25. There's also an online form where you can submit comments, and folks
should also feel free to contact any member of the Partnership's Planning Team with comments as
well.
Packet Pg. 282
10.1.a
Salmon Recovery Council
Meeting Summary, May 27, 2021
Page 6 of 6
RETREAT OUTCOMES DISCUSSION Briefing Memo
Presenters: David Troutt, Amber Moore, Carrie Byron, PSP
Highlights:
• The SRC members were asked to confirm the SRC Executive Committee recommendations on
alternatives.
o Affirming existing allocation formula
■ Passed --All were in favor of carrying forward the existing allocation formula
o Increasing funding for large scale recovery projects (option a)
■ Ron Shultz MOTIONED and Mindy Roberts SECONDED. The motion PASSED
unanimously.
o Creating a 10-year business/strategic plan for PSAR (option a)
■ Jacques White MOTIONED and Ron Schultz SECONDED, Kit Crump and Lisa Spurrier
asked for discussion.
■ After the discussion and an opportunity for SRC members to voice concerns on
topics such as timing, prioritization, flexibility, and definitions the motion PASSED.
• Ahren and Carrie presented on potential prioritization options raised at the retreat and reminded
SRC members that they are not being voted on today. The prioritization options will again be a topic
of discussion at the July meeting.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION REVIEW Briefing Memo
Presenters: Jeff Parsons, PSP and Representative Debra Lekanoff
Highlights:
• Net Ecological Gain: Representative Lekanoff briefly reviewed the trajectory of the Net Ecological
Gain bill during this year's legislative session, which fared well in the House but wasn't able to be
passed through the Senate.
• Jeff also reviewed general outcomes of this year's session, particularly in relation to the
Partnership's legislative priorities this year.
Discussion:
• One member pointed out that in real terms, the budget for natural resources increased by 24% this
year and salmon recovery funding only increased by 7%. In real terms, this means that it's a smaller
priority than it was just a few years ago. If we couldn't make it a priority this year, when could we
make it a priority? We should bring the salmon recovery budget up in line with everything else,
before we ask others to sacrifice via policy changes in GMA.
• Rep. Lekanoff would like to see a Salmon Omnibus Bill next year, in collaboration with Reuven
Carlyle. This could be a topic to discuss further with the SRC in July and beyond.
• We also need to do a better job next year getting salmon needs better incorporated into the
Governor's budget.
WRAP-UP AND ADJOURN
Chair David Troutt adjourned the meeting at 3pm.
Packet Pg. 283
10.1.b
Snohomish County Tomorrow
A GRO WTH MANAGEMENT AD VISOR COUNCIL
August 12, 2021
Snohomish County Council Chair Stephanie Wright
Snohomish County Council Vice -Chair Megan Dunn
Councilmember Sam Low
Councilmember Jared Mead
Councilmember Nate Nehring
Stanwood Darrington
Tulalip Arlington
Tribes Granite Falls
Marysville
Everett Lake Stevens
Mill Creek
Lynnwood Snohomish
Mountlake
Edmonds Terrace Monroe Sultan Gold Index
✓away Brier Bothell Bar
County Administration Building
3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S 604
Everett, WA 98201-4046
Subject: Formal Transmittal — Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee Action on Draft
Buildable Lands Report
Dear Chairperson Wright and Councilmembers,
The Steering Committee, after discussion at the April 28 and June 23, 2021, meetings, voted unanimously
on July 28, 2021, to recommend approval of and transmit to the County Council the Draft Buildable
Lands Report as recommended by the SCT Planning Advisory Committee on July 8, 2021. The motion
reads:
Approve sending the [Updated Draft 2021 Buildable Lands Report] to the County Council for
public meetings and hearings.
Attached for your review:
• Steering Committee Meeting agenda dated July 28, 2021
• Draft Minutes dated July 28, 2021
• Agenda Bill, Action Item 4.b.
Packet Pg. 284
10.1.b
We thank the Snohomish County Council for their continued support of Snohomish County Tomorrow in
providing advice and recommendation on significant issues of mutual concern to our county and its cities.
Sincerely,
Brett Gailey, SCT Co -Chair
Mayor, City of Lake Stevens
Dave Somers, SCT Vice -Chair
Executive, Snohomish County
Cc: SCT Steering Committee
SCT Planning Advisory Committee
Debbie Eco
Ryan Countryman
SCT Coordinator
Nate Nehring, SCT Co -Chair
Councilmember, Snohomish County
4��-a_ -7z>
Barbara Tolbert, SCT Vice -Chair
Mayor, City of Arlington
Packet Pg. 285
10.1.b
Stanwood Darrington
Tulalip Arlington
Tribes
Granite Falls
Marysville
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Everett Lake Stevens
eo Mill Creek
Lynn
Lynnwood Snohomish
A GROWTHMANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
Edmonds Mountlake Monroe
Terrace Sultan Gold Index
Woodway Brier Bothell Bar
STEERING COMMITTEE
July 28, 2021
Via Zoom
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Opening Items (3 min.)
a. Introductions/Roll Call (Co-chair)
b. Citizen Comments (Co-chair)
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes (6-23-21) (2 min, Co-chair)
3. Update Items (10 min.)
a. Summary of PSRC Board Actions and Activities (Ben Bakkenta, 5 min.)
b. Economic Alliance Snohomish County (Garry Clark, 5 min.)
4. Action Items (100 min.)
a. Agenda Bill: Countywide Planning Policies (Mitchell Brouse, 40 min.)
b. Agenda Bill: Buildable Lands Report (Steve Toy, 40 min.)
c. Agenda Bill: Amendments to SCT Operating Guidelines; Public Attendance at Committees (Co-
chair, 10 min.)
d. Agenda Bill: 2022 Final Dues (Cynthia Pruitt, 10 min.)
5. Briefings, Discussion Items (5 min.)
a. Coordinator's Report (Cynthia Pruitt, 5 min.)
1. Report from SCT Committees
6. Future GMA & CPP-Related Briefings:
• Buildable Lands Report (TBD)
• Countywide Planning Policies (Mar)
7. Go -Round (time permitting)
8. Next Meeting Date: September 22, 2021
9. Adjournment (Co-chair)
• 2044 Initial Growth Targets (TBD)
• 2024 GMA Update & Compliance Review (Qtrly)
Steering Committee members please notify Cynthia Pruitt by Tuesday. July 27th if you are unable to attend:
(425) 388-3185 or Cynthia.pruitt@snoco.org. Thank you.
Packet Pg. 286
10.1.b
Future Informational Briefings:
• Alliance for Housing Affordability Update (Qtrly)
• Codes for Housing "Missing Middle" (TBD)
• Coordination on PSRC Initiatives (TBD)
• Economic Alliance Coordination (Monthly)
• Emergency Management (TBD)
• Elements of 2024 Comprehensive Plan (TBD)
• High Speed Rapid Transit (TBD)
• Housing Affordability Regional Task Force
(TBD)
• 2022 STP/CMAQ Project Selection Task Force
• Human Services' Temporary Shelter Report (TBD)
• Multi Modal High Priority Projects (TBD)
• Opioid Crisis (TBD)
• Planning for Everett Link Extension (TBD)
• Public Works Assistance Fund Call for Projects
• Snohomish Co. Light Rail Communities (TBD)
• SCT Restructure Re -cap (TBD)
• Transportation 2050 (TBD)
• Regional Airspace Capacity (TBD)
Packet Pg. 287
Stanwood Darrington
Snohomish County Tomorrow
A GROWTHMANAGEMENTADVISORY COUNCIL
2
3
4
5
9
8
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, July 28, 2021
Via Zoom
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
Participatinq Jurisdictions/Members
Tulalip Arlington
Tribes
Granite Falls
Marysville
Everett Lake Stevens
Mukilteo Mill Creek
Lynnwood Snohomish
Edmonds Mountlake Monroe
Terrace Sultan Gold Index
Noodwav Brier Bothell Bar
Arlington
Barbara Tolbert, Vice -Chair
Bothell
Liam Olsen
Darrington
Dan Rankin
Edmonds
Luke Distelhorst
Everett
Elizabeth Vogeli
Granite Falls
Matt Hartman
Lake Stevens
Brett Gailey, Co -Chair
Lynnwood
Julieta Alta m ira no -Crosby
Marysville
Kelly Richards
Mukilteo
Bob Champion
Snohomish
John Kartak
Sultan
Russell Wiita
Snohomish County Council
Jared Mead
Snohomish County Council
Nate Nehring, Co -Chair
Snohomish County Executive
Dave Somers, Vice -Chair
Citizen Representative
Mike Appleby
Citizen Representative
Peter Battuello
Citizen Representative
Melissa Blankenship
Citizen Representative
Linda Hoult
CAB Representative
Phil Lovell
Other Attendees/Presenters:
Arlington
Jan Shuette
Arlington
Mike Hopson
EASC
Garry Clarke
Monroe
Ben Swanson
Monroe
Deborah Knight
Mukilteo
Jennifer Gregerson
Snohomish
Tom Merrill
Snohomish
Glenn Pickus
Snohomish County Council staff
Ryan Countryman
Snohomish County PDS
Mitchell Brouse
Snohomish County PDS
Shanan Bird
Snohomish County PDS
Mike McCrary
Snohomish County PDS
Frank Slusser
Snohomish County PDS
Steve Toy
Snohomish County PDS
Janet Wright
Community member
Barbara Bailey
Community member
Holly Miller Hernandez
Page 1 of 3
I 10.1.b I
Packet Pg. 288
10.1.b
1
2
5
6
7
g8
10
11
112
14
15
16
17
18
1p9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Toyer Strategic Advisors, Inc. Anne Anderson
SCT Coordinator Cynthia Pruitt
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice -Chair Barbara Tolbert.
1.a. Introductions/Roll Call
Roll call was taken (as listed above).
1.b. Citizen Comments
No comments.
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes (6-23-21)
John Kartak moved to approve the minutes of June 23, 2021, as written. Luke Distelhorst
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
3. Update Items
a. Summary of PSRC Board Actions and Activities
The members were referred to the handout in their packet.
b. EASC
Garry Clarke reported on EASC's activities.
4. Action Items
a. Agenda Bill: Countywide Planning Policies
Members were concerned about some of the CPPs; DP-2, DP-3, and TR-24 as well as the
annexation policies. They stated that they will continue to work on them through the adoption
process. Members had questions about the policies on equity and inclusion and how to make
them work. Mr. Brouse gave examples of projects that might displace people (e.g. Light Rail
construction) and stated jurisdictions could further define equity and inclusion in their
comprehensive plan policies. Elizabeth Vogeli suggested at book, The Affordable City -Strategies
for Putting Housing within Reach (and Keeping it There), by Shane Phillips.
Members also noted that these draft CPPs may continue to change, that they can participate in
County Council hearings and that the County Council has the ultimate authority.
Bob Champion moved to forward the Countywide Planning Policies to the Snohomish County
Council as presented. Dan Rankin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
b. Agenda Bill: Buildable Lands Report (BLR)
Steve Toy presented the updated BLR, reflecting comments from the City of Lake Stevens
submitted after last month's meeting. He brought a submitted letter to the members' attention. He
also said that there has been an appeal filed because the BLR was not approved by June 30,
2021, so he hoped the Steering Committee could act tonight on it.
Mayors Kartak and Tolbert thanked Mr. Toy for the updated material and the report in general
Kelly Richards moved to approve sending the [Updated Draft 2021 Buildable Lands Report] to the
County Council for public meetings and hearings. Luke Distelhorst seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
c. Agenda Bill: Amendments to SCT Operating Guidelines; Public Attendance at
Committees
Barbara Tolbert commented that this approach to allowing the public to comment at SCT
committees was a "happy medium." Matt Hartman asked if these new sections of the SCT
Operating Guidelines would mean that SCT was inconsistent with the State's Open Public
Meetings Act. Ms. Pruitt replied that SCT is not subject to that Act.
Bob Champion moved to recommend the changes to the Operating Guidelines as presented.
Kelly Richardson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 289
10.1.b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
10
11
12
13
14
17
1g8
20
21
H
244
26
27
28
d. Agenda Bill: 2022 Final Dues
Ms. Pruitt described SCT's estimated 2022 expenses, its revenue and shortfall for next year. Bob
Champion confirmed that the Executive Committee would be looking at the shortfall in the next
year and developing a strategy to address it.
Kelly Richardson moved to approve the dues for 2022. Bob Champion seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
5. Briefings, Discussion Items
Coordinator's Report
Ms. Pruitt brought the SCT committees report to the attention of the members.
6. Future Agenda Items
No additions.
7. Go -Round
Members discussed events in the area. Ms. Pruitt said the Executive Committee made plans to
start meeting face-to-face at the October Steering Committee meeting.
8. Next Meeting Date
September 22, 2021; 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. by Vice -Chair Barbara Tolbert.
All presentations given, discussions held, and actions taken at this meeting are kept on file (via recording) in PDS until six years
from December 3111 of this year.
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 290
10.1.b
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Agenda Bill
Steering Committee Action Item 4.b.
Date: July 28, 2021
Subject: 2021 Buildable Lands Report
Exhibit: SCT Planning Advisory Committee July 8, 2021 Updated Recommendation: Draft
2021 Buildable Lands Report
Summary Statement:
The SCT Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), at their June 10, 2021 meeting, unanimously
approved a motion to recommend the draft 2021 Buildable Lands Report to the Steering
Committee. The Steering Committee on June 23, 2021 delayed action on the report until their next
meeting on July 28, 2021, in order to allow for more time for cities to provide additional comments
or concerns regarding the data contained in the report. On July 8, 2021, the PAC reviewed
proposed revisions suggested by the City of Lake Stevens which were approved unanimously for
transmittal to the Steering Committee. Upon approval by the Steering Committee, the SCT-
recommended report would then be forwarded to the County Council for public hearing and
adoption.
Background:
The Buildable Lands Report (BLR) is a requirement of the state Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A.215). The BLR is intended to periodically review and evaluate whether urban densities are
being achieved within the UGA (in both city and county portions). Based on observed densities,
the report must determine whether there is sufficient suitable land to accommodate the adopted
2035 growth targets in urban growth areas (UGAs). The BLR must also identify any
inconsistencies between actual and planned development patterns and targets where such
inconsistencies may hinder local governments from accommodating projected growth. If the
results of the buildable lands review and evaluation reveal that urban densities and growth are not
being achieved consistent with original plan objectives, or that deficiencies in buildable land exist
within UGAs, cities and counties are required to adopt and implement reasonable measures, other
than adjusting UGA boundaries, that are likely to reduce these differences.
Note that the Buildable Lands Report evaluates how current comprehensive plans and zoning are
functioning relative to the original growth goals and objectives contained in the plans. The BLR as
such provides a report card on the performance of city and county plans with regard to growth
accommodation. This purpose is distinct from the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) requirements,
also required of jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act at the time of the major
periodic updates. The LCA is intended to ensure sufficient growth capacity of land suitable for
urban development when comprehensive plans and development regulations are updated to
accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty-year
period. In short, the BLR looks back while the LCA looks forward.
This is Snohomish County's fourth BLR, with reports previously prepared in 2002, 2007 and 2012.
According to the Countywide Planning Policies, it is developed jointly by cities and the county using
the Snohomish County Tomorrow process.
Contact Person:
Stephen Toy, 425-388-3311, ext 2361
Packet Pg. 291
10.1.b
Snohomish County Tomorrow Agenda Bill
Steering Committee Action Item 4.b.
In 2017, the state legislature passed E2SSB 5254, which enacted a number of changes to state
requirements for buildable lands methods and procedures. Subsequently, the Washington State
Department of Commerce published updated Buildable Lands Program Guidelines in December
2018. In response, Snohomish County staff, using the SCT process, worked with city planning
staff, consultant staff, and stakeholder representatives during 2019-2020 to review and
recommend updates to the buildable lands methods and procedures to be used for the 2021
Buildable Lands Report (BLR). The SCT Steering Committee approved the recommended
methodology updates in June 2020. The 2021 BLR incorporates the revised methods and
procedures that resulted from the methodology review and update required by E2SSB 5254.
Key Results:
Overall, at the countywide UGA level:
o Urban densities are being achieved consistent with GMA comprehensive plans, and
o There is adequate land capacity to accommodate the adopted 2035 total UGA
population, housing and employment growth targets. This is also the case for cities
overall and the unincorporated UGA overall.
At the individual city level, there is adequate capacity to accommodate the adopted 2035
population growth targets, with the following exceptions:
o There is a significant 2035 population capacity shortfall within the City of Everett, and
o Minor capacity shortfalls appear to exist for Gold Bar and Index.
At the individual city level, there is adequate capacity to accommodate the adopted 2035
employment growth targets, with the following exceptions:
o Relatively minor 2035 employment capacity shortfalls appear to exist for the cities of
Granite Falls and Lake Stevens.
• Progress has been made towards achievement of the 2035 population growth targets by
individual jurisdictions.
Executive Committee Recommended Action:
The Executive Committee has scheduled the Draft 2021 Buildable Lands Report for review and
potential approval by the Steering Committee at the July 28, 2021 regular meeting. A briefing and
discussion of the draft results from the 2021 BLR was previously provided at the April 28, 2021
Steering Committee meeting. This was followed by extensive discussion at the June 23, 2021
Steering Committee meeting, at which time action on the report was delayed to allow more time for
additional city input to the report. Additional input received from the City of Lake Stevens was
reviewed and approved by the PAC on July 8, 2021 for inclusion' in the Final Draft BLR for
Steering Committee action on July 28, 2021.
These changes include updates to Figures 1 and 2 on page 11, which are described on page 10 of the report.
Contact Person:
Stephen Toy, 425-388-3311, ext 2361 SCT Steering Agenda Bill_Draft-BLR_Jul-28-2021—final
Packet Pg. 292