Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-03-22 City Council - Full Agenda-3112
o Agenda Edmonds City Council tn.. ISLP REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARCH 22, 2022, 7:00 PM PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR COMMENT BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 THOSE COMMENTING 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. WHEN YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCLUDED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ZOOM MEETING AND OBSERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE. 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. JOINT MEETING 1. Annual Joint Meeting - South County Fire Board of Commissioners (45 min) 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. Edmonds City Council Agenda March 22, 2022 Page 1 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 15, 2022 2. Approval of claim checks. 3. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Dedication of 15 feet for 203rd St SW Right of Way adjacent to 20323 81st Ave W 5. Civic Park Public Art Project 6. Public Safety Complex Public Art Project 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan (30 min) 2. Public Hearing Regarding Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Code Amendment (30 min) 3. Public Hearing Regarding Code Amendment to ECDC entitled Bicycle Parking Development Standards (30 min) 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN 13. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Agenda March 22, 2022 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Annual Joint Meeting - South County Fire Board of Commissioners Staff Lead: Fire Services Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History In 2005, the Washington State Legislature adopted a bill (HB 1756) that requires substantially career fire departments to maintain policy establishing the existence of the fire department, identifying the services provided and the basic organizational structure of the fire department, and the service delivery/response time objectives for the fire department for those emergency services. The part of that law applicable to code cities is codified in RCW 35A.92.030. On November 3, 2009, the City and Fire District entered into an initial agreement for fire and emergency medical services. The agreement was later amended in 2012 to address a fire boat, and again in January 2015. The District and the City analyzed the performance of the agreement during the period of 2010 - 2016 (the "Introductory Period") and determined that it was in their mutual interests to revise and update the Agreement. This agreement, known as the "Restated Agreement" was executed on January 26, 2017. Section 2.4 of the Restated Agreement speaks to the service delivery objectives referenced in the paragraph above: "The parties acknowledge that the service delivery objectives adopted in 2006 ("Response Objectives") have never been met in their entirety, even when the City had its own fire department." Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Restated Agreement outline the reporting and meeting requirements related to the provision of fire and emergency medical services in the City of Edmonds. The District Fire Chief is required to present an annual report covering the previous calendar year to the Edmonds City Council prior to March 1. This report was provided on February 22, 2022. Within 30 days of the annual report, the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District Commissioners are required to convene a joint annual meeting to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Restated Agreement. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Tonight, the Commissioners of the South County Fire will join the City Council to discuss any items of mutual interest related to the provision of fire and rescue services. Attachments: 2017 Fire District 1 EMS -Fire Agrmt 2021 Compliance Report Edmonds final 2.17.22 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES THIS REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLGCAL AGREEMENT ("Restated ILA") by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington municipal corporation (the "District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City") is for the provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS). WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most elected officials in Southwest Snohomish County; and WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the City and the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and District and their stakeholders; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City and District entered into an Interlocal Agreement (the "Agreement") for the District to provide fire and emergency medical services to the City beginning January 1, 2010; WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a First Amendment dated April 17, 2012 to address a fire boat; and WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a Second Amendment approved on January 27, 2015; and WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of the Q Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the District and ., the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the public in the most E a� efficient manner possible; and Q a� WHEREAS, the parties have analyzed the performance of the Agreement during the period of 2010 — 2016 (the "Introductory Period") and have determined that is in their mutual interests and the interests of their respective stakeholders to revise and update the Agreement; w and 5 WHEREAS, the District and City now wish to revise and restate the Agreement as provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows: 0. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply throughout this Restated ILA. Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a Adjustment Year: The year in which a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is effective between the District and the local chapter of the IAFF. When a new CBA has retroactive effect, the Adjustment Year shall be the date to which the CBA is retroactively applied. For example, if a CBA expires on December 31, 2014 and a new CBA is executed on December 1, 2016 but made retroactive to January 1, 2015, the Adjustment Year would be 2015. b. Assigned: As used in the definitions of Unit Utilization Factor and Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor, the term "Assigned" shall describe the period of time in seconds from dispatch time to clear time, when the Unit becomes available to respond to another call. c. City: City of Edmonds. d. City Fire Stations: Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 20. e. Commencement Date: January 1, 2010. f. Contract Payment: The amount that the City shall pay to the District pursuant to this Restated ILA. g. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1. Edmonds Unit: An Edmonds Unit is any Unit based at one of the City Fire Stations with the exception of the Battalion Chief. i. Effective Date: February 1, 2017. Esperance: "Esperance" refers to the entirety of the contiguous unincorporated area g that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds and commonly known as E Esperance. a k. Esperance Offset: The amount of tax revenue and fire benefit charges, if fire benefit charges are imposed in the future, to be received by the District from Esperance for the v� year in which the Contract Payment is calculated. The Esperance Offset shall not drop w below $1,117,150 (the amount derived by multiplying the 2017 Esperance Assessed r Value of $565,469,115 by the District's 2017 tax rate of $1.97561714741 divided by w 1,000) even if the actual tax revenue received by the District drops below that amount as a result of reductions in assessed valuation or tax rate. The Esperance Offset for any given year shall not exceed $1,117,150, multiplied by the compounded percentage increase in City Station Personnel Costs from 2017 to the year for which the Esperance Offset is being calculated. For example, if City Station Personnel Cost increases 3% from 2017 to 2018 and 4% from 2018 to 2019, the 2019 cap for the Esperance Offset would be $1,197,516 and be calculated as follows: Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a $1,117,150 x 1.03 = $1,150,664 x 1.04 = $1,196,691 I. District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1. m. Firefighters: Full-time, compensated employees, captains, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and/or paramedics. n. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this Restated ILA means either valid insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or carrier approved to do business in the State of Washington by the Washington State Insurance Commissioner or valid self-insurance through a self-insurance pooling organization approved for operation in the State of Washington by the Washington State Risk Manager or any combination of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if both are approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington. o. Law: The term "Jaw" refers to state and federal statutes and regulations. Unless expressly identified herein, City ordinances, codes and resolutions shall not be considered "law." p. Material Breach: A Material Breach means the District's failure to provide minimum staffing levels as described within this Restated ILA, the City's failure to timely pay the Contract Payment as described within this Restated ILA, or the City's or District`s failure to comply with other material terms of this Restated ILA. q. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E. r. Negotiation Threshold. A designated occurrence or condition that requires the parties to renegotiate the Restated ILA. E a� Q s. Non -Edmonds Unit: A Non -Edmonds Unit is any Unit stationed at any station other ii than the City Fire Stations. cis w t. Transport Balance Factor: See Exhibit E. u. Unit: A Unit is a group of Firefighters that work together and are based at the same station. Where a station is staffed by three firefighters at any one time, that station shall be considered a Unit. Where a station is staffed by five or more firefighters at any one time, without counting the Battalion Chief or Medical Services Officer, that station shall be deemed to have two Units and the District shall clearly allocate the Firefighters at that station in such a manner that the two Units at that station can be clearly distinguished for the purposes of determining the Unit Utilization Factor for each Unit. v. Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E. Packet Pg. 6 4.1.a w. Wind -Up Period: Except in the context of Material Breach as defined in Section 10.2, the two years immediately following notice of termination under 11.2. 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Services Provided. The District shalt provide all services necessary for fire suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and disaster response (not including an Emergency Operations Center, which is provided by the City at the time of this Restated ILA) to a service area covering the corporate limits of the City of Edmonds. In addition, the District shall provide support services including, but not limited to, fire marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public information, and fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal and risk management pertaining to the operations and delivery of the District's services. 1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District shall provide training and education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in accordance with State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District shall offer professional development and educational and training opportunities for unrepresented and civilian employees. 1.3 City Fire Chief, The District Fire Chief shall be designated as the City Fire Chief for purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code. 1.4 District Fire Chief Designates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate an 3 individual to serve as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel to support the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and partially funded Q by the City (See Exhibit A), subject to the City's right to provide its own fire inspectors E pursuant to Section 2.8.2, below. Q a� 2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICESISTAFFING U) 2.1 Battalion Chief. A Battalion Chief shall continue to be available for response within the w City twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week as during the Introductory Period. The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency L incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week. n 2.2 Fire Station Staffing. The City Fire Stations shall each be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2) firefighters, at least one of whom shall be a firefighter/paramedic. Any increase in staffing above this level shall not increase the Contract Payment unless the increase occurs through an amendment of this Restated ILA. 2.2.1 The parties shall renegotiate this Restated ILA upon the occurrence of any of the following Negotiation Thresholds: 4 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a a. When the Unit Utilization Factor ("UUF") at any one of the City Fire Stations exceeds 0.250; b. When the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor ("NUUF") is out of balance as defined in this Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a renegotiation any earlier than January 1, 2018.. c. When the Transport Balance Factor (TBF} is out of balance as defined in this Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a renegotiation earlier than January 1, 2018. d. When the Esperance Offset drops by ten percent (10%) or more over any consecutive three (3) year period. 2.2.2 The District shall provide written notice to the City ("Threshold Notice") whenever any of the foregoing Negotiation Thresholds occurs. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of a Threshold Notice, the parties shall meet to renegotiate this Restated ILA. Such negotiations shall include, at least the following topics: (i) Methodologies intended to reduce the UUF substantially below 0.250 or to balance the NUUF or TBF, as applicable (collectively "Remedial Measures"). Remedial Measures may include, but shall not be limited to, changes to the staffing mix and/or levels, adding another Unit; changing fire response plans in CAD, and/or implementing other service changes; and Adjusting the Contract Payment to account for the District's increasedCU cost in employing the selected Remedial Measures. c Where the Threshold Notice pertains to subsection 2.2.1(d), topics of Q negotiation shall include increasing the amount of the Esperance Offset andlor reducing staff and/or reducing overhead charges that are billed to the City. Q a� 2.2.3 The District shall identify various Remedial Measures that are likely to expeditiously achieve the applicable goals in Section 2.2.2(i). The City may opt to w identify and notify the District about alternative Remedial Measures. After consulting with the District, the City shall select one or more of the Remedial Measures and shall L provide written notice of same within one hundred twenty (120) days following the n issuance of the Threshold Notice (the "Negotiation Deadline"). The City's selection shall be subject to mediation under paragraph 18.1 if the Di strict finds the City's selection to be ineffective or inappropriate, but it shall not be subject to arbitration under paragraph CD 18.2. Any disputes regarding the cost impacts of the City's selection shall be subject to N the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the Contract c Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive to the E earlier of the Negotiation Deadline or the date that the Remedial Measures were initially cu employed. If the City fails to designate one or more Remedial Measures by the Q Negotiation Deadline, such failure shall be deemed a Material Breach. Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a 2.2.4 The parties shall endeavor to execute an amendment prior to the Negotiation Deadline. If the parties cannot agree upon an amendment to this Restated ILA before the Negotiation Deadline, either party may terminate the Restated ILA pursuant to 11.2, PROVIDED THAT during the ensuing two-year Wind -Up Period, the District shall be authorized to increase service levels at the City Fire Stations as it deems necessary, and FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the marginal increase in the Contract Payment resulting from any such ❑istrict-imposed service level increases during the Wind -Up Period shall be shared equally by the parties during the Wind -Up Period. 2.3 Shift Arrangements. The City prefers that the following shift arrangements apply to personnel assigned to stations within the City: no Firefighter shall start a 24-hour shift at any of the City Fire Stations if that Firefighter has just completed a 48-hour shift at a City Fire Station or any other fire station in the District without having taken a rest day between shifts. The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW, to negotiate successfully for those arrangements, to be implemented. 2.4 Review of Service Delivery Objectives. The parties acknowledge that the service 3 delivery objectives adopted in 2006 ("Response Objectives") have never been met in (nn their entirety, even when the City had its own fire department. During the Introductory Period, the parties contracted for a particular staffing level at the City Fire Stations. It has r been recommended that the parties move toward a performance -based contract where the City pays for a particular level of service that is measured by service delivery objectives (e.g. response time) instead of a particular number of positions. The parties 0 would like to continue to evaluate this recommendation, but acknowledge that it would take significant additional work to implement such a change, not the least of which includes adoption of achievable performance standards. The City and the District agree Q to work toward adoption of a revised set of service delivery objectives in the first quarter of 2018. L a� Q 2.4.1 Turnout Time. The District has adopted a standard of 2 minutes and 15 seconds on 90% of all calls. Failure to meet this standard shall not be deemed a Material Breach. v� If this standard is not being met during calendar year 2017 for the City Fire Stations, the District shall provide the City, no later than December 31, 2017, with a report containing w the following information: (i) a list of possible measures that could be implemented to r improve Turnout Time, (ii) the estimated cost of each measure (if reasonably available) L n and (iii) estimates corcerning the amount that turnout time could be reduced with each measure. 2.5 Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance with chapter 35.103 RCW. In addition to the regular quarterly report content and the content required by law, the annual report shall contain the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor for each of the following jurisdictions: Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The annual report shall contain the total number of seconds that City Fire Stations responded to calls in Woodway and the total number of automatic aid responses from Shoreline into R Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a Edmonds. The annual report shall, to the extent practicable, also state the amount of transport fees that the District sought to recover from incidents occurring within the City and Esperance, respectively, and the amount of those fees that were actually recovered. If the District has data that identifies the number of seconds during which two or more Units were Assigned to different calls at the same time, it shall include that data in the annual report. 2.5.1 Quarterly Reporting. In addition, the District shall provide a quarterly report to the City Clerk, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. The quarterly report shall contain the Unit Utilization Factor for each of the City Fire Stations, the Transport Balance Factor, as well as the turnout time, travel time, and overall response time. 2.6 [section relocated for clarity] 2.7 Criteria -Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and District that the dispatch of Units during emergencies is determined by criteria -based dispatch protocols of the dispatch centers and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). Nothing herein shall require the District to respond first within the City as opposed to other areas served by the District. The City and District recognize that responses to emergencies shall be determined by the District based upon dispatch protocols, the location of available Units and the District's operational judgment, without regard to where the emergencies occur. 2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Restated ILA, service level changes may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party. Additionally, either party may desire to change the service level, including but not limited to, those services identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2 Standards for Services/Staffing. When a service level change is mandated by law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council Q as part of the City's chapter 35.103 RCW Response Objectives, or is mutually agreed to �- by the parties, the City and the District shall renegotiate the Contract Payment at the E request of either party. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within one hundred a twenty (120) days after the change is mandated or mutually agreed, the matter shall be subject to the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive to the date that the service level change was initially employed. Failure of either party to w T participate in, or comply with, the Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or Z 18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach. 2.8.1 The City acknowledges that the District may be required by law to notify and bargain with the local chapter of the IAFF any level of service changes made pursuant to this section 2.8. 2.8.2 The City reserves the right to remove the Fire inspector services from this Restated ILA upon one year's written notice to the District, in which case the Contract Payment shall be equitably reduced, PROVIDED THAT in no case shall such notice be provided less than 90 days prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the City shall consult with the District regarding the impacts of a 7 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a proposed removal of the Fire Inspector services at least 94 days in advance of the City providing such notice, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT if the City exercises this option, it shall provide fire inspection services using one or more inspectors with current or previous firefighting experience. 2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should consistently deviate from the City's Response Objectives, as they may be amended from time to time by the City, the District Fire Chief and the City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer to address the cause, potential remedies, and potential cost impacts. 3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS 3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of three existing City Fire Stations and shall make them available for use by the District pursuant to the terms set forth in Exhibit B. The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations are ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire stations. The parties also acknowledge that the internal configuration of the City's three stations contributes to slower turnout times than could be achieved with new stations built according to current standards. In light of the above, the parties contemplate that �° the City may opt to replace the three current fire stations with two new fire stations for use by the District during the term of this Restated ILA. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Restated ILA and Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B shall control with respect to fire stations and fixtures contained therein, PROVIDED THAT Exhibit B shall be amended in the event that the City moves to a two -station o service, and FURTHER PROVIDED THAT nothing in Exhibit B shall be construed to prevent the City from moving to a two -station service; and FURTHER PROVIDED, that the cost of providing turn key fire stations with equivalent technology to current fire Q stations shall be borne entirely by the City., E L 3.1.1 In the event the City decides to replace or relocate any of the City Fire Stations, a the City shall provide notice to the District concerning the location, design and layout of the new City Fire Stations, the time frame for completion, and any other information N reasonably requested by the District to plan for the transition. Not later than thirty (30) g days following such notice, the parties shall meet to discuss the impact of any such w T changes on this Restated ILA and to negotiate an amendment to this Restated ILA to address such impacts. The parties recognize that there may be initial cost impacts that y are not ongoing, and the parties agree to negotiate these as well. The parties shall endeavor to execute an amendment no later than one hundred twenty (120) days as following such notice to address such initial cost impacts. If the parties cannot agree r upon an amendment to this Restated ILA within such time, either party may invoke the CD N Dispute Resolution procedures. P Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a 3.2-3.3 [Completed. Deleted for clarityf 4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS 4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall pay the District a sum referred to as the Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The annual total amount of the Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract Payment shall be paid in equal monthly installments by the 10" day of each month. Failure to pay monthly installments in a timely manner shall be considered a Material Breach as defined in the Definitions section of this Restated ILA. 4.1.1 If a service level change requiring an adjustment in the Contract Payment occurs on a date other than January 1, the Contract Payment shall be adjusted on the effective date of the service level change, and the monthly installment payments shall be adjusted accordingly. 4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. Each year, no later than September 1, the District shall submit to the City an invoice for the ensuing year, including any revision to the Contract Payment for the ensuing year. 4.2.1 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The cost of City Station Personnel identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted annually pursuant to the negotiated labor collective bargaining agreement between the District and the local chapter of the IAFF ("CBA"}, provided that, notwithstanding the actual terms of the CBA, the City Station Personnel cost in Exhibit C shall increase from one labor agreement to the next no more than the greater of (i) the median increase in the total cost of compensation (i.e., combined cost of wages and benefits) of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase in the Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton metropolitan area for the twelve (12) month period ending June 30, or (iii) the E percentage increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase "comparable fire agencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the Q a� Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the comparables accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration proceeding. w 4.2.1.1 The parties recognize that the cost of the District's community paramedic program is currently covered by grants. At the time the grants expire, the City may opt to continue the community paramedic program in which case Exhibit C shall be revised to add an equitable share of the cost of such community paramedics, taking into account the other jurisdictions that are served by the community paramedics. If the City opts not to continue with the program, the community paramedic program will not be continued within the City limits after the grant term ends. 1 The Parties acknowledge that a number of actions described in the Agreement have been completed. For clarity and conciseness, those provisions are removed and replaced with the words "Completed. Deleted for clarity." Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a 4.2.2 Adjustment Date Not Met. If a new CBA between the District and IAFF Local 1828 has not been finalized by September 1 of the final year of the then -effective CBA, the City Station Personnel costs and the Indirect Operating Costs for the ensuing year shall be adjusted following execution of the new CBA and shall be retroactive to January 1 of the Adjustment Year. For example, as of the date of this Restated ILA, the last CBA expired on December 31, 2014; thus, the Adjustment Year is 2015. In such instances, the District shall send the City (directed to the City Clerk), no later than September 1 of each year for which a CBA has not yet been executed for the ensuring year, a range within which the Contract Payment for the ensuing year is likely to fall, which range shall be informed by the current status of negotiations between the District and IAFF Local 1828. To enhance the District's ability to provide the City with a predictable range for the Contract Payment, the District shall, to the extent practicable, commence negotiations with IAFF Local 1828 no later than July 1a` of any year in which a CBA is expiring. If a new CBA has not been executed by November 1s` of the year in which a CBA is expiring, the District shall notify the City of the economic issues on which the parties have not reached tentative agreement. 4.2.3 Documentation of Labor Costs. Upon executing a new CBA, the District shall provide supporting documentation sufficient to allow the City to confirm that the labor costs have not increased more than the limits set forth in Section 4.2.1, including comparable agency compensation data used by the parties or the interest arbitrator to establish new compensation levels. 4.3 -4.4 [sections relocated and renumbered for clarity] 4.5 1 ndirect 02erating Cost Portion of Contract Payment. The District shall determine the Indirect Operating Cost portion of the Contract Payment according to the following: • Overhead shall be ten percent (10%) of the cost of the City Station Personnel cost; E L • Equipment maintenance and operation, medications, and supplies shall be ten a percent (10%) of the City Station Personnel cost; • Fire Marshal allocation of fifty percent (50%) of wage and benefit cost of the position, N and Fire Inspector at one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of wage and benefit w cost of the position (See Exhibit A); and r • Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement Schedule --Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D. The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Operating Costs, plus any additional amounts due to annexations as provided in Section 4.6, less the "Esperance Offset', shall constitute the Contract Payment for the ensuing year. 4.5 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area contains property within the boundaries of the ❑istrict. Should the City seek to annex portions of the District, the District will not oppose the annexation. In the event the City annexes portions of the District other than Esperance, the Contract Payment shall be increased by an amount calculated by applying the then current District levy rate and emergency medical services levy rate to Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a the assessed value of the annexed area, plus revenue from a Fire Benefit Charge, if imposed, that the District would have received from the annexed area in the year in which the Contract Payment is calculated. The increase in the Contract Payment shall occur on the first month on which the District is no longer entitled to collect non - delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2). 4.6.1 Esperance Annexation. If the City annexes all of the area commonly referred to as "Esperance", the District will support the annexation. Whenever any portion of Esperance is annexed, the Esperance Offset attributable to the annexed area shall no longer be used to reduce the calculation of the Contract Payment at such time as the District is no longer entitled to collect non -delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2). 4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is a material and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing services under this Restated ILA because the District was required to comply with a legislative or regulatory decision by an entity other than the City, then at the request of either party, the City and District shall seek to renegotiate this Restated ILA and the Contract Payment to fully compensate the District for actual costs incurred according to the methodology in Exhibit C. An example of a significant increase in cost would be if the state required that fire engines be staffed with four firefighters per engine instead of three. If the City and District are unable to successfully renegotiate the Contract Payment in this context through good faith negotiations, then the complete Dispute Resolution provision of this Restated ILA shall apply. Failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach. Nothing herein prevents either party from terminating the Restated ILA pursuant to Section 11.2, whether before or after exercise of the Dispute Resolution Q provisions of this Restated ILA. E 4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District shall charge fees for the basic life support and a advanced life support transports that it performs. As the EMS service provider for the City, the District shall receive and pursue collection of all Transport Fees in accordance N with District policy for transports that originate within the City limits. The District shall w remit the amount so received to the City, less an administration fee not to exceed the r actual cost of collection on a quarterly basis. The District shall be responsible for, and .W L agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, reasonable documentation and/or y reports to the City. � 4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates for increased service or reporting by the District without fully compensating the District for actual costs incurred. 5. CITY EMPLOYEES 5.1-5.8 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]. 11 Packet Pg. 14 4.1.a 5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel, which arise out of, or relate to, the time prior to the Commencement Date, provided, however, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the Agreement or the Restated ILA. 6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES) 6.1 — 6.5 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]. 6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current information regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule attached in Exhibit D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase new rolling stock or otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City. 6.7 Public Safety Boat. Title to the City Public Safety Boat known as Marine 16 (the "Vessel") has been transferred to the District. The District's use of Marine 16 for training and emergencies as a county -wide asset is described in the First Amendment to InterlocaI Agreement for Use of Rescue and Fire Boat. Exhibit H to the Agreement is hereby deleted. 6.7.1 [Completed. Deleted for clarity] 6.7.2 The District assumes responsibility for maintenance and repairs to the Vessel. However, upon the District's request, the City agrees to provide maintenance and repair services for the Vessel in exchange for receipt from the District of the City's normal hourly shop rates for labor, 6.7.3 The Apparatus Replacement Schedule (Exhibit D to the Agreement and the w Restated ILA) is amended to include the Outboard Motors of the Vessel for as long as E the Vessel is in operation. The amended Apparatus Replacement Schedule is attached Q hereto. The Contract Payment shall reflect the addition of the Outboard Motors to this schedule. v� 6.7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity] w 6.7.5 Use of the vessel by the City of Edmonds Police Department shall continue as agreed to before this Restated ILA. The City is solely responsible for maintaining and Certifying its operators. 6.7.5.1 The City's use of the Vessel is at the City's risk. The City acknowledges that the District is making no representations or warranties concerning the Vessel. Further, if the City uses the Vessel without a District operator, the City agrees to be solely responsible for all damage or loss to the Vessel and its apparatus while the Vessel is within the City's control and/or possession. 6.7.5.2 The City agrees to release the District from any claims associated with any training provided to it. The City further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the 12 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a District harmless from any and all claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the City's use and operation of the Vessel. 6.7.5.3 The City specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW as to any claims by its employees arising from the use of the Vessel. 7. EQUIPMENT 7.1 — 7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity] S. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING 8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Restated ILA for purposes of RCW 39.34.030. During the term of this Restated ILA, the District Fire Chief shall provide the Mayor with quarterly written reports concerning the provision of services under this Restated ILA. The format and topics of the reports shall be as set forth in Section 2.5. The District Fire Chief shall present an annual report covering the previous calendar year to the Edmonds City Council prior to March 1, and at such meeting the Chief shall request, and the City Council shall schedule, the Joint Annual meeting provided for in section 8.2. 8.1.1 The parties agree to meet on a quarterly basis to address the performance of the Restated ILA. It is expected that these quarterly meetings will be attended by at least one City Council member, the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Finance Director, the District Fire Chief and at least one Commissioner from the District. 8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section 8.1 above, the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1 Commissioners shall have a joint E annual meeting after, but within 30 days, of the annual report at a properly noticed place a and time to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Restated ILA. ;v i� 8.3 Representation on_Infergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the City on N intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of services under this w Restated ILA as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City reserves the right to T represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the City and the District are not aligned or whenever any matter relates to the appropriation of or expenditure of City N o funds beyond the terms of this Restated ILA. 9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS 9.1 BEM, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships with other entities or agencies including the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) (or successor), Snohomish County Communications Center (SNOCOM) (or successor), and Snohomish County Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) (or successor). The City shall maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or agencies 13 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its behalf. At the discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on behalf of the City on various committees, boards, and/or commissions as requested, as appropriate, and/or as agreed to by mutual agreement of the parties. The parties shall meet to address any changes to the foregoing entities that result in a change to the City's representation or financial obligations. 9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The District shall assume any of the City's remaining contractual responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid. 9.3 Full Informations as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to coordinate their individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that the services under this Restated ILA will be provided in an efficient and cost effective manner. The City and District agree to keep each other fully informed and advised as to any changes in their respective relationships with those entities or agencies, whether or not those changes impact the City and/or the District obligations shall be provided to the other party in writing in a timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed changes in relationships or obligations. 10, TERM OF AGREEMENT 10.1 20-Year Agreement. The Effective Date of this Restated ILA shall be February 1, 2017. The Commencement Date of the Agreement was January 1, 2010, This Restated ILA shall continue in effect until December 31, 2030, unless terminated earlier as provided in section 11. After December 31, 2030: this Restated ILA shall automatically renew under the same terms and conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless terminated as provided in section 11. w E 10.2 Material Breach and Wind -Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this Restated Q ILA, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree otherwise, continue to perform their respective obligations under this Restated ILA for a minimum of U_ twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the "Wind -Up Period") provided, Ch however; that the Wind -Up Period shall be (i) ninety (90) days if the Material Breach w involves the City's failure to make the Contract Payment or (ii) 180 days if the City fails to timely select a Remedial Measure following the District's issuance of a Threshold Notice; provided further, that during the Wind -Up Period, the City and District shall o coordinate their efforts to prepare far the transition to other methods of providing fire and EMS service to the City. The City shall be responsible for all Contract Payment U_ installments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind -Up Period. o 11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS 11.1 (Completed. Deleted for clarity] 14 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a 11.2 Termination — Notice. In addition to terminating this Restated ILA for a Material Breach, either party may terminate this Restated ILA at any time by providing the other party with two (2) years written notice of its intent to terminate. 11.3 Termination Costs. Except as otherwise provided herein, the costs associated with terminating this Restated ILA shall be borne equally between the parties, or in the event of a Material Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following circumstances, the cost of termination shall be apportioned as provided below. 11.3.1 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event that this Restated ILA is terminated due to a change in law or by mutual agreement, each party shall bear its own costs associated with the termination. 11.3.2 Regional Fire Protection Service Authority. In the event that the District, along with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority Planning Committee ("RFA Planning Committee") as provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and subject to mutual approval of the District and other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City an opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed as a Material Breach on the part of the City. In the event that a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and emergency medical services is created, inclusive of District, the District's powers and duties under this Restated ILA shall be assigned to the RFA as the District's successor - in -interest as provided by RCW 52.26.100. 11.3.2.1 If the District forms a RFA with any other agency, the parties shall confer to determine whether any efficiencies have resulted from the creation of the RFA that could warrant reconfiguring the service provided to the City. 11.4 [reserved] 11.5 [reserved] 11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate their respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to terminate this Restated ILA and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs of termination. 11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City and District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as part of the Agreement shall be purchased by the City as described below. This provision shall not apply to the formation of an RFA in which both the City and the District are participants. 11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock in use by the District at the City Fire Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at a price that considers the fair market value of the asset and any adjustments to fair market value that would be 15 Packet Pg. 18 4.1.a fair and equitable, including, for example, City contributions to apparatus replacement, costs incurred by the District for acquisition, maintenance, and repair, depreciation, etc. 11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment in use by the District at the City Fire Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at fair market value. 11.7.3 tCompleted. Deleted for clarity] 11.7.4 District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by District personnel, which arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were employees of the District, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the City's actions during the term of the Agreement or the Restated ILA. 12, DECLINE TO MERGE 12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement with any other fire district or agency that is functionally equivalent to a merger, the City may opt to terminate this Restated ILA without prejudice or penalty. To exercise this option the City shall provide written notice to the District of its intent to end the Restated ILA. Such notice shall be provided not more than ninety (90) days after receiving written notification from the District in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 that the District intends to merge with another entity. 12.11A Not a Material Breach. The City's decision to terminate under 12.1 does not constitute a Material Breach of the Restated 1LA and none of the penalties associated with a Material Breach shall apply to the City. 12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The City's notice shall provide an effective date of termination w which shall be no more than twelve (12) months after the City officially notifies the E District of its termination, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, and the costs of Q termination shall be split evenly between the parties. ii 12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Restated ILA because of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction, w the City's exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7. 13. [deleted] 14. TOWN OF WOODWAY 14.1 Service to Woodway. The City may, in accordance with the terms herein, subcontract with the Town of Woodway to have the District provide fire and emergency medical services to the Town of Woodway. The City shall consult with the District in advance of entering into any such subcontract, and the District shall have the opportunity for input into any issues that may affect service and/or the cost of providing service. The City shall provide advance written notice to the District of at least twelve (12) months prior to any commencement of such service. The City's subcontracting of the District's service to 15 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a Woodway shall not be considered an unfunded mandate, and no change in the Contract Payment shall result from such a subcontract, provided that the City is not requesting additional staff to serve Woodway. Any and all payments from such a subcontract with Woodway shall be paid to the City of Edmonds only. The District agrees not to compete with the City of Edmonds in such negotiations_ 14.1.1 If the City is requesting additional staff to serve Woodway, the parties shall renegotiate the Contract Payment retroactive to the date that the District begins providing the additional staff. If the parties have not executed an amendment prior to the commencement of service to Woodway, either party may invoice the Dispute Resolution procedures in Section 18.1 and 18.2; provided, however, that any adjustment to the Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive to the date that the District begins providing the additional staff to serve Woodway. In this context, failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach. 14.1.2 The City of Edmonds right to subcontract with the Town of Woodway constitutes the consideration for the City's agreement to incur the additional 9.13% in Exhibit C initially attributable to Woodway under the Agreement. 14.1.3 At the City's request, the District agrees to work with Shoreline Fire Department to adjust automatic aid responses into the Town of Woodway. 14.1.4 In the event that the Point Wells development is to become part of the service area for the District, such event shall be deemed a "Negotiation Threshold", and the negotiation provisions of 2.2.3 - 2.2.4 shall apply. 15. [Completed. Deleted for clarity] g w 16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS E a� Q 16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the City and District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District shall have the sole discretion w and the obligation to determine the exact method by which the services are provided L within the District and within the City unless otherwise stipulated within this Restated n I LA. a 16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it without regarding to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the operational judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and obligations of Sections 2.4 through 2.8. 16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the other. 17 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a 17. INSURANCE 17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Restated ILA, each Party shall maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and equipment if any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling arrangements or compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). The City shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for accidents occurring on City owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The District shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability arising out of work or operations performed by the District under this Restated ILA in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The phrases "work or operations" and "maintenance and operations" shall include the services identified in Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire Marshal and the District Fire Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and any obligation covered by Exhibit 6, Section 9. 17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it has maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents and occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment claims, labor grievances, and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The City will hold harmless the District and its insurance provider for any such claims lawsuits or accusations that occurred prior to the Q Commencement Date. L 17.3 Claims of Former District Employees. The District represents and warrants that it has Q maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and occurrences which may have occurred during the time period prior to the Commencement Date of the y Agreement, including but not limited to injuries, employment claims, labor grievances, w and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less r than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). 17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided, each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out of the negligent and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers, officials, employees and volunteers in connection with the performance of the Agreement or the Restated ILA. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement and the Restated ILA. 18 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a 17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Restated ILA, and except in the event of breach of this Restated ILA, the District and the City do hereby forever release each other from any claims, demands, damages or causes of action arising prior to the Commencement Date and related to damage to equipment or property owned by the City ar District or assumed under the Agreement or the Restated ILA. It is the intent of the City and District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above. 18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION It is the intent of the City and District to resolve ail disputes between them without litigation. In the event that any dispute between the City and District cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then the dispute resolution provision of this Restated ILA shall apply. Excluded from these dispute resolution provisions are issues related to the legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, establish levels of service or staffing under Section 2 of this Restated ILA and Chapter 35.103 RCW and other policy matters that state law vests with the City Council. The above exclusions from the dispute resolution process shall not abridge the right of the District to pursue an increase in the Contract Payment as a result of any decision which, itself, is not subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Restated ILA. Nothing herein shall prevent either party from providing notice of termination of the Restated ILA pursuant to Section 11,2 prior to completion of the dispute resolution processes described below; however, such notice shall not affect any obligations to proceed with the Dispute Resolution provisions. 18.1 Mediation. Upon a request by either party to mediate a dispute that is subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator. If the Q City and District cannot agree upon a mediator within ten (10) business days after such ,r request, the City and District shall submit the matter to the Judicial Arbitration and E Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be appointed. This requirement a� Q to mediate the dispute may only be waived by mutual written agreement before a party may proceed to litigation as provided within this Restated ILA. Except for unusual reasons beyond the reasonable control of either party, mediation shall be completed w within ninety (90) days after the mediator is selected. Any expenses incidental to r mediation, including the mediator's fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District. L 18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in resolving any dispute subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions through mediation, either party may demand binding arbitration as provided herein, unless the nature of the dispute is not subject to arbitration pursuant to other provisions of this Restated I LA. 18.2.1 The arbitration shall be conducted by JAMS in Seattle, Washington or other mutually agreeable dispute resolution service. The dispute shall be governed by the selected arbitration service's Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The parties shall agree on a JAMS arbitrator with twenty (20) days from the date the matter is submitted to JAMS. In the event that the parties fail to agree on a JAMS arbitrator within 19 Packet Pg. 22 4.1.a such time, then JAMS shall be asked to submit the names of at least three arbitrators. Each party shall have ten (10) days after receiving the list to strike one name from that list. JAMS shall select the arbitrator from the names on the list that have not been struck by either party. The parties may agree on another arbitrator in JAMS or another person at any time. In the event that JAMS is unable or unwilling to provide an arbitrator and the parties cannot otherwise agree, then either party may request the Snohomish County Superior Court to designate an arbitrator. 18.2.2 At any arbitration involving the Contract Payment, the arbitrator shall, as nearly as possible, apply the analysis used in this Restated ILA and supporting Exhibits to adjust the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate from such analysis and use principles of fairness and equity, but should do so sparingly. 18.2.3 Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any binding arbitration session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any subsequent mediations or arbitrations. 18.2.4 The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon both parties, subject only to the right of appeal as provided in RCW 7.04; provided, however, that in arriving at such decision, neither of the parties nor the arbitrator shall have the authority to alter this Restated ILA in whole or in part. 18.2.5 The arbitrator cannot order either party to take action contrary to law. 18.2.6 The substantially prevailing party, if any, in any binding arbitration action shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 18.3 Litigation. For disputes that are not subject to binding arbitration, either party may file an Q action in Superior Court. Jurisdiction and venue for such actions shall lie exclusively in Superior Court for Snohomish County, Washington, Each party expressly waives the a� right to a jury trial. The party substantially prevailing in any such action ❑r proceeding Q shall be awarded its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. ;v ii v� 19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS w 19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by electronic mail (provided a read receipt is obtained by the sender), sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to: District Secretary: City Clerk: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds 12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5t" Avenue North Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020 K11 Packet Pg. 23 4.1.a Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from time -to -time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile transmission of any signed original document and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission shall be the same as delivery of an original document. 19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in the Restated ILA shall preclude the City and the District form entering into contracts for service in support of this Restated ILA. 19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Restated ILA shall not be construed to provide any benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Restated ILA shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Restated ILA. 19.4 Entire Agreement. The entire agreement between the City and District hereto is contained in this Restated ILA and exhibits thereto. This Restated ILA supersedes all of their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with respect to this transaction. This Restated ILA supersedes the Agreement except where provisions have expressly been omitted for clarity and conciseness. Only those exhibits referenced in this Restated ILA shall continue to be effective. 19.5. Amendment. This Restated ILA may be amended only by written instrument approved by the governing bodies of the City and District subsequent to the date hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the formulas for NUUF, UUF, and TBF may be changed administratively by mutual agreement of the parties if executed by the Mayor and Council President (for the City) and the District Fire Chief (for the District) in the event that a significant change occurs which would affect such formulas (e.g. RFA is formed, changes in dispatch technology); provided however, that any changes to the formulas shall be consistent with the underlying intent. Dated this jjday of IPR- 017 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE ECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 BY: By: 21 By: Packet Pg. 24 4.1.a Approv j to form: By: _ (fiz? ❑isthc om CITY DP EDMONDS By: Attest: Approved as to form: By: City Attomey 22 Packet Pg. 25 4.1.a ►ARMi Approved as to farm: By: District Attorney CITY O INION1 By: Attest: - Approved as to form: By: City Attorney 22 Packet Pg. 26 4.1.a EXHIBIT A 1W:1 VITIl:T-"1:►1WAN 9]4Ia411►14;1=19311t97.7 1 In consultation with the City, the District Fire Chief shall designate an individual to serve as y City Fire Marshal, and ensure the assignment of necessary personnel to support the needs E and functions of the Fire Marshal as specified in the International Fire Code, City ordinances, E and other fire service -related national, state, and local standards adopted and/or followed by L j the City. o 2. As employees of the District, the City Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector shall perform all of o the customary roles and duties associated with their positions: fire prevention; fire m investigation; code development, application, interpretation, and enforcement; permit ;v processes; plans review; records retention, response to public records requests and other ii r legal summons; fire and life safety public education; and other duties as assigned in the City and throughout the jurisdictional areas served by the District. � j 3. The City agrees to pay fifty percent (50%) of the annual personnel cost (wages and benefits) o of {providing one (1) Fire Marshal, and one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the annual U) personnel cost (wages and benefits) of providing one (1) Fire Inspector. r 4. The City Engine Company Inspection Program shall be maintained in its current form unless modified by mutual agreement of the parties. r c 5. The City agrees to provide office space, office furnishings, computers, fax, copier, printer, telephone landlines, and postal support for the use of the Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector in Edmonds City Hall, Q 6. All fees collected for Fire Permits/Special use, Fire Plan Checks, and Construction w, Inspections shall be retained by the City. E L Q L C� C W 2" Packet Pg. 27 4.1.a I WA MIM:1 USE OF FIRE STATIONS For as long as the Restated ILA remains in effect, the City hereby grants to the District exclusive use and possession of premises for use as fire stations on the terms and conditions described below. Three Fire Stations. The City shall provide use of the three fire stations located at 8429 - 196'h Street Southwest, 275 - 6'h Avenue North, and 23009 - 881h Avenue West in the City of Edmonds, Washington, PROVIDED THAT the City reserves the right to substitute these stations with new stations as further described in the Restated ILA. 2. Compliance with Applicable Codes. The fire stations provided by the City shall be compliant with all applicable codes, including without limitation, the applicable provisions of the Edmonds City Code and applicable Washington State Standards and regulations (currently WAC 296-305-06501 et seq.). 3. No Use Charge. No use charge shall be assessed to the District. The parties agree that the rights and contractual obligations contained within the Restated ILA constitute adequate consideration for District use and possession of the premises. 4. Utilities and Services. The City shall ensure the supply of all utilities necessary for the use of the premises, to include: water, sewer, garbage, heating, air conditioning, electrical power, telephone and information tech noIogylsystem data lines. 4.1 Cost for Utilities. The District shall be responsible for the cost of all utilities used on the premises, except for those utilities supplied by the City. if a separate meter is unavailable for any utility that the District is responsible to pay, then the cost shall be equitably apportioned to the District in a manner agreeable to both parties. 5. Conditions and Repairs. The City agrees to keep the premises and the buildings in good condition and repair as reasonably requested by the District for use as fire stations during the term of this Restated ILA at its own expense. The City shall at all times keep the buildings suitably equipped as fully functioning and operational fire stations. 6. Improvements, Upon District request, the City shall install such reasonable improvements as are normal and customary in connection with District use of premises set forth herein. The City shall pay for such improvements. 24 Packet Pg. 28 4.1.a 7. Removal of Personal Property Upon Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this Restated ILA, the District shall remove all non -fixed equipment and personal property placed upon the premises by the District during the period of this Restated ILA unless those items are subject to repurchase by the City as provided in the Restated ILA. Any personal property not removed from the fire stations within 60 days after termination of this Restated ILA shall become the property of the City. 8. Maintenance of Premises. 8.1 Maintenance of the buildings, the premises and all improvements thereon is the sole responsibility of the City. Such responsibility includes without limitation, repair of walls, floors, ceiling, interior doors, interior and exterior windows and fixtures, sidewalks, landscaping, driveways, parking areas, walkways, building exterior and signs. 8.2 City shall maintain in good condition the structural parts of the fire stations and exterior buildings and structures which shall include emergency lighting, fences, enclosures, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, foundations, bearing and exterior wails, subflooring and roof, roof -mounted structures, unexposed electrical, plumbing and sewerage systems, including those portions of the systems lying outside the premises, exterior doors, apparatus bay doors, window frames, gutters, downspouts on the building and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system servicing the premises. 8.3 All janitorial services for routine cleaning of the buildings shall be the responsibility of the District. 8.4 All grounds maintenance of the premises, to include fencing, enclosures, gates, g landscape, stairs, rails, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drains, and water retention structures E shall be the responsibility of the City. Q 9. Insurance and Financial Security. 9.1 The parties agree that the City shall not be responsible to the District for any 2 property loss or damage done to the District's personal property occasioned by reason w of any fire, storm or other casualty whatsoever beyond the control of the City. The : District shall insure its personal property located on the premises. N 9.2 The District shall not be responsible to the City for any loss or damage to the buildings or premises that is not caused by the sole negligence of the District. The City shall insure the premises and buildings against such loss or damage. The District shall repair any damage to the buildings caused by its sole negligence 9.3 In the event of a casualty loss that renders the premises reasonably unsuitable for the use set forth herein, the City shall provide the District with another suitable location(s) for the District until such time as the premises have been repaired. The cost 25 Packet Pg. 29 4.1.a of repairs, and the costs of relocation between the premises and the substitute locations), shall be borne by the City. 10. Indemnification for Environmental Claims: Each party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any and all claims, demands, judgments, orders, or damages resulting from the release of hazardous substances on the premises caused in whole or in part by the activity of the indemnifying party, its agents, employees, licensees or invitees. The term "hazardous substances" shall mean any substance heretofore of hereafter designated as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct, 42 U.S.C.Sec. 6901 et sea.; the Federal Water Pollution Ccntroi Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 et seg.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2001 et_ _ seq.; the Comprehensive Environmentai Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9501 et. Seq.; or the Hazardous Waste Cleanup -Model Toxic Control Act, RCW 70.105D all as amended and subject to all regulations promulgated thereunder. 11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Each party agrees to protect, save, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party, its officers, employees and agents from any and all demands, claims, judgments, or liability for loss or damage arising as a result of accidents, injuries, or other occurrences on the premises, occasioned by either the negligent or willful conduct of the indemnifying party, regardless of who the injured party may be. 12. Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this Restated ILA or any extension thereof, whether by expiration of the stated term or sooner termination thereon as provided in the Restated ILA, the District shall surrender to City the premises peaceably and quietly. 13, Default and Remedies. w E 13.1 Failure of the City to perform repairs or maintenance to the buildings or premises as described in 8 above within a reasonable Q period after notice by the District shall constitute a Material Breach under the terms of i this Restated ILA. For purposes of this Restated ILA, a reasonable period shall be construed to mean five (5) business days, for repairs and maintenance that could w feasibly be performed in such time. 13.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the nature of the repair constitutes an operational, safety, and/or security emergency which materially affects District use of the premises or building for their intended purpose, the City shall perform the repair as soon as possible regardless of the day or hour and no later than forty-eight (48) hours after receiving notification from the District. 13.3 If the City fails to timely perform the repair or maintenance under the conditions described above after notification, the District may have such repair or maintenance performed at City expense. The cost of the repair or maintenance shall be forwarded to the City, which shall pay the cost within thirty (30) days after notice. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City shall not be in breach of any repair or maintenance 26 Packet Pg. 30 4.1.a obligation herein if the repair cannot be completed within the time set forth herein so long as the City is diligently pursuing completion of the repairs. 27 Packet Pg. 31 EXHIBIT C CONTRACT PAYMENT 4.1.a Station Costing Model Station Personnel (FTEs) FTE Battalion Chiefs FTE Captains FTE Firefighter/Paramedics FTE Firefighters Firefighter/Paramedics-12 Hour Firefighters-12 Hour 2017 5ta 16, 17, 20 All Cross Staffed\ALS Average Wage & Benefits per FTE Position 2.424 1 186,248 13.746 161,593 18.000 147,936 9,492 133,343 147,936 133,343 Total Positions 41.239 FTE Factor 4.582 Station Staffing 9,600 a ADD: Administrative Overhead 10% Maintenance & Operations 10% Apparatus Replacement 2017 TOTAL SUPPRESSION/EMS CONTRACT COST 2017 Esperance AV 565,469,115 Esperance Est. Property Tax Revenue ADD: Additional Staff Paid Separately by the Contracting Agency Fire Chief Assistant Chief Deputy Chief Department Manager Executive Assistant Manager Professional/5pecialist Admin Assistant Technicians Fire Marshal Deputy Fire Marshal jinspector} Count 254,227 213,009 199,030 - - - - - 0.500 203,408 1.2s0 i 169,958 TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS TOTAL FIRE/EMS SERVICES COST Cost of living increases based on CPI-W, not Comps Total Labor Costs per Position 451,465 2,221,260 2,662,854 1,265,692 270 127 127 062 23 (1,11 ?,ISO) 7,114,436 ..7 101,704 212,448 L4,1S2 r Q 28 Packet Pg. 32 4.1.a EXHIBIT D APPARATUS REPLACEMENT 29 r Q Packet Pg. 33 4.1.a EXHIBIT E Definitions Subject to Administrative Amendments Pursuant to Article 19.5 1. NEIGHBORING UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor or NUUF is the method used by the parties to determine how much time Units associated with one jurisdiction are Assigned to calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service across a number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because those various jurisdictions make payments to the District for those services, Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor is relevant even where a District Unit is dispatched to a call that is still within an area served by the District but outside of the normal area served by that Unit. NUUF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the nearest thousandths: l►Loll] M total seconds that non -Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls in Edmonds over the previous calendar year total seconds that Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls outside of Edmonds over the previous calendar year Formula_ Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of seconds Q that non -Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds (not including Esperance, unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous calendar year. The denominator shall equal the total a, number of seconds that Edmonds Units are assigned to calls outside of Edmonds (Esperance Q shall be considered "outside of Edmonds" for the purpose of this calculation unless Esperance a� is annexed) over the previous calendar year. v� Calculation: Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated separately for the City of w Lynnwood (stations 14 and 15 combined) and any non. -Edmonds unit within the District, e.g., � Station 19, for as long as Lynnwood and the District are not part of the same Regional Fire L n Authority. a fll Determination of Whether NUUF is in Balance: Unlike the Unit Utilization Factor, the NUUF need only be calculated on an annual basis after the completion of each calendar year. NUUF shall be considered balanced if the NUUF falls somewhere between 0.900 and 1.1 00. For example; if Lynnwood's Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds that total 1,000,000 seconds during a calendar year, and Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total 1,095,000 seconds during a calendar year, the NUUF for that year would equal 0.913 and would be considered in balance. If, on the other hand, the numerator were to remain the same; but the 30 Packet Pg. 34 4.1.a Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total 880,000 seconds, the NUUF for that year would equal 1.136 and would be considered out of balance. Special Calculation for 2017: Since this Restated ILA takes effect after January 1, 2017, the 2017 NUUF shall be calculated proportionally for that portion of 2017 following the Effective Date. 2. TRANSPORT BALANCE FACTOR. Transport Balance Factor (TBF) is the method used by the parties to determine how frequently Units associated with one jurisdiction transport patients resulting from calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service across a number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because Edmonds is entitled to receive transport fee revenue for all District transports resulting from calls in Edmonds regardless of whether the transport is performed by an Edmonds Unit or a non -Edmonds Unit, Transport Balance Factor is relevant to whether transport fees are being distributed in an equitable manner. TBF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the nearest thousandths: TBF = number of transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds over 6 months number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of Edmonds over 6 months Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds (not including Esperance, unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period. When an Edmonds Unit and a non -Edmonds Unit both respond to a call in Edmonds and the non - Edmonds Unit transports the patient, that call may not be counted in the numerator, even if the Edmonds Unit responded with a non -transport vehicle. The denominator shall equal the total number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of Edmonds (Esperance shall be considered "outside of Edmonds' for the purpose of this calculation unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period. Determination of Whether TBF is in Balance: TBF shall be considered "balanced" if the TBF €ails somewhere between 0.900 and 1.100. While TBF is intended to be analyzed by looking back over the previous six months, during 2017, a special quarterly TBF shall be calculated that looks at TBF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method accordingly. The quarterly analysis shall be performed beginning with the second quarter 31 Packet Pg. 35 4.1.a of 2017. The quarterly TBF is intended to give the District the ability to analyze the effect of minor dispatch adjustments before TBF could result in a Threshold Notice being issued. 3. UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR UUF = Unit Utilization Factor or UUF is the method used by the parties to determine how busy a particular Unit is. Unit Utilization Factor is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the nearest thousandths: number of seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month period 31,536,000 Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of c seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month period. The denominator shall always be 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in a twelve-month period). Because this contract initially contemplates exactly one Unit at each station, with r each station having multiple apparatus types, the total number of seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls shall be the total for all apparatus types used by that Unit. The activity of the Battalion Chief and Medical Services Officer shall not be counted in the Q numerator for any unit. For example, if, over the previous twelve-month period, Engine 20 was Assigned to calls totaling 72,089 seconds, and Ladder 20 was Assigned to calls E totaling 229,320 seconds, and Medic 20 was Assigned to calls totaling 4,008,640 Q seconds, then the calculation for UUF would be made as follows: B v� 4,310,049 w UUF = = 0.1366 (rounded to 0.137) 31,536,000 L Frequency of Calculation: Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated as soon as possible after the end of each quarter, looking back over the previous twelve-month period. While UUF is intended to be analyzed by looking back over the previous twelve months, during the each of the last three quarters of 2017, a special UUF shall be calculated that looks at UUF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method accordingly. The quarterly analysis during 2017 is intended to keep data from the service delivery model prior to the Effective Date from contaminating the data applicable to the Restated ILA. 32 Packet Pg. 36 4.1.b SOUTH COUNTY FIRE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT CITY OF EDMONDS 2021 .101971 IfeT061M► eI On November 28, 2006, the City of Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133, adopting the performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in the Washington State Legislature Substitute House Bill 1756, as the Edmonds Fire Department's emer- gency resource deployment and response time objectives. On November 2, 2009, the City of Edmonds City Council approved an Interlocal Agree- ment with Snohomish County Fire District 1 (SCFD1) transferring Fire and Emergency Medical Services responsibilities to SCFD 1. NOTE: As of October 1, 2017, Snohomish Countv Fire District 1 became South Countv Fire (RFA) and is referred to as South County Fire in this compliance report. Section 2.5 of the Interlocal Agreement requires South County Fire to report to the City performance standards as identified in RCW 35.103. The following constitutes this reporting requirement: 2020 COMPLIANCE REPORT CONTENTS As required by SHB 1756, the 2021 Compliance Report includes four Sections: • Section 1: Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 Fire Department. • Section 2: South County Fire Policy Statements. • Section 3: Comparison of 2019 response times to each adopted response stand- ard. • Section 4: An explanation of why Council -adopted standards were not met, the predictable consequences of failing to meet adopted standards, and steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compli- ance. SECTION1.........................................................................................2 SECTION2.........................................................................................3 SECTION3.........................................................................................4 SECTION4.........................................................................................8 Packet Pg. 37 4.1.b SECTION 1 EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 2.12 FIRE DEPARTMENT Sections: 2.12.010 Fire service. 2.12.020 Pre-existing rights and obligations not impaired. 2.12.010 Fire Service. Fire service is provided to residents of the City of Edmonds by and through a contract with South County Fire. Whenever any reference is made in the provisions of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) or Edmonds Community Development Code to "fire chief," "fire marshal," "fire department," or any other reference to a firefighter or fire services, such term shall include, for the provision of admin- istrative or other day-to-day fire services, to reference the fire chief, fire marshal and firefighting services performed for the City by contract by South County Fire. A. The officials of South County Fire, when performing services by contract to the citizens of the City of Edmonds and to the city in its corporate capacity, shall exercise any and all rights, duties, obligations, and responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this code to the same extent and in the same manner as if performed by an employee of the City. B. Employees of South County Fire shall not be entitled to any wage or benefit provision of this code, including but not limited to Chapters 2.06 and 2.35 ECC. The Edmonds civil ser- vice system shall remain in effect, but no employee of South County Fire shall have re- course to the Civil Service Commission following the termination date of fire department employees by the City. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009]. 2.12.020 Pre -Existing Rights and Obligations Not Impaired. The City Council's determination to contract or not contract for fire services with South County Fire and the provisions of this chapter shall not impair any existing vested right or vested obliga- tion created under the provisions of state law or under Chapter 2.50 ECC, Firemen's Relief and Pension System, Chapter 2.60 ECC, Reserve Fire Fighters' Relief and Pensions Act, Chapter 2.70 ECC, Retirement System, and Chapter 10.30 ECC, Disability Board, as well as the City's MEBT plan. The rights of any person under such system vested prior to the transfer of fire service responsibility by contract shall remain in full force and effect and are not impaired by either such or the adoption of this chapter. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009]. 2 Packet Pg. 38 4.1.b SECTION 2 POLICY STATEMENTS The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establish the following: 1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Municipal Code 2.12. X meets requirement does not meet 2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in the Inter - local Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services. X meets requirement does not meet 3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the SCF Organizational Chart approved by the Fire Chief. X meets requirement does not meet 4. The number of Fire Department employees on duty daily in 2019, at the Edmonds stations, is 9 personnel as outlined in the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emer- gency Services, and as adopted by South County Fire Board of Fire Commissioners as part of the 2019 SCF Budget. X meets requirement does not meet 5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services, and in the 2020 South County Fire Budget. X meets requirement does not meet Packet Pg. 39 4.1.b SECTION 3 STANDARDS of RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER) To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish re- sponse -time objectives and compare the actual department results on an annual basis against the established objectives. The comparison began in 2007 with a comparison of the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of response. This year, actual 2020 response time data is compared against the originally established, Council -adopted 2006 standard. The following section provides the compar- ison: Turnout time for all emergency incidents: Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did meet the turn out time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of the Fire Department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:42 minutes/seconds. 2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression Incident - Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire sup- pression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of fire suppression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:38 minutes/seconds of response time. 2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re- sponse to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re- sponse of 15 firefighters. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm responding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 8:15 minutes/seconds of response time. There were 2 incidents in 2021 (7:39 and 8:15). .19 Packet Pg. 40 4.1.b 2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer- cial fire suppression incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 9:00 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re- sponse to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re- sponse of 18 firefighters. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm responding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 12:35 minutes/seconds of response time. There were 7 incidents in 2021 2 did not meet the standard (10:10, and 12:35). 3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher - level capability to an emergency medical incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with ap- propriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical inci- dent, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emergency medical incidents had the first -arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the scene within 6:33 minutes/seconds of response time. 4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency medical incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support unit with ap- propriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer- gency medical incidents had the Advanced Life Support (two Paramedics) unit arrive at the scene within 6:13 minutes/seconds of response time. 5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz- ardous materials incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a 5 Packet Pg. 41 4.1.b hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time. 100 percent of haz- ardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Op- erations level personnel arrive at the scene within 3:50 minutes/seconds of re- sponse time. There was 1 incident in 2021 5A2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a haz- ardous materials incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12:00 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of hazard- ous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Techni- cian level personnel arrive at the scene within X:XX minutes/seconds of re- sponse time. There were zero incidents in 2021. 5131. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of tech- nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel arrive at the scene within 6:20 minutes/seconds of response time. 5132. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12:00 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to 0 Packet Pg. 42 4.1.b a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of technical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Opera- tions level personnel arrive at the scene within 15:22 minutes/seconds of re- sponse time. There were two incidents in 2021. (9:44, 15:22) 6. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine inci- dent: Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of marine incidents had trained and equipped firefighting personnel arrived at the scene within 6:19 minutes/seconds of response time. There were four incidents in 2021. (03:11, 04:31, 06:04, and 6:19) 7 Packet Pg. 43 4.1.b SECTION 4 COUNCIL -ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council -adopted standards are not met, the predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps nec- essary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET The Council -Adopted 2006 performance standards that were not met in 2021 are: 2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression Incident: Established: 6:30 Actual: 6:38 2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident Established: 7:45 Actual: 8:15 2C. Response time for the deplovment of full first -alarm assianment to a commer- cial fire suppression incident: Established: 9:00 Actual: 12:35 3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher - level capability to an emergency medical incident: Established: 5:15 Actual: 6:33 5132. Response time of the first-arrivina aaaaratus with aaaroariately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident Established: 12:00 Actual: 15:22 M Packet Pg. 44 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 15, 2022 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: Council Meeting Minutes 03-15-22 Packet Pg. 45 7.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES March 15, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Rob English, Acting Public Works Director Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Tibbott read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL Deputy Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REPLACE ITEM 8.4 WITH A NEW ITEM TO FORMALIZE THE TRANSITION TO HYBRID FORMAT FOR REGULAR MEETINGS. Council President Olson explained Item 8.4, Ordinance Amending Chapter 1.04 ECC related to Regular Committee Meetings Times and Provisions for Recesses, Adjournments, and Continuances, will be altered as a result of the transition to hybrid meetings, due to adding an in -person element to meetings. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 46 7.1.a Assuming that passes, revisions to the ordinance in Item 8.4 will be returned to council and the transition to hybrid format could be included. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments, advising that Audience Comments were for any subject other than the public hearings. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, speaking for the 401 time on the tree ordinance passed last year, said City Attorney Jeff Taraday has yet to publicly answer her questions whether the tree ordinance complies with the U.S. Constitution. At the March 1st meeting, Edmonds paid SaveATree Consulting $7,000 for a canopy report which reported a tree canopy increase of 17.6 acres to 1961.7 acres, up 19% from 2015 to 2020. Using the Edmonds 2017 urban tree canopy assessment in the agenda packet, there is in fact a 117 acre increase in the tree canopy from 2015 to 2020. Edmonds assessment shows 2015 tree canopy at 30.3%, 1844.1 acres. SaveATree reported 34.3%, 1944 acres, a 100 acre discrepancy. She questioned whether this was a typo or were numbers changed and if so, why and when. On June 15, 2021 then - Council President Susan Paine claimed the tree canopy was disappearing to justify an emergency passage of the tree ordinance. She said the tree canopy goal should be about 30%, the canopy has increased to 34.6% showing a 6.4% increase in 5 years before the tree code. With the canopy increasing, a 2021 tree ordinance that charges owners $3,000 - $12,000 for the rights to each tree on their property and restricts light and safety from homes is no longer justified. Eighty-three percent of the tree canopy is maintained on residential properties, but new restrictions on tree maintenance and removal have caused resistance to tree planting and owners now plan to remove trees before they reach the size that allows the City to take ownership of them. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the tree ordinance is having the opposite effect on the climate and tree canopy than the council intended. The whole concept is lacking in common sense, legality and equality and is wrong. The City is using the tree ordinance to control private property, limit the building of single family homes and take money from property owners, increasing the cost of new homes. It is an owner's right to divide property as allowed by zoning and to make a profit from their land without encumbrances. The City is not entitled to a portion of the owner's investment, risk and hard work over City taxes and fees that are multiplied from divided lots and new homes. Edmonds government disregards property owners' rights and the laws of the land. You want it, you take it; you have taken our trees. Putin is doing the same thing to Ukraine. We live in the USA. The only difference is that you charge us for its return. Please obey the U.S. Constitution, Washington Growth Management Act and Edmonds comprehensive plan and rescind the illegal tree ordinance. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, referred to the ethics of the council president who hired her inexperienced campaign manager to do a communication section of the retreat; quid pro quo and a payback for free volunteer work provided by her campaign manager. She was also able to get a friend to facilitate the retreat and they spoke inappropriately about the city administration and Councilmember Chen. This is very unethical behavior from a president and vice chair. The council president should resign and ask to be provided extra training. She read from the ethics policy, seek no favor, do not personally benefit or profit from confidential information or misuse of public resources. Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair but in fact is appropriate, which Ms. Fraley-Monillas said was not happening. She cited unethical behavior from Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Olson, and recommended they resign from their leadership roles and be removed from leading the city council as the city council deserves better. She suggested if Councilmember Paine or she done this, it would have Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 47 7.1.a gone over like a ton of lead bricks. Next, she said the salary commission was disbanded because the council believed they were fairly paid compared to other cities Edmonds' size. Bringing the salary commission back is clearly greed and unethical as the council is required to approve whatever the salary commission recommends. She summarized this is the most unethical council leadership she has seen in 40 years of politics and more should be demanded of city councilmembers. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, urged the council to pull consent agenda item 12 regarding dedication of right-of- way for discussion. He suggested asking what a planned right-of-way is, how a planned right-of-way gets added to the City's official street map, how city stormwater utilities were installed on private property rather than within the 20-foot right-of-way already dedicated for 203rd Street SW, why the amendment to the City's official street map authorized under Ordinance 3690 was never reflected on the City's official street map, who maintains the official street map, what happens when it is incomplete or contains an error, if there ever any accountability when City staff does not do what city council has voted they do. On packet page 380, the planned right-of-way curves through an existing house at 8002 203rd Street SW and he asked how that happened and whether City government was capable of doing better than that. Next, he asked why the March 1st meeting minutes did not include comments submitted to the public comments email address and why the council was approving the March I't meeting minutes prior to approving the February 22' regular meeting minutes. Mr. Reidy continued, street vacation laws allow a street vacation to be conditioned upon a grant of an easement to the City in exchange for the easement vacated. He requested council address all illegal street vacations from the past including street vacations where the City acted as if it could condition a street vacation upon a grant of an easement to third parties which the law does not allow. He requested the council apologize for the City's past conduct and do what is right and be ethical. He referred to packet pages 1104-1108 and asked why an ordinance has been drafted prior to council voting to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance. He contrasted this with council's vote on October 2, 2012 to direct the city attorney to modify Resolution 853; despite council's vote to direct the city attorney, a modification of Resolution 853 was never brought back to council. He requested council inform citizens what is supposed to happen if the city attorney and/or city staff do not do what council votes they do. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said she absolutely does not want Council President Olson or Councilmember Buckshnis removed from the council, stating that was one of the most ridiculous things she had ever heard. She watched the retreat and thought it was fun, it taught her a lot and it did not make any difference that someone's campaign manager conducted the training. The public was able to watch it at a public meeting and it did not appear on Twitter like other campaign managers. She commended Ms. Fraley-Monillas for her devotion to Highway 99, noting she was also interested in Highway 99. She was proud of the council, commenting it was a pretty cool council considering its makeup. She has watched council meetings for years and acknowledged councilmembers and citizens have acted inappropriately. She urged councilmembers to start fresh and use what they learned at the retreat. Laurie Sorenson, Edmonds, a member of the Pilchuck Audubon Society and part of a 10-year habitat survey of the Edmonds Marsh, thanked City staff for helping establish special trails and observation areas in the marsh for the study which shows the City is concerned about dwindling bird populations as she is. No one knows how long it will take for the Department of Ecology to give a green light on the sale of the Unocal property to WSDOT. She wanted the City to be ready to act when the option to buy the property arises. She asked how citizens could help, whether it would be possible to have a resolution to indicate the council's support for acquiring the property. She relayed there is huge public interest in acquiring the property for a park or nearshore wildlife sanctuary; more than 3,000 people signed a petition to the governor to get WSDOT to give the property to the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make it into wildlife habitat and park. With regard to the PROS Plan, she said nearly half of the over 100 public Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 48 hearing comments expressed concern about the marsh, wetland, natural spaces, watershed, climate issues, and environmental stewardship. Ms. Sorenson continued, one of the first steps should be to update the comprehensive plan to remove the Pt. Edwards ferry terminal. There is a lack detail regarding environmental stewardship. There is reference to the City's climate action plan, but on the City's webpage, it isn't finished and addresses emissions and energy issues, not protecting fish and wildlife. The environmental crisis includes extinction issues in this region and she wanted to see more specific action items in the plan. The plan is flawed in that environmental stakeholders and young people were left out and the survey questions were biased and did not weigh the importance of irreplaceable environmental spaces like the marsh. The survey asked respondents to compare the marsh to a park where kids play; they are not the same. She hoped the council would carefully review the PROS Plan with regard to environmental stewardship. Although she appreciated the monumental effort of staff, the plan isn't quite ready. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Council President Olson referred to Consent Agenda Item 12 and questions Mr. Reidy had emailed council that she had not had an opportunity to look into. She asked how time critical that issue was and whether it could be moved to next week's consent agenda to give her time to follow up on his questions. Acting Public Works Director Rob English said he was not aware of a time issue. Council President Olson requested Item 6.12, Dedication of 15 Feet for 203' St SW Right -of -Way adjacent to 20323 8151 Ave W, be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2022 2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM PETER GICHOHI 3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. SEEK GRANT CONTRACT - 2022 SUMMER DAY CAMP 7. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPT OF COMMERCE GRANT CONTRACT — CIVIC PARK 8. MARKET, EDMONDS SPRINGFEST AND EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL EVENT CONTRACTS 9. JANUARY 20222 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 10. 2021 DISPOSED ASSETS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 4 Packet Pg. 49 11. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON THE PH 10 SEWER PROJECT 13. 2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT 14. ASH THICKENER DRIVE REBUILD PROJECT 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC ART PROJECT Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin explained the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is charged with advising and making recommendations to the mayor and council on issues pertaining to public art including gifts. The City's gift policy outlines the process for public art donations; any donation over $5000 in value goes through the EAC process and is brought to city council with a public hearing followed by opportunity for approval. The Floretum Garden Club has a long and rich history of working with the City to create floral beauty in Edmonds. In 2021 the Floretum Garden Club approached the City about the possibility of making a significant donation of art in commemoration of the Club's 100th anniversary in 2022. The Floretum Garden Club signed a MOU with the City in September 2021 regarding creation of an artwork on the Public Safety Complex site, and the MOU was modified in December 2021 to establish the final site for the artwork on the Public Safety Complex at the corner of Bell & 6t' Avenue North, an area with low level landscaping. The EAC went through a publicly advertised call for artist and selected an artist to create a mosaic piece. The Floretum Garden Club and the artist have been working with staff for past eight months on the proposal. The garden club brought the proposed artwork to the EAC in February and the EAC recommended it move forward to city council for public hearing and consideration of approval of the artwork donation valued at $20,000. There are no other 3-D mosaic sculptures in the City. The EAC is excited about the project and feels it will be a great addition to Public Safety site. The EAC appreciates the Floretum Garden Club's generosity and their willingness to work closely with City staff to ensure that this is a successful artwork for the City. Ms. Chapin introduced Jennifer Kuhns, a talented mosaic artist, who will present her proposal for the artwork on the corner of Bell & 6t' Avenue North. Ms. Kuhns said because the artwork celebrates the centennial of the Floretum Garden Club, the proposal is a celebration of gardens, gardening, nature and the symbiotic relationship between humans and nature. The concept is three floral shapes; the council packet includes a rendering of the proposed piece. She displayed a mock-up of the shapes, explaining as someone walks around them, each petal will have different surface areas with different garden element and colors, a little like a treasure hunt. There will be three structures; she originally wanted to do one large structure, however, due to the 36" height limit, they designed three smaller structures which will be located to the left of the bench on the corner, a great spot for pedestrian, especially with the new park under construction. The artwork will also be visible from vehicles, appropriate for this area that has a fair amount of slow moving traffic. Ms. Kuhns continued, the artwork will have a lot of sparkle and color visible from vehicles as well as viewing the elements up close. It will be constructed from a marriage of mosaic and metal. She is collaborating with Abe Singer, a fabulous metal sculptor, who will create the structure and shape and she will apply the mosaic. The mosaic and metal are very durable. She mainly works in stained glass, a very weather resistant material, easy to clean and touchable with vibrant colors that won't fade or peel. Any damage that occurs can be fixed. The piece will be located in an area of mondo grass which will remain Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 5 Packet Pg. 50 7.1.a and accommodates people walking on it. She showed a sample of a petal to illustrate what the stained glass surface might look like, explaining it will reflect light including headlights at night. The piece will not be lit but will be bright on its own. She was very excited to be a part of the Edmonds art community and to put the artwork in the City. She displayed a mockup of the artwork, noting the exact location will be determined once the structures are made. The petals will vary in height to give it variety and represent a cluster of flowers popping out of the ground. Council President Olson thanked the artist, commenting these are very inspired and beautiful, commemorating such an exciting thing for the Floretum Garden Club and exciting for the City to have a monument like this. She was aware of the Floretum Garden Club disappointment regarding the size and had not wanted any of the pieces to be less than 36", but she agreed with artist's request for the size differentiation. She thanked the artist for their creativity and for making a difference in Edmonds through their artistry. She thanked the members of the Floretum Garden Club for everything they have done for the City over the last 100 years. Councilmember L. Johnson said, as a fellow gardener and someone who appreciated bright colors, she was excited about this artwork, particularly the treasure hunt aspect. She liked the idea of people noticing something new and different each time they looked at the pieces. Councilmember Buckshnis, a Floretum Garden Club member for over a decade, said she loves the club, recalling they did a great job working with the City on the Hazel Miller Plaza. She liked the three flowers and was excited and hopeful there would not be any vandalism and the artwork will remain shiny, exciting and wonderful to look at. Councilmember Chen thanked the artist Jennifer Kuhns for the 3-1) aspect and the colors, and Abe Singer for the design, finding it a wonderful piece of artwork. He pointed out Edmonds is a large city, extending from Highway 99 to the water and from SR-104 to the north with many good locations for artwork. He asked how the decision was made regarding the location. Ms. Chapin answered the Floretum Garden Club has worked primarily in the downtown area and they specifically requested a site close to the downtown core. Councilmember Chen recognized the Floretum Garden Club had the right to request a location. He encouraged the art community to look to the Highway 99 area as well because as the population grows and development increases, their artwork could be even more visible in future. Ms. Chapin responded this is a concern of the EAC and they have had a lot of discussion about it. The lanterns elements on Highway 99 was a major project. She commented it was challenging to find appropriate sites. The Floretum Garden Club is considering about what they could do in other parts of the City. Councilmember Paine commented this glorious work was not just three flowers, it was more like nine due to the dimensions, colors and shapes. She was glad that it would be low because it would be visible to everyone and would have a sense of scale. She thanked the Floretum Garden Club for their gift, commenting it would look great in that location. She thanked the artists for their gift of time and talent and she looked forward to seeing more of their art in Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the Floretum Garden Club for this generous donation that will add to the fabric of Edmonds as an arts community. She thanked the artist and fabricator and she looked forward to the installation, anticipating it will be a great piece for all seasons. Councilmember Tibbott said he also loved the design, noting when he looked at it in committee last week, he did not realize it was 3-D which will an exciting addition to the City. He thanked the Floretum Garden Club for all their work in the City, not just this art project. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 51 7.1.a Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said the artwork was beautiful, noting she was a mosaic artist herself. She asked if the piece would be assembled on site. She has sold many mosaic stained glass pieces over the years and described an experience where her custom design was mass produced without her approval. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, said she adores this piece of art, and thanked Jennifer Kuhns and Abe Singer. She looked forward to seeing the art, finding it a wonderful way honor the Floretum Garden Club's 100' anniversary. She thanked Ms. Chapin for everything she does for the City and the council for their overwhelming support for this artwork. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the response to Councilmember Chen's comment that there are no spaces in Highway 99 area, and expressed the hope that the City realizes that is a decision that is made, not to create space for art in the Highway 99 area. Hearing that as a reason why artwork cannot be placed on the Highway 99 corridor compounds previous inequitable land use decisions. As the City grabbles with inequity, the lack of spaces should be examined as a reason not to cite resources in an area. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE DONATION OF THE ARTWORK BY JENNIFER KUHNS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX SITE AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM THE FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC ART COLLECTION FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. Council President Olson said although this was the first time this has come to full council, it was presented to council committee last week. Councilmember Paine recalled the council has discussed not moving things forward the same night they are presented to council. As the council may receive additional comments, she suggested delaying a week and have approval scheduled on next week's consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO PUT THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CIVIC PARK PUBLIC ART PROJECT Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin explained the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) also works on public art projects and is charged with advising and making recommendations to the mayor and city council. In February 2020 a call to artists for Civic Park with a total artist budget of $90,000 was approved by city council for an integrated design project that included two contracts, 1) design work, and 2) final design specifications and fabrication. Tonight is an opportunity to look at the concept proposal developed by the artist, Clark Wiegman, who was selected for this project. The history of the selection process is included in the agenda memo. The artist will present the design proposal he developed during the design phase of the contract. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 52 7.1.a Ms. Chapin continued, Mr. Wiegman has extensive public art experience and has worked in many communities on artwork that connects a unique site to the broader vision of the community. In the case of Civic Park, the site for art was specified by the landscape architect team. The main entry off 6t' Avenue where there is a small plaza, restrooms and a large shade structure was designated as the focus for the artist in developing a conceptual design. Under the design contract, the artist participated in meetings with the park design team (Walker Macy and staff), a variety of citizens and community groups including meeting twice with the EAC and presenting to the Diversity Commission and Youth Commission. Two well -advertised Zoom meetings were held to look at designs and provide comments. Key takeaways from the meeting included positive comments about making a broader level connection to the local environment and the inclusion of a broader community, the use of vibrant color, and the eye-catching nature of the interplay between a suspended element and the wall graphics. In addition to meeting with community members, the artists also researched the site and its history in developing the conceptual design. Ms. Chapin continued, Mr. Wiegman presented his concept at the March EAC meeting where it was recommended to city council for approval. Under the public art process, the EAC recommends the conceptual design to council for approval with a public hearing; following the public hearing, council consideration of approval of the proposed design concept and authorization for the mayor to sign the fabrication contract with the artist for the remaining $72,000k. The next phase of the project is the design detail specification fabrication and installation of the artwork. This is an opportunity to hear from the artist about his concept proposal for the site at Civic Park. Clark Wiegman commented it has been an interesting process over the last four months, talking to people at various community groups, spending time in Edmonds and checking out the green infrastructure. He was impressive to find so many areas of natural preservation, something that deserves celebration and highlighting. He described the process of developing the proposed concept, Cascadia — a conceptual design for public artwork at Edmonds Civic Park. The past four months have included sorting through scope of work and defining artwork opportunities, establishing infrastructure needs, managing budgetary constraints, delineating a background research framework, figuring out community outreach strategies and developing a deeper understanding of the overall context. It was decided early on that the opportunity for greatest impact involved using the shade structure as an armature for a suspension and the restroom wall as a canvas for a super graphic artwork. Luminous iconic form, vibrant color and organic patterning within a larger architectural frame will harmonize these elements as a bold, cohesive aesthetic statement. Plaza entry ramp plantings that feature spring and summer blooming, fall color and winter interest varieties could reinforce a palette established by nearby art and architecture. Background research and community outreach informs an initial conceptual approach. This work draws on a range of online resources, books on local history, conversations with residents and business owners, several public meetings with stakeholder groups and numerous walks through Edmonds downtown cultural district, waterfront and parks. It has also involved introspection and culling of memories about the area gathered over the past 40 years when he first encountered Edmonds via the ferry after an extended Olympic Peninsula backcountry camping expedition. Given pandemic restrictions surrounding in -person, large group meetings, the ability to elicit early feedback has been somewhat limited. Since community outreach is a significant aspect of this project, he is trying to incorporate into the design development process a means for ongoing engagement. Several options exist for continuing community dialogue while collaboratively developing the artwork. One, simply a continuation of meeting with various individuals and groups, both in -person and online to elicit further input. Another involves the creation of a survey that could provide responses to project - specific questions. A third approach might be a community -based blog, podcast and/or website that could track progress, share photos, videos and field recordings and solicit suggestions for further investigation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 53 7.1.a The overall intent is to create a sense of anticipation and excitement for the community to be able to assemble publicly and celebrate the end of a rather dark chapter of civic life. The answer to the riddle at this new park became apparent as he visited Edmonds numerous other parks, green spaces, streams, ponds and shoreline areas, revealing a deep green infrastructure that knits together the City's biologic fabric. Of course, the other looming natural presence is Puget Sound. This relationship between land and water is an ongoing theme in his work and one he wants to explore further here. As a strategic promontory and large marsh land framed by dense conifer forest, the area was a favorite fishing and foraging area for various tribes. The fact that indigenous people inhabited the region for millennia before the arrival of white settlers should be cause for some introspection, particularly given the current imperiled stated of human civilization and the web of life upon which it rests. Reflecting on this deep sense of environmental stewardship is the root inspiration for his approach to this project, one that reflects not only a nostalgic past but a challenging present and a more hopeful future. What he initially described as a love letter to the Salish Sea is envisioned as a means to draw viewers into a material dialogue between form and shape, color and pattern, light and shadow, sound and silence, biota and habitat. In this multi -sensory discussion he is trying to strike a balance between iconic universality and locational uniqueness, particularly as it relates to Edmonds green infrastructure and vibrant downtown cultural district. The core lifeboat and seawall concept is reflective of these concerns as it invites viewers to contemplate their place within the natural world. Through the special relationship between an iconic boat and a luminous wall, he hoped to create a feeling of belonging to a larger bio region and to extend the gesture through ongoing community engagement to install a sense of caring for each other and our environs. He sees lifeboat as an archetypal form, an illustrious sculpture, multi -media suspension, an assemblage, a pattern container, a bright vessel, a luminescent shell, a floating totem, a beacon boat, an incandescent canoe, a vibrant kayak, a proverbial ark, a cedar dream, an urn, vase, envelope, stylus, quill, pen, brush, scribe, writing, rowing, flickering, flying, floating, drawing. A beautiful seawall that is a topographical map, a landscape painting, a meaningful mural, an expressionist canvas, a fantastic fresco, a scroll, terrain, an aerial view, a birds eye scan of watersheds, mountains, forests and a wonderous primordial natural world, writ as a luminous line in a letter, read around glowing embers of a warming hearth. Seawall serves as a luminous iconic way finder, a projection of a cognitive landscape, a satellite view of our bioregion, a mythical map of Cascadia, a meditation on a watery corner of the continent signifying a gathering place for families, friends and neighbors. Lifeboat can be seen as a cross-cultural universal symbol of human -powered water transport, a boat used recreationally or to carry cargo, a work research vessel, Brackett's canoe, a Salish skiff, a Nordic clinker, a Polynesian pontoon, an Uro totora, a Neolithic dugout, an elegant sculptural form offering an optimally expansive surface for patterning. It is an invitation to the community to collaborate, to look around and find signs of life that surround them. Log and record what you see and love, flora and fauna, plants and animals, outside our windows, beneath or feet, in gardens and trees, shared sea and common sky. Using the shade structure and restroom as mounting surface, suspension armature and shelter from the elements, he will be able to protect the artwork and expand the materials palette a bit. Final graphics, resin coated fiberglass and wood, stainless steel, aluminum, special effects RGB LED lighting and sound work are all well within reach under these conditions. The advantages of using vinyl graphs include the potential for bright color and complex digital patterning, offering easy replication and replacement with vector files in cases of vandalism or other damage. This also applies to all other materials used in the project as everything will be replaceable, qualities that may be appreciated in the future at a busy recreation park. Lighting will play a crucial role in the realization of the artwork as it will create an overall site presence day and night. Preliminary lighting studies for spotlighting the artwork have been done. In addition to spotlights, on both lifeboat and seawall, there will be some sort of internal illumination providing structural highlights and ceiling protection as well as the potential for sound. He is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 9 Packet Pg. 54 7.1.a currently looking at options involving programmable RGB LED gobos, LED image projectors and industrial MP3 players. The exact approach will be sorted out during design development along with vinyl graphics imagery for suspended and wall artwork. Other items requiring attention include finalizing color choices for shade structure and restroom and updates on planning suggestions, extending impact throughout the plaza with warm colored fall, winter interest and spring and summer flowering blooms in the entry planter. Further information about his work is available at Artifacture.org. Councilmember L. Johnson commented there was a lot to take in and she was still processing everything he said. She especially appreciated the use of light in the artwork and how it was tied into the Salish Sea. The thought put into this and tying it into the waterfront and Edmonds speaks volumes to his dedication. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for his work. She commented what some people do not recognize is that Edmonds is a coastal town. What Mr. Wiegman has done is phenomenal, will look great and she could hardly wait to see it come to fruition. She appreciated his realization that we are on tribal lands and that needs to be recognized and rejoiced in art. She thanked Ms. Chapin for her diligent work on this. Council President Olson said it was beautiful, noting the lighting makes a big difference. She loved that he used the side of the restroom for art, a space that otherwise would have been blank. Councilmember Paine thanked Mr. Wiegman and Ms. Chapin, commenting this is gorgeous art that will be well loved by the community. She recognized the opportunity to work closely with community members, commenting it was great to see it come together including the recognition that we are on tribal land. She looked forward to seeing the art installation and having him involved in art elsewhere in the City. She commented art is like the air we breathe, we really need it. Mr. Wiegman commented a big part of the project going forward will be to elicit more response from the community. He wanted people to share what plants and animals they see in their daily life and that surrounds them in the community which will be woven into the piece. There will be a big mapping and collecting of imagery throughout the process, a fun opportunity to engage the community at deeper level. Councilmember Paine commented that will be important, recognizing this art will impact more than just Edmonds; it is an attractive park that will draw people from throughout the region. Councilmember Chen thanked Mr. Wiegman and Ms. Chapin, commenting the presentation was very deep. He has heard several comments acknowledging we reside on indigenous land and that the artwork takes that into consideration. He asked if there had been any outreach to the indigenous community seeking their input. Mr. Wiegman said there has not been any formal outreach to the local indigenous community, but there have been concerns raised in the arts community, including by himself, about appropriation. He specifically created a piece that has more universal appeal in that regard; it is not utilizing any local Native American imagery. It is driven by what he sees as an appreciation for the natural world and respect for the land, water, air and environment. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Wiegman for participating in the 2-year artist selection process and thanked Ms. Chapin for orchestrating the process. She represented the council on the committee and appreciated the dedication of all the artists, particularly during the pandemic years. This site, the former junior high school athletic fields, is very special to her and many in the community. She recognized that he had not taken a literal representation of the site, but hoped his graphics would incorporate some of the nature elements such as the sphagnum moss, Pleistocene fossil record as this was an ancient lake bed, and Canadian geese who visited the site in more recent years. She appreciated the incorporation of a 3-D element and lighting as well as color and coordination with local plantings. She looked forward to the ongoing record of shared experiences. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 10 Packet Pg. 55 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO PUT APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DESIGN CONCEPT CASCADIA BY CLARK WIEGMAN FOR CIVIC PARK PUBLIC ART PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FINAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND FABRICATION CONTRACT FOR $72,000 ON THE MARCH 22ND CONSENT AGENDA. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Al Snap expressed appreciation to Councilmember Chen for raising the question about whether there had been consultation with the people who invoked the land acknowledgement statement made at the beginning of the meeting to get a sense from them about some of the choices. He liked the overall design such as the bio-imaging and found the wall terrific. He was unclear whether the image would remain the same or if it will change with projection as different images were shown in the presentation. He liked the image that was more bold. He liked the patterning on the canoe to add a graphic element to the sculpture and it connected well with the picture of a starfish. When he first saw the design, the canoe reminded him of an canoe that an enthusiast today might paddle in the sound. He liked that the paddles were similar to a traditional canoe, recognizing the artists thoughts about not appropriating it to something, a good basis for thinking further about the actual shape. He suggested getting input on the size of the canoe, noting non - recreational canoes are a lot bigger. The presentation showed many canoes that are right -sized for the design. He wished the artist great success, commenting it was a great art piece to put at the entrance to the new Civic Park. Lesly Kaplan, Edmonds, EAC member, was thrilled Mr. Wiegman was selected and found his plan wonderful and inclusive. She liked his reference to the deep green infrastructure and that it takes into account millennia of indigenous people in the area before white settlers came which is all emmeshed in this broad environmental world. The art balances large, universal ideas with the Edmonds green infrastructure and vibrant culture. It is called lifeboat and seawall; she saw the boat as a thin barrier between the person and the water, riding the currents of life and the oars working together as the community, an incredible metaphor. The artist has engaged the community with this multisensory vision, allowing them to think about the land and environment. She recognized the many layers in the artwork and the patterning that invites one to look deeper. She was thrilled the artist has tried to reflect the amazing place of Edmonds and the community. The artwork is vibrant and deep and invited collaboration which he intends to continue. This will long be remembered as a wonderful piece of art that others will be jealous the City has. She hoped the council appreciated it as much as she did. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, thanked the artist, commenting people make beautiful objects and objects to make people think; he has definitely strived to make a piece of art that starts a broader conversation. She echoed Councilmember Chen's comment that no formal outreach was made to indigenous groups and a previous commenter who stated it was an indigenous artwork, but it is not. She commented on the importance of indigenous people's ability to tell their own story. She was concerned with the strength of imagery around the Salish Sea and the boat itself and the telling the story being one of the Edmonds community and not indigenous people and recommended seeking indigenous collaboration as the development of the artwork moves forward. With regard to the comments about deep green infrastructure and being guided by the plants and animals we see in our daily lives, she pointed out south Edmonds and the SR-99 corridor have zero acres of open space. With regard to his comments about visiting parks, she pointed out they are primarily concentrated in one area of the City. With no open space in south Edmonds or SR-99 corridor representing over 12,000 people, she questioned whether the artwork represented them. She questioned whether the artwork represented the City when most residents do not live with a waterfront. She suggested having a larger conversation about what it means to be the civic center and place for all. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 56 7.1.a Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, commented the proposed art was gorgeous. She agreed with the point made about speaking with the Tulalip Tribe, recalling her years working with them as an outreach worker. She found them to be very nice people and suggested speaking with the chief. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Chen said based on public comments and his own concerns, he wondered if Mr. Wiegman and Ms. Chapin would be willing to do more outreach to the indigenous people as well as get input from citizens in eastern Edmonds. Mr. Wiegman said outreach is built into the project, but did not anticipate further outreach changing the design or the approach. There has been a great deal of community outreach to get to this point. The framework is broad enough and he steered away from doing something specific to the central core. This is a universal theme that stretches well beyond Edmonds and speaks to the region. He welcomed more input and community engagement, but hoped that would not hold up a decision to move forward to meet the schedule for design, fabrication and installation. He summarized there is definitely opportunity for additional community input. Ms. Chapin said what is interesting about Mr. Wiegman's approach is in going to final design specifications, he has built in a process for a lot more community outreach. The timing is good as it will be possible to meet and engage with people in person. There is a lot of opportunity for input in the next phase of the final design work, working within the framework presented tonight. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER CHEN ABSTAINING. 3. 2022 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ONE HOUR AND CONTINUE IT TO MARCH 22ND IF IT EXTENDS OVER AN HOUR. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser, provided an introduction. Steve Duh, Conservation Techniques, provided an overview: • Planning Forward o The PROS Plan is a 6-year guide for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails, and recreation opportunities for the Edmonds community. o Plan adoption required to retain eligibility for state & federal grants • Relating to Citywide Plans Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 57 7.1.a Comprehensive Plan Citywide Strategic Plan Transportation Plan Community Cultural Plan Highway 99 Plan PROS Plan Economic Tactical or 5tormwater Plan Development Plan Functional Plans Urban Forest Climate Action Plan. Management Plan water System Plan Integrated Pest Civic Center Aquatic Recreation Operational or Management Playfield Site Feasibility Cost Recovery Plan Master Plan Study Plan Program Plans • RCO Plan Requirements o Inventory o Public involvement o Needs analysis o Levels of service analysis o Goals & objectives o Capital improvement program o Plan approval (6-year cycles) Community Engagement Surveys Planning Board & City Public Council Meetings Informed, o Community Survey ■ Total responses: 1,958 - Random -sample mail: 501 (20%) - Online community -wide: 1,457 0 2 Virtual Public Meetings ■ - 60 Attendees participated o Website / Social Media ■ Ongoing ■ Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish o Events & Tabling ■ Uptown Market Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 13 Packet Pg. 58 7.1.a 0 8 Planning Board sessions ■ Scope of work review: Jan 27th ■ Work session: May 26th ■ Update and Goals: Nov loth ■ Plan overview: Jan 12th ■ Public hearing: Jan 26th ■ Subcommittee session: Feb 3rd ■ Recommendation Review: Feb 9th ■ Public hearing: Feb 23rd o City Council sessions ■ Study session: Feb 1 st ■ Capital List (Parks & PW Committee) ■ Public Hearing Community Engagement Language of Choice Mar 8th Edmonds Yettu,eel Mexre.e_ t,geRl.am nw4..UII..won1 Ju.ln.,Yr �Iw OrRienand ansvrv, wuN, Z*10a 91i 4tr SW^t u.( i M {;q dt'l4Wd*Yg7l. e,I , Al 1 4YS1 ^:{I'-" —"m Lx e`.1 •InM Ufa_, 1 gNilg4 Parks, Recreation reptsa�xx �rodsla�q +*e wad;Rt. q rIIK 9WL�ulti r;u & Open Space P P al•ru Tram c (PROS) Plan a<rme.a., s,npwueen,i.aa.,l>��u I.m,a'mgen. we«wle uta le Owen m lna.aawl. wrnrd.wa,ndwx,.v. ok.>e drm e„ {nK £�q,a#nl xe^-��InIiF IFM�1.'. Si�Hr}g, R@dlCa}Interprelauon 1 � ao�a�aae��u;, aazh�tne.a;5�w�fwia.. a���acl€�,Yhl�i��ta f1 �3f�iE4rA9{R�{*h z:sa-cn:...rl va.s...wd..�aw.•.mesnmm...�,o,m. an,..Wa', n.uak re.le,em a. o..p.eeuorien b pminlc,o.mbpril.lb ex+temav a,daeaew ae,ea ex.unw, We want to hear from you! Ana E..e ce�d� 2022 City a>f Edmonds PROS Plan O°m p°a10 ,.,arm rm.exam,. �,k.a�a mmn,.n'a�=ee,. n:xiFm.,em en�h�re .R wa>em euu aner m wa l��I�sd,ae ou pawiq nenerc�smren�en:mnr ie men e. rFo.a a wee Whatisthe Edmonds PROSPIan7 weam<.m.axas.n m.wg�gamcrAded+g w'w= ezE /wv mvnet p'say�mxmrtva nLnopwnine mjvnvageo,.,g xniu, u'e{ananaiexrceum,syx�nn ei.liwroryfi®esuAies ,mwgw rc�x e.e reeM,. ° ipEem..,e.axosre Learn more about the plan, including upcoming events ®.— .nv Community Feedback o —2,000 engaged respondents 0 99% feel parks and recreation is essential or important 0 81 % visit Edmonds parks at least a couple times per month o Priority improvements to park system ■ Connect gaps in the trail system & expand trail connections ■ Improve or upgrade existing parks and amenities ■ Buy more conservation & open space lands ■ Renovate or replace the pool ■ Community events, such as outdoor movies and summer concerts Draft Plan Revisions o Inserted new goal and set of objectives related to climate change/environment o Expanded and clarified goal and objectives related to diversity, equity & inclusion o Inserted content to emphasize community partners and stewards o Expanded content about Underwater Dive Park, Sno-Isle Edmonds Library, Cascadia Art Museum and Edmonds Marsh • Key Recommendations o Acquisitions to fill gaps and for conservation ■ Secure additional parkland in south and southeast Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 14 Packet Pg. 59 ■ Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas (e.g., wetlands, forests, stream corridors) o Parks Development and Upgrades ■ Playground replacements at Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park &Yost Memorial Park ■ Add amenities to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park & Pine Street Park o Trail and Bikeway Connections ■ Acquire easements & rights -of -way for trail connections o Yost Pool Replacement ■ Refine options for replacement of Yost Pool o ADA and Accessibility Enhancements ■ Remove barriers and improve universal access to and within parks, natural areas and trails o User Convenience Improvements ■ Upgrade or replace restrooms; improve signage & wayfinding Next Steps o City council review & approval (March 22, tentative) Ms. Feser reviewed the 2022 PROS Plan Planning Board and Staff Revisions Table (Attachment 4) organized by item and subject matter, revision number, info/current content/proposed revision, and PROS Plan Revision. The table reflects notable revisions which are incorporated into the PROS Plan version #6 as provided to council for their review and consideration for approval. The matrix identified revisions (in red) considered and suggested by Planning Board as part of their review and approved with their recommendation to council, and items (in blue) that are staff/consultant revision recommendations to the council. She highlighted substantial changes including the addition of Goal 6 to address environmental stewardship, sustainability and climate change; recognizing the Underwater Dive Park; language added regarding community stewardship, recognition of the marsh restoration plan, recognition of community partnerships; additions of tidelands to the inventory; and the possibility of bringing Southwest County Park into the City's system. She summarized the table demonstrates how public comment has been addressed in the current version of the PROS Plan. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the hard work and long hours on the PROS Plan and the efforts to revise and improve it via public input. Although he was pleased about plans to acquire land to fill gaps in the southeast part of the City, he asked if there was a specific timeline. Ms. Feser answered the CIP listed in the first draft of the PROS Plan identified projects and a timeline for the three proposed acquisitions. Property acquisition can be challenging and is often opportunity -based. When she took the capital program to the PPW Committee last week, the members preferred including a project list with a dollar amount for each project and not identifying expenditures over the six years which is acceptable to RCO. The list included in the PROS Plan is in alphabetical order by category and is not prioritized. Every year during the budget process, that lists informs the capital program. Staff is constantly looking and talking to property owners about potential purchases. To remedy the current gap, the priority is researching the south and southeast areas. If donations come up or partnerships arise outside of those areas, they will also be considered as well as waiting for the Unocal property to go on the market. Councilmember Chen recalled comments that ADA was also a priority. He has toured a few parks including Yost, Seaview and Mathay Ballinger where he noticed some small projects. A person with disabilities cannot wait for 6 years for the City to fix problem. He provided examples in Yost Park where a ADA portable restroom cannot be accessed by a wheelchair due to a step as well as another portable restroom by the racquetball court that was not ADA accessible and suggested swapping those facilities. Ms. Feser answered small ADA projects can be completed within the Parks maintenance budget and also within the citywide annual allocation of renovations. More than 20 projects have been identified from the PROS Plan and she was pleased to announce the issues with the portable restrooms at Yost Park were Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 60 7.1.a addressed two weeks ago. Councilmember Chen pointed out the ADA access at Mathay Ballinger Park could be solved by removing the ramp. Council President Olson thanked everyone involved, recognizing it has been a monumental undertaking by the Parks director, staff, Mr. Duh, the Planning Board, and an unbelievable number of citizens who aided in the process. She referred to the survey in the presentation and the statistical significance of the feedback from the random generated surveys as well as that the surveys from at -will contributors mirrored those results. She was glad to see the addition of Goal 6 in the Planning Board's recommendation regarding environmental stewardship. She recalled a staff member said you don't crowdsource safety; likewise, you don't crowdsource interest in environmental stewardship; it has to be a given and something that happens alongside other things the City is pursuing. She appreciated that recognition and hoped there would be a similar evaluation process of the input at the public hearing including any additional changes. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had never had a packet this complete in 12 years. She still had a lot of issues with the plan and recommended sharpening our pencils. There is no action plan like the 2016 format. Goals and objectives are great but without an action plan, councilmembers have no way of assessing what has been done. For example, she would like to see what has been accomplished between 2016 and now. She asked if the survey was scientific, recalling it was done via Survey Monkey. Mr. Duh explained the 2500 surveys mailed to a random sample of the community, including multifamily and single family residents, was a statistically valid sample and there was a 20% response rate which was a substantial response. As Council President Olson mentioned, the responses from that were the baseline that the broader online version added to and provided a wider sample that was consistent with the statistically valid random sample. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Survey Money was not a scientific study, someone with 12 devices could put in 12 different comments. Mr. Duh said it was tracked for IP addresses. Councilmember Buckshnis said there are a lot of older people and scientists who do not fill out surveys. She noted some people were upset because they did not fill out the survey. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not understand why nearby regional parks were not included and why the City did not have more ILAs such as with Mountlake Terrace for Lake Ballinger Park, Lynnwood for Gold Park, or Snohomish County for Esperance Park or Southwest County Park. She agreed with purchasing open space in other areas of the City. Ms. Feser answered the City has ILAs with Lynnwood for Lyndale and Meadowdale Parks and can explore options with Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County. There is an objective that encourages relationships for shared facilities with neighboring jurisdictions and shared resources is definitely something to explore. She noted people do not stop at an arbitrary line if a park is in another city; people use parks that are convenient to them as evidenced by people who come from throughout the region to the City's waterfront parks. Mountlake Terrace has a master plan for the Lake Ballinger Park and are making improvements on the east side. The west side that abuts Edmonds and the interurban Trail is early in the design phase and there is opportunity for conversations about partnership opportunities. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did a white paper for the Planning Board about goals, objectives and action plan that somehow got lost but has since been found that she will share with Ms. Feser. Councilmember Tibbott said he has asked if there was a way to identify parks where the City has ILAs such as Meadowdale playfields; many people are interested in playfields and fields are a huge part of equity and an inclusive resource for families. He observed Lake Ballinger was not listed as open space, but the map shows a line going through the lake and around the island that includes the shoreline. He wondered if it would be appropriate to include that as open space because a portion of the lake is in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 61 7.1.a Edmonds. With regard to Southwest County Park, he said it would be worthwhile to find out what a transfer of ownership or acquisition would involve. Some citizen volunteer groups are eager to be involved in improving the park. That park would instantly increase the open space in the City. Ms. Feser asked Mr. Duh to address how open water would be included in the PROS Plan, noting Mr. Duh also did Mountlake Terrace's PROS Plan so he is aware of their facilities. Mr. Duh agreed the Edmonds city limits includes about 1/3 of Lake Ballinger. If the council wanted to incorporate that water area, he recommended noting it as aquatic open space and not terrestrial space that could be developed so it is clear it is additional water acreage versus land that could potentially be developed as playgrounds or fields. Councilmember Paine asked if having aquatic open space would dilute the amount of acreage for park land. Mr. Duh suggested non -terrestrial acreage not be counted as open space for the purpose of calculating levels of service, advising that another line item could be created. Councilmember Paine asked if that would apply to other areas where there could not be a built environment or active recreation such as the Edmonds Marsh where a lot of it would not be available for public use. Mr. Duh said the Edmonds Marsh is counted as open space because the public can walk or view a portion of it and experience its wild nature. The marsh does include wetlands but it is currently counted as terrestrial upland. Council President Olson recalled that was an issue with the Dive Park and asked if that would be annotated in a similar manner. Mr. Duh said the Underwater Dive Park is not currently included in the calculation of level of service for open space. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Al Snap expressed a great deal of appreciation to Ms. Feser and Mr. Duh and others who worked on this amazing plan. It covers a great deal and is evolving toward a final draft. He thanked them for the maps which he found very helpful in understanding the different elements. He like seeing what had been added since the version he previous looked at and was glad there was more than a line item mention of the marsh. He was glad about the ADA and equity and inclusion elements, and was surprised there was nothing about environmental stewardship and climate change. The goals and objectives are fairly general. He would like the council to incorporate comments received and include either an action plan or priorities. A good criteria to use in prioritization would be to focus on what is widely used by the community such as Yost Park, Yost Pool, and City Park. He was glad the momentum created by those passionate about supporting and developing the Edmonds Marsh would be more fully represented in the plan. That is a huge unique resource, a habitat unlike any other, as well as a resource as a teaching tool. He was also glad to see the acquisition of Unocal in the plan. He hoped trails would be expanded, but also respect natural habitat. More important that Southwest County Park, would be the acquisition of Perrinville Woods. Greg Ferguson said each council meeting begins with a statement acknowledging the original inhabitants of Edmonds; that statement should have real world meaning. Federal courts have forced very reluctant state and local governments to honor tribal treaty fishing rights as well as upheld the concept that without fish, those rights are meaningless. Three of the four streams that should be accessible to salmon in Edmonds are blocked; the flows of Perrinville, Willow and Shellabarger Creeks are diverted into pipes. One of the ways to live up to legal and moral obligations to original inhabitants is to bring salmon back to those streams and restore watershed and convert the Edmonds Marsh back into a functioning saltwater estuary. Parks can play an important role in doing that. Next, losing the Unocal property to development will be tragedy for generations to come. Mayor Nelson, many councilmembers and Parks agree with this, but there needs to be a plan for the property. The first step in acquiring funds to buy it is to have a plan. There is a lot of money available throughout the region, for example the recent Save Our Sounds bill Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 62 7.1.a allocates $50 million/year for Puget Sound recovery. He did not want the City to lose that property for lack of preparedness, noting it could become available at any time. The original PROS Plan did not address multiple environmental issues such as greenhouse gas reduction, halting streambank failures, complete marsh restoration and tree planting were not included. To Ms. Feser's credit, many are now referenced in PROS Plan goal statements. However, this should not happen again; there need to be mechanisms in place to ensure City government planning documents and City operations themselves include the environment as an important goal. The community's strong environmental ethic needs to be reflected by City government. Bill Derry, Edmonds, representing Pilchuck Audubon Society, spoke in support of the PROS Plan with requests for revisions. He commended Ms. Feser, staff and the consultant for their efforts. First the Edmonds Marsh is a regional asset and important to birds, salmon and people. It should have a higher priority within the City. The master plan for the marsh and estuary restoration should be accelerated in the 6-year CIP. The Unocal property should be acquired when available with appropriate precautions for contaminated property. Substantial funding from state and federal sources is available for this project. He characterized the PROS Plan as a modest or cautious plan; even if full implemented, Edmonds will still be far below the national average for acreage of city -owned parks for comparable sized cities, particularly for areas outside the bowl. The plan does not address the shortage of parks in the northern end of Edmonds. The recommendations in the plan are largely based on a survey of city residents; the language of the survey was biased in favor of active recreation projects and created unnecessary conflicts between active recreation projects and enviromnental or open space projects. This conflict is unnecessary because projects can be funded with different sources of money. There are many funding sources for salmon recovery and estuary restoration. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said we are not one Edmonds; one Edmonds cannot be bought with signs or words in a plan espousing equity but without actions of equity in the CFP. The revised CFP includes almost $40 million of investments in downtown and less than $10 million in unserved areas in south Edmonds and SR-99. These areas have a greater population than downtown and include the commercial center of the City and have less than 1/3-1/12 of the resources of other areas of the City. We cannot be one Edmonds when our tax dollars predominantly go to one neighborhood. When will the City realize that drawing red lines around areas of investment is the same as drawing red lines around areas that are not being invested in. Whatever the intent, the function of the Creative District is a legacy that the City and council should question. We cannot be one Edmonds when the entrenched interest of a single group is valued above meeting the needs of all residents. There is a clear service gap in south Edmonds and SR- 99; when buying and expanding the marsh towards Woodway was ranked with other park investments, it was identified as the lowest and second lowest priority by the online and mail -in surveys respectively. Buying additional parks for conservation and open space was ranked above by both surveys and when participants at the second community meeting were asked what communities should be prioritized for open space, 8 1 % prioritized Highway 99 and southeast Edmonds and 15% prioritized downtown. Ms. Seitz continued, over 2,000 people participated in the PROS Plan outreach that was designed to be inclusive. The lobbying councilmembers are hearing tonight is not inclusive and not representative. The people speaking now are those who understand power and are served by it. The City is prioritizing fish above the healthy outcomes of its residents. Lake Ballinger is the only fresh water body in the city that is gradient accessible to chinook, exceeding the fish resources of any other streams on the western side of the city. There is no reason that comprehensive plan and environmental goals could not be achieved there. She asked the council a fundamental question, what is worse, the 2016 PROS Plan that targeted feedback opportunities to the bowl at the expense of all other areas of the city, or the 2022 PROS Plan that sought and received feedback from across the City but did not value it when making line item funding decisions. She has done the research and given the numbers; the disparities across the City are evident. To become Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 63 7.1.a one Edmonds, the City needs to turn the words of equity into action. Only by valuing all residents of the City with resources where they live can the City ever become one Edmonds. Liz Morris, Friends of Edmonds Library, an independent non-profit that has promoted the critical role of the Edmonds library in the community for over 40 years, advocated for explicit inclusion of the Edmonds Library and Plaza in the final PROS Plan. Members of the Friends have advocated for several years to Parks staff to remove the obsolete book drop at the north entry of the Edmonds library facing Main Street. It has been out of commission for over a decade with visible rust and shabby siding. It does not convey the level of care the library deserves as an inclusive and prominent space of community development. They partnered with the Edmonds Arts Commission several years ago to articulate a vision for redesigning the library entrance with public art and have held a line item in their budget to contribute to this project for over five years. The City's 2020 adopted budget included $62,000 for public art installation at the library. This allocation supported a stated council priority to expand the arts for economic development. In early 2020 the EAC drafted a request for proposals to identify an artist to create the site specific commission for the library which was approved by council. The RFP stated, "The removal of the obsolete book drop structure is opening up possibilities to commission this artwork." Ms. Morris continued, at the time they were encouraged that the RFP and artist selection would provide an enforcement function for removal of the book drop but COVID hit and priorities necessarily shifted. They are fully aware of and sympathetic to the many constraints and competing priorities that City staff and councilmembers have faced during COVID-19 and are deeply grateful for the time, dedication and leadership of City staff who have kept the community moving forward in a very difficult time. They understand there are over 40 parks maintenance projects to be done with limited labor and resource capacity. They also believe what is made visible is valuable which is why they would like to have the work at the library explicitly addressed in the PROS Plan, particularly given the City's articulated commitments for this. She respectful requested that the removal of the obsolete book drop be incorporated in the final PROS Plan as a maintenance consideration for the Edmonds library and plaza and also requested the final plan include the installation of site -specific artwork as a capital improvement and planning opportunity. Filo Calvin spoke in support of Edmonds securing Southwest County Park for historical, environmental and safety reasons. Southwest County Park in the largest park in Edmonds at 117 acres, over twice the size of Yost Park. It was originally used as a hunting and fishing ground for the Southern Salish Indians and has archeologic artifacts within a few hundred yards of the park border. It was purchased by the University of Washington in 1861 who owned it for over a century and used for teaching medicinal plants. While owned by the UW, it was one of the oldest logging camps in the entire United States. In 1862 for instance, 1/3 of the population of Snohomish County worked harvesting timber from that park. The railway line was put through the park and was used from 1906 to 1916 and one of the first teams of donkeys was brought to the park in the early 1900s. When the county bought the land from the UW in 1971, they promised to maintain trails, remove litter and make the park friendly and safe for visitors. At the park entrance, the only sign shows trails on the south side of Olympic View which account for less than 20% of the five miles of trails throughout the park. Mr. Calvin continued, Snohomish County's website has a map that omits all historical trails and only includes the trail immediately adjacent to Olympic View Drive despite extensive trails throughout the park which appears on All Trails, Google Maps and other social networking sites. Trash is not collected and the only historical documentation of the park was put up by Eagle Scouts and has photos of logging camps actually located in Michigan. Snohomish County has been aware of the inaccuracy of the trail maps for over two years and has no plans to update them or to document the history of the park. With regard to the environment, the park has remnants of old growth forest and is home to owls, coyotes and the occasional bear. Perrinville Creek crosses through the park and extensive erosion in the park has Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 64 7.1.a contributed to flooding of houses on Talbot Road. The construction of concrete structures and pollution from runoff have removed salmon from Perrinville Creek. The City set aside funds to restore salmon to Perrinville Creek, but it is unlikely to be able to do so without fixing some of the issues affecting the creek itself as it crosses through the park. Snohomish County has done nothing to fix the problems, removing invasive species has been done by volunteers, and there is litter throughout the park. With regard to crime and safety, visitors regularly get lost in the park and several times a week he sees people who need to be directed back to the parking. Neither the EMTs nor police know the trails in the park. Sometimes the park is used for drug deals, graffiti and vandalism and the county has done nothing regarding these issues. At 9:36 p.m., Mayor Nelson observed this item began at 8:36 p.m. and based on that time, he suggested taking one more comment before continuing the hearing to the next meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the vote was on the length of the public hearing which opened at 9:17 p.m. or if it was on the item itself. She understood it to be the public hearing. Council President Olson suggested the council revote; her intent was the agenda item which was set for 60 minutes but she did not use those words in her motion to provide that clarification. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO TAKE ONE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 22ND. Councilmember L. Johnson spoke against the motion, commenting councilmembers are here and prepared and there are people ready to comment, many of whom probably understood it the same way she did, that there would be an hour worth of comments. She supported honoring that and continuing to hear from the public. Councilmember Paine observed there were 10 additional people waiting to comment and it would be helpful to hear from them tonight. She did not support the motion. WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AMENDED THE MOTION TO TAKE 10 MORE COMMENTS. Council President Olson noted there are items on the agenda under Council Business that are time critical so unless the council wanted to be here until midnight, the public hearing will need to be continued unless there are just ten more comments. Councilmember L. Johnson spoke against the motion, pointing out people are here and prepared; the fact that there is a lot on the agenda is on the council. The public showed up to speak and deserve an opportunity to speak. If the council needs to do its business on another day that could be considered, but the council needs to finish the public hearing regardless of whether there were only ten more people to speak. Councilmember Paine agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson, noting as the council has been talking, other members of the public have raised their hands to speak. It would be most helpful and advantageous to have the public hearing all done at once. Councilmember Chen said although he understand the importance of the public hearing, he also understood there were some very critical items on the agenda, including revising the meeting format. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 65 COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO MOVE UP THE ITEM REGARDING MEETING FORMAT AND THEN CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis said she also interpreted that the public hearing aspect would be an hour which would have ended at 10:17 p.m. She supported allowing an hour, noting the council has already wasted five minutes talking about it. Council President Olson relayed although she was not able to reach all members of the public, she email key players who have made comments about the PROS Plan about her plans to limit comments tonight because she knew he would be a very long public hearing. Councilmember Paine commented now that this meeting belong to the entire council, sending out an email seemed very inappropriate. Council President Olson said she did not send it during the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO STICK TO ORIGINAL TIMELINE OF ONE HOUR, AND THE CUT OFF TIME WOULD BE 10:17. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL QUESTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON NO. A roll call vote began on the motion but was interrupted. Council President Olson requested clarification, advising the 10:17 time did not reflect the original one hour. The motion was one hour total. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the public hearing began at 9:17 p.m. which means it would have ended at 10:17 p.m. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested the motion be restated and the council vote again because that was not clear. Council President Olson raised a point of order, suggesting the motion be restated and councilmembers have an opportunity to change their vote. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Mayor Nelson restated the motion, to extend for one hour for public hearing testimony. Council President Olson raised a point of clarification, asking if that would be until 10:17 p.m. Mayor Nelson clarified it would be one hour of public testimony, starting when public testimony began. Council President Olson added that was 9:17 p.m. Councilmember L. Johnson offered to amend the motion, for the public hearing portion to be a full hour and to subtract the council's discussion from that time. Councilmember Chen said his original proposal was to extend the public hearing until 10:17 p.m. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Marjorie Ziff, Edmonds, thanked the City for the hard work putting together this plan. She attended a symposium today with over 600 people from around the world who came together with an urgent, deep Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 66 7.1.a desire to halt or significant slow the degradation of the planet's natural world. Tears were shed; parents told stories of how they went back to their hometowns where they made life -changing memories exploring the woods or watershed, only to find these wild areas completely gone, replaced by roads and buildings. One father was quite emotional when he shared there is nothing left to show his son about how he thrived in the woods. These hometown stories struck her deeply as she thought about Edmonds, this meeting and what hangs in the balance. She thanked the City for keeping protection of open spaces a high priority, spaces she refers to as wild spaces. Edmonds is so fortunate to have the Edmonds Marsh Estuary, a gem and vital habitat for wildlife and the exciting potential she assumed would happen when Edmonds acquires and makes use of the Unocal property. After reading the draft PROS Plan, she respectfully suggested there were details about the marsh and other wild spaces that needed to be spelled out. For example, there is nothing written about the salmon habitat restoration as a high priority; it would be wonderful to see detailed plans about creating daylight conditions for salmon spawning and that would be true about all other endangered watershed areas including Southwest County Park. She wanted her children's children to come back to Edmonds with pride and joy in the way the wild spaces have been valued and protected. She hoped the City could move forward with urgency due to the high priority. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Chen that it was beginning to look like a park at Lake Ballinger but there was not even close to enough equipment to satisfy the number of children that would be in that area when large complexes were built on Highway 99. Annexing Esperance is an opportunity and will provide tax dollars to Edmonds. With regard to Yost Park, she read that maintenance on the trails would not be addressed for 4-5 years. If the City wanted to build a pool, she suggested it be indoor so it could be used year round. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, said she has been speaking to the council for nearly 40 years about the Edmonds Marsh. She wanted children to experience trees, marshes, bushes, garter snakes and native plants and open space although she felt the term open space was meaningless. She has spent the last 10 years getting the demonstration garden going and it was replanted last weekend. She commented on the importance of Skunk Cabbage. The natural world is important for all children and adults and not based on where they live. She wanted to ensure the language was written properly, the marsh is not being developed, it is being restored to repair the damage done over the years when the oil tanks were constructed and polluted the area and stuff was dumped in the creeks during the 1950s. Constructing more buildings will not correct that and will not provide places for children to play. She summarized the importance of the natural environment. Selena Bolotin, Edmonds, thanked the Planning Board for formally recommending the city council consider the acquisition of Southwest County Park with additional research of impacts. Although mentioned only briefly in the review of the revision table, this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Planning Board and was a separate recommendation from the Planning Board's recommendations on the PROS Plan. City acquisition of the park is also in full alignment with the PROS Plan key recommendation #2, open space and conservation acquisitions. It was her understanding Snohomish County stands ready to transfer the park to Edmonds so there was no purchase price. Acquiring the 120 acre forest would increase Edmonds' overall park acreage of 230 acres by 50%. Within the open space category, land would increase from 76 to almost 200 acres. County records for 2019-2021 show park expenses average $9700/year with specific line items for staffing. Although the county's budget has resulted in the current level of neglect, this data also shows that maintenance of this undeveloped park would be minimal compared to other developed parks in the Edmonds system. Ms. Bolotin was in favor of additional parks in southeast Edmonds as well as saw no difference in the argument about cost and liability that has been applied to Southwest County Park acquisition in comparison to new park areas which would also require maintenance expenses, liability considerations and general park staffing increases. A stepped plan over several years to improve useability of Southwest Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 67 7.1.a County Park can be budgeted reasonably. She referred to her previous comments about how park acquisition meets many of the goals outlined in the PROS Plan under the open space category; she is now convinced that the true transformational value of owning Southwest County Park would be a City park administration attention shift. The PROS Plan lists under community stewardship current locations that have volunteer and stewardship activities; Southwest County Park is not included because it is not in the portfolio. She asked that the City give Southwest County Park legitimacy as an asset and make it visible. Bernie Bush said he was encouraged about the extensive dialogue and community involvement around conservation and restoration needs, recognizing it would take years before Edmonds had the opportunity to reclaim and restore the marsh estuary adjoining Edmonds park and marina beach. The City has the time to be well prepared when the opportunity presents itself to restore and develop the Edmonds Marsh into a functional wetland and estuary instead of a marsh. The estuary and marsh are hugely important for conservation, they absorb more carbon dioxide than forests and of course there are the salmon, etc. To configure the adjoining marina beach, dog park and add restrooms and other facilities. The Edmonds Marsh and marina beach restoration and redevelopment will offer many more recreational and educational opportunities for the community and the county. He urged the City to include specific action items and timeframes in the PROS Plan when appropriate. Obviously it is an overarching plan but there must be ways to be more specific rather than TBD. Mr. Bush continued, the City must not waste the time we have; the extensive planning to design and fund this restoration and development is essential. The City will not be able to convince federal or state governments, private industry or non -profits to provide funds in support of this project without a viable, well -documented. There are many Edmonds volunteers including scientists and ecologists, ready to offer their expertise. The City needs to utilize their energy and knowledge now to help put a convincing design package together and engage potential funders. Now is the time to act; while time is still on our side. He urged the council to be proactive and utilize the skills of knowledgeable residents. Staff can create project work groups to sort through the multitude of issues that need to be addressed. It is the right thing for the community, the salmon and a variety of wildlife and will help save Puget Sound from the ravages of stormwater, wastewater and surface water runoff. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, thanked Ms. Feser and the parks department for their continued work on the PROS Plan, noting the summary of changes was very helpful. She also thanked councilmembers for their work wading through the huge amount of public comment. She was relieved the council extended the hearing time because she was concerned about people going to the trouble of preparing their comments and attending the meeting and not being able to speak. As the final version of the PROS Plan is being prepared, she was hopeful protection of the natural environment would be highlighted. Protecting the environment benefits all citizens wherever they live and should not be considered a neighborhood project competing with other neighborhoods. The City needs additional park land and she was glad to see land acquisition in the plan, but the council needs to support efforts to purchase environmentally significant property such as the Perrinville Woods. Purchasing land that protects watersheds and that will sequester carbon in the few remaining wooded areas has much broader impact than project such as an arts corridor. The City's finances are in good health and she supported using resources to benefit the health of the planet and citizens. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said when she first looked at the 232 page PROS Plan, she wondered how Ms. Feser was getting any time to sleep. She gave kudos to Ms. Feser and everyone who worked on getting the plan to the point it is now and to councilmembers as they begin determining how it needs to be tweaked. She was pleased to see the land conservation part [connection lost]. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 23 Packet Pg. 68 7.1.a Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the addition of goal 6 and the language that went with it as well as the focus on environmental stewardship. He recommended developing a restoration plan for Edmonds Marsh and explicit statements about enhancing natural amenities at playfields such as adding native plants and vegetation and labeling them to enhance people's thinking about environmental stewardship. He wondered if the plan could acknowledge sponsoring a Highway 99 corridor green space panel to get citizens who live in that area together to help advise on greening that part of the City. He questioned how the plan would include recommendations from the ongoing salmon safe city review as they may develop recommendations that would impact how the City thinks about its parks, particularly the more natural areas. How will the plan reduce runoff and damage? How much carbon reduction will the plan produce? How can the plan help maintain residential community green spaces such as the Emerald Hill Natural Area and Trail that the citizens of Emerald Hills maintain? Those green spaces need to be recognized and helped. Kathleen Sears continued her comment, relaying her major concern was with the open spaces section. The open space area with the greatest future potential is the Edmonds Marsh. She urged the council and everyone to think bigger and not just think of it as a neighborhood park or just dumping money into downtown Edmonds. Last fall she visited Carkeek Park in north Seattle to see the wonderous spectacle of salmon returning up Pipers Creek to spawn. She urged those who had not seen that to make it a high priority this fall and take their children, grandchildren, friends, etc. Edmonds has the potential to have that. As the PROS Plan outlines the parks department's goals and objectives she eagerly scanned to see how restoration of the Edmonds Marsh estuary was described and prioritized. Although the wetland section briefly mentions the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek continues to be a high priority for protection and restoration efforts, she was disappointed there was no mention of returning salmon or improving the health of Puget Sound. Ms. Sears continued, the wetland section also mentions that acquisition of the Unocal property should be considered; however, it does not mention anything about supporting the return of salmon. She requested that be added to revised goals #11 and 12 and when council is deliberating, they focus on that as the reason to move forward with the marsh. The marsh is the only wildlife preserve in Edmonds and one of the few remaining pocket estuaries in Puget Sound and has unique needs and possibilities. When the wildlife sanctuary if restored and connected to the recreation area, it can contain nature trails, pedestrian bridges and boardwalks as well as stations for bird and nature viewing including migrating salmon. She imagined every child in the Edmonds School District having the ability to go to a place in Edmonds to see salmon returning to spawn, a truly remarkable sight. When visitors come from anywhere in the world to visit her in Edmonds, she takes them to the Ballard Locks which has something for everyone. Mikael Ohman, Edmonds, referred to Filo Calvin's comments about the history and historical importance of Southwest County Park and Serena Bolotin's comments about how the park fits into the PROS Plan priorities. This park was deeded by UW to Snohomish County in 1972 so the county has been managing the park for 50 years and they have done little with it in that time. The park is overgrown with invasive plants, Perrinville Creek is eroding, and there is no longer a salmon run. He referred to the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If Edmonds does not take over the park and own its destiny, the county will just do more of the same and not spend any money on it. Snohomish County has 120 other parks, 12,000 acres where they put their money and will not put it into an affluent area like Edmonds when other areas need it more. If Edmonds wants to take responsibility for the park, maintain and improve it, the City needs to take ownership of it. He suggested changing the name of Southwest County Park to something related to the Tulalip Tribe. Mayor Nelson advised the public hearing would be continued to next week's meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 24 Packet Pg. 69 7.1.a COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF COUNCIL BUSINESS AGENDA ITEMS AND START WITH ITEM 8.4, POSTPONE 8.3 TO A FUTURE DATE AND DO ITEMS 8.2 AND 8.1. Councilmember Paine supported leaving the agenda as is as there is City business first followed by council business which she felt was more appropriate. She did not support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 4. FORMALIZE THE TRANSITION TO HYBRID FORMAT FOR REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD AN IN -PERSON ELEMENT TO THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS WHICH THE GOVERNOR'S ORDINANCE ALLOWS THAT TO HAPPEN AT THE DISCRETION AND VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE THAT A PERMANENT ADDITION FOR THE COUNCIL TO PROCEED WITH A HYBRID MODEL FOR MEETINGS, ADDING AN IN -PERSON ELEMENT NEXT WEEK. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled a number things needed to occur in order to do this so it seemed appropriate to hear from City staff whether they were prepared to do this in way that would be successful. Council President Olson said this was coordinated earlier today via email. She asked Administrative Services Director Dave Turley or City Attorney Jeff Taraday to comment. Mr. Taraday said having read those emails, he was under the impression that staff was ready to have hybrid meetings beginning next week. Mr. Turley referred to the question whether staff was ready to support hybrid meetings from a technology standpoint, relaying everything related to technology would be in place next Tuesday. Councilmember Paine asked for an update regarding what the practice will be for executive sessions. Councilmember L. Johnson said the technology aspect was her biggest concern, but she echoed Councilmember Paine's questions about executive session. She wanted to ensure that things would run as smoothly as possible and had real concerns with Zoom bombing that had been experienced in the past and ensuring that was avoided. Council President Olson said based on comments she summarized and emailed for council information, it was unanimous that the council would not be able to see the faces of people calling in on Zoom or phones due to the danger of Zoom bombing and that wasn't a tradeoff people were willing to make. Council will be able to see people making in -person comments, but those utilizing the virtual option will not have their cameras enabled. GIS Analyst Dave Rohde has a plan for how executive sessions will handled. They will either be virtual or in person and instructions will be provided prior to the meeting, but that is not something that affects the public. The additional staff necessary is available to handle hybrid meetings. The HR Director sent out an email today regarding how mask mandates, public spacing and the other four questions that were raised at the last meeting would be addressed. The City will adhere to the state and Snohomish County guidelines, which will provide flexibility if things change. The council may want to take an official vote on that tonight. Councilmember Paine offered a suggestion proposed by Mr. Turley that executive sessions could be held on Tuesdays but they did not have to be immediately preceding a council meeting, it could be in the late Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 25 Packet Pg. 70 afternoon. That would require starting a meeting to announce the council was going into and then exiting the executive session but it provided an option to do executive sessions virtually. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Council President Olson for her emails addressing this. She recommended committee night be excluded from the hybrid format. Council President Olson said she will excluded committee night and have that handled separately. Mr. Taraday had some illuminating facts regarding committee nights that were not part of the discussion at the retreat. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AMENDED THE MOTION HAVE IT BE JUST FOR THE THREE REGULAR MEETINGS, THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH MEETINGS. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she had been having technology difficulties and asked if there had been an update provided by staff that they were ready for hybrid meetings. Councilmembers indicated that update had been provided. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND COUNTY GUIDELINES REGARDING MASKING, SOCIAL DISTANCING, AND VACCINE MANDATES. Councilmember Paine asked about specifics for distancing. Council President Olson said according to HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson's email today, there is no mandate regarding distancing. Councilmember Paine commented the entire City did not get that email. Councilmember L. Johnson understood those are the guidelines, but wanted it to be clear that everyone would have their own comfort level and wanted that to be respected even if there were no guidelines regarding distancing. She was hopeful if certain councilmembers and audience members wanted to observe distancing, everything would be done to accommodate it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson asked Mr. Taraday to speak about the OPMA as it pertains to committee nights, recalling there was consensus at the retreat to do those virtual only. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, advising the council had already voted and asked how Council President Olson's request fit into this agenda item. Council President Olson said the original item 8.4 in the packet included the issue of committee nights. It would not take very long and she suggested using a broad definition of what she proposed. If the council was unwilling, she was fine with moving on. Councilmember L. Johnson said the agenda is set and has been voted on and one individual does not decide to interject and change it. Council President Olson said she had not realized that was no longer included with the change to the agenda. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. 2. ASSISTANT CHIEF LEAVE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 26 Packet Pg. 71 7.1.a Police Chief Michelle Bennett said when she left the Sheriff's Office, she had 500 hours vacation and numerous hours of sick leave. These two individuals are leaving their previous agencies where they had a great deal of sick leave and vacation. When they are hired by the City, there is nothing set up to provide additional sick leave and vacation. Similar to when she was hired, the request is to front load them with 80 hours of vacation and 40 hours of sick leave. In addition, as described in an email earlier today, as the contracts were reviewed, it was noticed officers, corporals, sergeants and chief all have 4% deferred comp as a benefit, but the assistant chiefs have only 2.5%. In order to provide parity, she requested the assistant chiefs have the same deferred comp benefit. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO FRONT LOAD 80 HOURS OF VACATION LEAVE AND CHANGE THE DEFERRED COMP FROM 2.5% TO 4% TO PROVIDE PARITY WITH THEIR PEERS. Councilmember Buckshnis was unsure she saw the chief s memo but understood what she was saying. She assumed this had gone through the PSPP Committee, noting these were non -represented positions. Chief Bennett said she discussed this with HR Analyst Emily Wagener, HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson and the mayor and it was very similar to her contract. The positions are not represented by a union and HR is on board with her proposal. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the main motion did not include front loading 40 hours of sick leave. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND TO FRONTLOAD 40 HOURS OF SICK LEAVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CARRYFORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained all the items were included in last year's budget and for the most part represented items staff was unable to get to during 2021 so the proposal is to carry the budget authority forward to 2022, a standard practice done every year. All the decision packages were reviewed in detail at the Finance Committee and detailed information is contained in the packet. The amendments will increase budgeted revenue by $9,615,438 and increase budgeted expenditures by $22,164,032. He could either review the amendments, council could ask questions or council could approve the ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson said one carryforward budget amendment was not included in the packet. She asked if it could be added via a motion from the floor or would there be another opportunity with the second quarter amendments. Mr. Turley said he planned to have another budget amendment at the April 12' Finance Committee and April 19t1i full council. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would save it for that amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Finance Committee reviewed each amendment, asked questions and recommended forwarding the amendments to council. She suggested if council wanted to save time, they could just ask questions. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON. TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4250, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4249 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 72 TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. SALARY COMMISSION REINSTATEMENT This item was postponed to a future meeting. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's Day. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Tibbott encouraged the community to support Edmonds schools by supporting the Edmonds School District Foundation fundraiser this week. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation to citizens for reaching out to her to provide information on the PROS Plan. It was a very labor intensive document, but it was very helpful to hear everyone's comments. She was sorry the council was unable to hear comments from everyone, but next week the council meeting will be in person which may be a fun opportunity to provide comment during the continued public hearing. She wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's Day and suggested saying hi to your loved ones. Council President Olson commented there have been times in the past where feedback has not always been as kind as it was tonight. She expressed appreciation to the public for the lovely job they did providing comment which made it possible to use that input to make a difference in the product. She hoped staff would take citizens up on their offer to form a task force if they need help sorting through any of the input, especially the citizen task force regarding greening Highway 99. Councilmember Paine thanked the artists for bringing joy and color into the community and hoped that could continue in all parts of the City. She recognize Susie Schaefer, a resident and activist, who was featured in the Everett Herald on Sunday as a preeminent birder. Her legacy is well documented in the Everett Herald where she is often featured. Councilmember Paine suggested the public hearing be the first item on the agenda next week so the remaining 6-7 people had an opportunity to speak and allow the public hearing to be concluded fairly quickly and move on to getting the PROS Plan approved. She wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's Day COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND 5 MINUTES TO 10:50. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to her leaving the last council meeting and, in response to questions about why, she explained the fluctuation in the barometric pressure caused her a migraine making it difficult to read the screen or her notes. As she has said before, she believed councilmembers should excuse themselves when they are incapacitated either by sickness or pain; she stood by those words and left the meeting to attend to her health. As the council returns in person, she hoped everyone would continue to keep their health in mind and if they were not at their best and able to participate, and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 73 7.1.a especially if there was any question someone might have COVID, she urged them to stay home and use the virtual option, not risk exposure and to take care of themselves. Councilmember Chen wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick's Day. His heart continues to be heavy due to the Ukraine situation; up to 2 million refugees are fleeing the country and the situation will not improve any time soon. He asked the public to keep the Ukrainians in their thoughts and prayers and hoped there soon would be peace. He reported on the new artwork installed at Esperance Park that has lights and seats of hope. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the people who spoke at the public hearing regarding the PROS Plan. It was an opportunity to hear from many environmental activities and leaders. She assured she heard their support for open spaces and maintaining existing open space, for acquiring Southwest County Park to make it an Edmonds park, and for the Edmonds Marsh. She agreed the City needed to start planning for the eventual acquisition of that property and put together a game plan. There are many people interested and knowledgeable about that opportunity. The City also needs to update the right of first refusal which she did not know was time limited and is an essential element in the City's ability to acquire the land. She expressed her appreciation for the arts in Edmonds and looked forward to the new art installations, noting it was wonderful to hear from the artists tonight. 11111117\I With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 74 7.1.a Public Comment for City Council Meeting 01/18/22 From: Chris Koser Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 2:57 PM To: Council Subject:Please Put Our Email on Record! We are very opposed to approval of the application for the 24 unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main Street, ESPECIALLY with only one parking stall per unit. As life long citizens of Edmonds, it is a very high priority to maintain the charming, quaint, quiet downtown area of Edmonds. Chris and Arnt Koser 9509 Forest Dell Dr Edmonds From: Gayla Shoemake Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Parks and Recs Plan- Postpone Ratification Dear Edmonds City Council, I am concerned that the proposed plan for Edmonds Parks and Recs does not include sufficient action regarding climate change and its impact on our city environment, including the parks. While there is slight mention of climate change on 3 pages (84,85,91), carbon is mentioned only once and there is no mention of greenhouse gases, which includes methane, and other serious gases. There is no plan for how they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions within their own department (such as using only battery powered leaf blowers, electric powered trucks, etc.). Such a reduction would be easy to implement. Nor is there any mention of how they will prepare for sea level rising and how they will adjust to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 75 7.1.a increasing heavy storms in their plans. Again, some of these adjustments can be fairly simple and easy to add to the plan. After discussion at the public meeting about trees, there was only a reference to the Urban Forestry Management Plan, but no implementation actually included for trees. How will the Parks and Recs Dept address the serious reduction of our tree canopy? Will additional trees be planted in the parks; if so, which parks, who will decide which kinds of trees, and when they are planted. These trees can form excellent sequestration for the carbon and other greenhouse gases emitted in the future, and a fairly simple addition to the plan. I hope you will postpone acceptance of this plan until more of the comments (similar to mine above) from the public have been included in the plan. Thank you, Gayla Shoemake From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:38 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 240-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit. This building in no way reflects the desires of Edmonds' population or its comprehensive plan. Its proposed location does NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and we have seen the desecration the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see that happen here! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 76 7.1.a You are the decision maker on this issue. Keep it away from us ---- and please entertain no more similar proposals. Robert and Judith Cook 17122 72 Avenue West From: jane simspon Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:15 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street Dear Mayor Nelson, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development at the above addresses. The displacement of eight businesses will be a significant loss to the community. In addition, the proposed design, as I understand it, will be yet another soulless box so prevelent in urban areas recently. My husband and I are relative newcommers to Edmonds and one of the things that drew us to the community was the character of the downtown business district. We appreciate the variety of architecture and the repurposing of existing buildings for commercial use. Please do not let Edmonds go the way of Greenwood, Ballard and Columbia City. Keep the character of our downtown and support local businesses! Sincerely, Jane Simpson From: N Middleton Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 5:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 77 7.1.a Subject:Trash, Recycling and Yard Waste Hi, Please address these questions in your Tuesday, 1/18 meeting: 1. Why does the City have 3 different service providers for waste pickup? 2. When does Republic Services contract come up for review? 3. Can Republic contract be re-evaluated earlier, given the lack of service? 4. Will homeowners who are not getting pickups get refunds? 5. What temporary solution can the city come up with? Thank you. Norma Middleton lelajamesjoseph@gmail.com 425-775-3953 From: Will Magnuson Date: January 16, 2022 at 11:05:49 AM PST To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>, Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "LaFave, Carolyn" <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds Why is there never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to fix it later? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 78 7.1.a My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The class was called Urbanalysis and it's primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to remain viable, grow and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980's, the Seattle area was primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable regional city for our future. We loved this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence. The 1990's was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was slowly evolving to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the established way things were in Edmonds. I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to progress. Any effort by the public(city) or private(developer) to provide new development opportunities was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like "we don't want to be like Kirkland" or the extreme "don't let Edmonds become like Manhattan". Building heights became the battle cry for any discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods. There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and providing public or open spaces, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would support responsible new development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate overwhelmed the discussion thus leaving behind lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99 or anywhere else in Edmonds. As the Puget sound region continues to grow, pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed with new development to meet new opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I continue to be amused when someone states they "just want to keep Edmonds the way it is" even as many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds. We have far more opportunities for lifestyle, employment, recreation and entertainment as Edmonds remains a desirable location. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We must not shut the door on growth for fear of change nor should we expect that we can. The city of Edmonds will need to strive to continue to be competitive for sustained viability. Edmonds has a unique opportunity to witness the recent growth and evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore and elsewhere to find the successes, failures and challenges to manage growth. We're all in this together including the developers, city and community of Edmonds. Growth is going to happen, the only question is do we manage it or do we let it manage us? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 79 7.1.a Now we have a block style building of 24 apartment units proposed near 6th Ave on Main Street and located on a major gateway with an opportunity to set the tone for Edmonds. Will that be a welcome message to inclusivity, diversity and community? The city and community are in a difficult position to challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment based on existing codes and ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development standards and building codes to maximize it's financial potential for the property. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances should responsibly balance opportunities and benefits for the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future projects. It's not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is moving expeditiously to procure permits and proceed with work for this project as well as other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require community support, political will, and a municipal commitment to make that happen. Much should be done inclusive of reevaluating some governing departments and committees which at times appear to have evolved as the permit expeditors for a developer. It's important for a comprehensive review of the options available now for reworking development guidelines as this proposed redevelopment will establish a gateway for a very long time. I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown. The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It's the future of the city and the choice of how we proceed belongs to all of us. Will Magnuson Edmonds, WA From: Greg Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 4:23 PM To: Council; LaFave, Carolyn; Nelson, Michael; Clugston, Michael; Planning; robchave@edmondswa.gov; Lien, Kernen Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Proposed development 605/611 Main Street Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 35 Packet Pg. 80 7.1.a Hello Architectural Board members, Building Department officials, Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers, I'm writing in response to the recent Architectural Board meeting on January 5th concerning the application for construction on the 600 block of Main Street. I have grave concerns about the look and function of this building and how it fits into the landscape. It was helpful for me to hear Kernan Lien's explanation of the codes as related to the proposed design. Unfortunately, the plan is to maximize dwellings while providing minimal parking, minimal amenities to the occupants and minimal aesthetics. Not only does the design go sidewalk to alley straight up to the max 30' height creating a giant and imposing box, the developer wants to reduce the buffer on the east side so a minimal parking ramp and garage can be squeezed in. Adding insult to injury, the developer wants a concession to add a 5' parapet wall to the front of the building to hide HVAC to the street side. Further increasing the bulk, sun and view blocking of the adjacent properties. One parking space per dwelling unit for a mixed use project is the code. The problem is this isn't mixed use. It more closely mimics the RM-1.5 buildings a few lots up the hill. It's 100% residential! We all know the parking needs of a true mixed use building can be less than 100% residential. Thus the difference to parking code requirements. This seems to be a loophole in the code. Moving forward if a proposed building is truly not mixed use and 100% residential the parking requirements should be increased accordingly. The project has other problems and design flaws. The garage doesn't have adequate size for two spaces to turn inside the garage to head up the ramp. This looks insurmountable and likely will require a two unit reduction. NO concessions should be given when a developer is providing the absolute bare minimum for parking and other amenities. There is no outdoor space for the tenants, and I mean zero. No balconies, no courtyard, or anything close to 5% green space. Although Kernan has explained 5% green space is not required it should be. Without space it resembles some communist bloc housing I've seen. The developer has an opportunity to correct these mistakes. He should be encouraged to pull back from the street and give his tenants and pedestrians a little bit of breathing room. If the developer needs that one foot reduction in the buffer the entire length of the property to make the parking ramp work then the city should get something in return. How about a lid over part of the ramp thus providing some sorely needed open space at the ground level. A lid over the southeast corner of the parking ramp could provide ample outdoor space for tenants and eliminate the need for a fence around two sides of what would be a 9-10' deep ramp pit right on the sidewalk. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 36 Packet Pg. 81 7.1.a The site in question is in the BD2 zone which is also deemed a transition zone. Look at the renderings. This building does not appear to be transitional at all. It's a massive apartment building with no business or commercial space. In fact I'm hard pressed to find anything like it in any of the BD2 zones. The scale and use are totally out of place. So it appears the developer is trying to set a precedent. Is this really what we want our town to look like? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. We need to revisit the comprehensive plan and get everyone on the same page or this is going to get ugly real quick. Change is coming. Let's not fall into the trap of writing code one building at a time with concessions and variances granted along the way. The time has come to rewrite the comprehensive code. Who will lead us through the changes that are at our doorstep? How can concerned citizens be a part of the process? How long will the process take? How much irreversible damage will be sustained while we wait? Sincerely, Greg Brewer From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:41 PM To: Nelson, Michael; LaFave, Carolyn; Council; Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen; Clugston, Michael; Planning Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Proposed apartment complex on Main Street and 6th Ave To Architectural Board Members, Planning Staff, Council Members, and Mayor Nelson, Please do not allow Safadago's proposed apartment complex as designed on Main Street! Sixth and Main is the gateway to our quaint, historic, one -of -a -kind downtown. It has been the primary location for citizens and visitors for over a century to enter our downtown and it should be protected from inappropriate development. Yes, there have been changes and development over the years but for the most part the scene that we are greeted with has remained relatively the same, and the buildings have stayed small-scale and harmonious. This oversized building would drastically change that and set a precedent for things to come! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 37 Packet Pg. 82 7.1.a As we walk or drive down Main Street and approach downtown, our eyes naturally gravitate towards the beautiful, charming, special scene -- historic one to two floor buildings and homes, pretty gazebo fountain roundabout in the center, leafy green trees and colorful gardens and flower baskets that line the streets, the glow of the vintage -style street lamps, beautiful views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains off in the distance, and the cheerful green and white ferries coming and going. If this apartment complex gets built, this will no longer be the case. Our eyes will be assaulted by this large- scale, out of place blight. No one will be able to ignore an oversized, ugly, square box with three story straight up walls and flat roof, no style, detail, setbacks, open or green space, patios, balconies or courtyard. It will abut the sidewalk and street so will be in every pedestrian and driver's line of vision. What a loss this will be to the beauty, charm and historic nature of our city! Future generations will ask why was this allowed to be built? What were the city planners and officials thinking? How could Edmonds not stop a developer from marring our gateway? People say we need more housing and that development is unavoidable and necessary. This may be true but housing and development should not be allowed anywhere and everywhere and without regard to aesthetics. It should be thoughtful and appropriate. Long-term ramifications must be considered. This location is crucial to our downtown. This building is not worthy. A few blocks away may be acceptable, other locations in the Bowl or elsewhere in Edmonds may be acceptable, but not at Edmonds' main entryway on Main Street! Please reject this development! Don't allow it just because it meets code (and it barely does!) That's not good enough! Edmonds is better than that. It deserves buildings with attractive designs that enhance our downtown, not detract from it. Our building codes need to be rewritten and updated to require developers to build according to our vision for our city, to keep its small town look and feel, at least in the downtown core. The developer with the assistance of city planners should be encouraged and expected to build in consideration of the setting, environment, neighbors and community. He or she should offer more than the bare minimum! Look at the condominium complex behind this site, just north of it across the alley on 6th Avenue -- a beautiful building with setbacks, green and open spaces, patios and decks, and attractive details and roof lines. It fits in very well. Why can't something like this be built there instead? Once built, this cheap and ugly complex will set a precedent for more of the same throughout our downtown. Don't let that happen! Our special, historic downtown, our citizens and visitors and the future occupants of any building built there deserve better. Don't allow this to be built and become a permanent, ruinous feature of Edmonds -- one that we will all regret except for the developer! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: GARY PYFER Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 38 Packet Pg. 83 7.1.a Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6:42 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Public Comment You have done the city of Edmond a great disservice by making the restaurants remove their outdoor seating or pay a Hugh fee. This will cause a loss of business and that will hurt Edmonds. This Covid is serious and most people will not eat in. BAD IGNORANT MOVE. Sent from my iPhone From: Dawn Malkowski Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 2:37 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St. January 15, 2022 Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor, I implore you not to approve the proposed apartment building on 6th and Main St. as it appears now The building is positively hideous, there are no setbacks, thus little room for attractive landscaping, plus it absolutely does not fit in with the flavor and style of this town. Slight changes to the elevation would make a world of difference. As it stands now, it looks like it belongs in MIAMI BEACH, no different than the awful building they built on 3rd Ave. several years ago. A different color, darker pacific NW colors, i.e., greens, browns, golds would be better, along with wood trim accents. It would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Developers seem to have a tendency to build and design whatever is cheapest, with little regard to fitting in with the existing community. What they design, doesn't mean it's the best for the community they are entering into. I addition to that, there are not enough parking spaces. Why is it that the developers are accommodated at the expense of the citizens? Each unit should have, at no cost to the tenants, two (2) on -site parking spaces. I know of 3 people of all the 50+ friends that I have in town here, that have 1 car. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 39 Packet Pg. 84 7.1.a All are widowed, and two (2) are in their 80's. Other than that, the majority of people have 2 or more vehicles. I realize after watching the recent planning meeting that our city code allows the 1 parking space per unit. It is an outdated and unrealistic code which should be addressed. This developer is entering our town. Let's request that he or she build what fits into this area and what will realistically work for the betterment of our community. For example, he or she could add additional underground parking via another level, or purchase another lot next to his proposed building. I sincerely hope that you will have the courage to stand up these developers and hold them accountable for keeping our town the lovely, livable place that it is. Allowing them to do what they want because they meet code, doesn't mean it's right for our town. We do not want to be Kirkland or Bellevue. Kirkland made a huge effort to become a walking town only, with large apartment buildings with little parking available. It was a smashing failure. I lived there for ten (10) years and saw the congested disaster the massive apartment buildings caused. The same thing occurred in Bellevue. Please don't do that to us. Respectfully, Dawn Malkowski dmmalkowksi@gmail.com <mailto:dmmalkowksi@gmail.com> From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM To: Nelson, Michael; LaFave, Carolyn; Council; Chave, Rob; Clugston, Michael; Lien, Kernen; Planning Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Code Rewrite! To Mayor Nelson, Council Members and Planning Staff, It is past time for an overhaul of our City Code! We need to update, clarify and rewrite, especially our development codes, so Council, staff, citizens and developers know, understand and work together towards a clear vision for our city. Currently and for a long time developers have been exploiting loopholes, errors and inconsistencies for their gain and citizens' loss. This must change ASAP! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 40 Packet Pg. 85 7.1.a I and many of my fellow citizens strongly request adequate funds be budgeted immediately to start this process. Once started, we want ongoing status updates as to progress made. As concerned citizens we want to be involved, to give input and help affect change so our city will evolve and develop as we wish. Please put this at the top of your priority list, just as the citizens are at the top of the City's Organizational Chart -- this should be #1 and so should we! It is crucial to our city and citizens. Please do not delay any longer. Let's get this in motion. Please confirm that you hear this and understand the urgency. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer Sun 1/16/2022 12:11 PM Will Magnuson Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street We're all in this together including the developer, city, and citizens of Edmonds. My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The class was called Urbanalysis and it's primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to remain viable, grow, and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980's, Metropolitan Seattle was primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable city for our future. We loved this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence. The 1990's was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was evolving slowly to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the way things were already established in Edmonds. Any effort by the public(city) or private(developer) to provide new development opportunities was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like "we don't want to be like Kirkland" or the extreme "don't let Edmonds become like Manhattan". I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to progress. Building heights became the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 41 Packet Pg. 86 7.1.a battle cry for any discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods. There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and providing public spaces or open areas, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would require responsible new development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate overwhelmed the discussion thus creating lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99, or anywhere else in Edmonds. The Puget sound region will continue to grow and with that pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed with new development to meet these opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I continue to be amused when someone states they "just want to keep Edmonds the way it is" even as many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds. We have far more opportunities to live, work, recreate, and entertain as Edmonds remains a desirable place. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We can't shut the door on growth or change and we can't expect to keep it out. The city of Edmonds will continue to need to be competitive to be viable. Witness the recent evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore, Ballard and elsewhere to find the successes, failures, and challenges to manage growth. It's all going to happen, the only question is do we manage it or do we let it manage us? Now we have a block style building of 24 units of apartment proposed on just above 6th on Main Street. This proposed project is located on a major gateway to our downtown and would set the tone at this entrance. The city and community are in a difficult position to challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment due to existing codes and ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development standards and building codes to maximize it's financial potential for the property. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances are required to balance opportunities and benefits to the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future projects. It's not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the Safadago's are moving expeditiously to proceed with permits and work for this and other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require community support, political will, and a public financial commitment to make that happen. Much will need to be done inclusive of reevaluating some municipal personnel and departments which appear to have evolved as the permit expeditors for developers. It's Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 42 Packet Pg. 87 7.1.a important to review the options available in detail as this proposed redevelopment will establish a gateway feature for a very long time. Why is there always time (and money) to fix things later, but never enough now? I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown. The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It's the future of the city and the choice of how we proceed belongs to all of us. Will Magnuson Edmonds, WA Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 43 Packet Pg. 88 7.1.a Public Comment for City Council Meeting 01/25/22 From: Luke Distelhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:40 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Item 8.7 - Jan. 18, 2022 Dear Councilmembers, Looking at tonight's agenda item 8.7, I felt like it was important to share some information as a Councilmember who was present and participated in the 2022 budget process. The false and error -filled agenda memo unfortunately creates a narrative that is not supported by the facts contained in the numerous public meetings, budget retreat, public hearings, and documents listed on the City's Administrative Services page, which was updated weekly, at a minimum, during the Fall 2021 budget process (https://edmondswa.gov/government/departments/administrative services). As a Councilmember in this process, which started in May 2021, staff were always available to answer questions by email, phone, or during our public meetings. Similarly, the majority of Councilmembers showed up and participated in this budget process and were available for conversations with other councilmembers. At this point I do not feel it is even worth going through many of the erroneous statements linked to certain approved budget items. Answers to those "questions", or personal opinions, are publicly available from documents listed on the link above, or from Council -approved minutes/videos of Council meetings. City residents and city staff need certainty in their day-to-day lives and professional status when Council approves policy and budgetary direction. I sincerely hope Councilmembers will speak with city staff or other Councilmembers who actually participated in the 6-month-long budgeting process. The 2022 budget is a significant step forward for our city and residents, especially many who have been excluded from city policy and budget considerations in years and decades past. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. Thank you, Luke Distelhorst From: Will Magnuson Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:02 AM Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 44 Packet Pg. 89 7.1.a To: LaFave, Carolyn; Council; Public Comment (Council); Planning; Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen Subject: Mayor's comments Greetings, I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night . This new initiative will: * identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction * create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions * prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding "We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public spaces for our neighbors to gather," Nelson concluded. "Edmonds is and will continue to be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may hold, we will move forward together." This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere. These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. Thank you, Will Magnuson From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:44 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 24-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit as well as one now wending its way through the system that would appear on Dayton near the Frances Anderson Center. These buildings in no way reflect the desires of Edmonds' population or its comprehensive plan. Their proposed locations do NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and my husband and I have seen the desecration that the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see it happen here! You are the decision maker on this issue. Make us proud. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 45 Packet Pg. 90 7.1.a Robert and Judith Cook 17122 72 Avenue West Edmonds 98026 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:05 PM To: Council; Nelson, Michael Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject: Budget Amendments agenda item Categories: Green category Council, First, thank you to Council President Olson, Council President pro-tem Buckshnis and Council member Kristiana Johnson for persevering and getting these 93 budget amendments on the Council agenda for this evening. I appreciate your diligence in paying careful attention to the financial health of the City of Edmonds. My prepared comments will be in order of their placement on your agenda: # 1 - REDI Manager - there is not sufficient information to support a full-time FTE. Suggest data being accumulated along with reasons as to why the current consultant that is used is not sufficient. * I support this budget amendment. A consultant should be sufficient. Adding a full-time FTE, without justification, also adds the ongoing costs associated with a new position. This is not the time to create MORE staff positions. #16 - Public Information Officer - support for full time not provided. * Same as above. Why increase to a full time position, at this time? #21 - $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed. * I agree. The COE is already negotiating a contract with Compass Health to provide a staff person on site in Edmonds. I was opposed to expansion of the Human Services department with such a position (although relieved that Council decided to contract with Compass Health) because City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. State government oversees DSHS (Dept of Social and Health Services). Federal government mandates Senior Services in all communities. Edmonds is served by Homage Senior Services. In addition to Compass Health, many non- profit agencies exist to provide support to the needy. These many agencies have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, liability insurance, etc to better serve these populations. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 46 Packet Pg. 91 #22 - New FTE position to manage existing capital projects - there is not sufficient information to support a full time FTE or how this position will manage what projects. the Council Personnel Committee should look at this to determine what exactly projects are part of this request and why contractors cannot handle this process and the interaction with Public Works and their capital projects. * Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. #38 - New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. * Agree. And I would add that, given the newly created police/court offices on Hwy 99, and discussions re: moving city hall, any expenditures for the fence should take those planning issues into account. #48 - 3-year Rate Study Consultant - The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow any review by a consulting firm. * Agree #55 - Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements - there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council and what are the costs and plans for this project as these restoration plans are not clear and this will impact stormwater utility rates. * What will the money be used to do? Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be very expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. #60 - Perrinville Creek Projects - The Administration promised an entire Perrinville Watershed review in 2020 when the Creek was damaged by high water flow and City placed debris was placed by the Administration to cause the creek to flow into two vaults. There is no support for funding $3.5MM of ARPA money for this rehabilitation. * The COE received the $3.5 ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) infrastructure funds in 2021, to the best of my knowledge. So there is time to develop a plan for a complete restoration of the Perrinville Creek. * The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed of Perrinville Creek, which includes Lynnwood. * Since complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than the 3.5 million ARPA funds, it is critical that we not spend any of the ARPA funds until a complete restoration plan of the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 47 Packet Pg. 92 7.1.a * This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. #61 Green Street and Rain Gardens - opposed to this ARPA funding and continue to be opposed as there is not sufficient information in any City documents to support what a green street is and Rain Gardens have granting opportunities through Snohomish County. There is not sufficient information to support where green street are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding? This should be done before funds are programmed. * Agree completely. The allocation of the ARPA funds should be carefully clarified. Without a definition of what a Green Street is, how can the city proceed with allocation of the funds for them? * Rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding. Careful planning is required. #93. Elm Way Walkway - not enough information. If this project will be done by the city's sidewalk crew, then why is the cost $$859,600? * The $ amount of the allocation certainly raises questions for me as well. Thank you, Council members who have gotten this far for reading my comments. Again, I applaud your serious deliberations on how you spend taxpayer dollars. Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Natalie Seitz Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:32 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: 1/25 Public Comment Hello, Good Evening. I will be unable to virtually attend the council meeting tonight. Would you please accept my written comments below? Thank you, Natalie Seitz 1/25 Public Comment to Council * Good Evening. I would like to comment tonight about marina beach and the proposed budget amendments. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 48 Packet Pg. 93 * With regard to Marina Beach: I would like to thank the Council for the courage to pause the Marina Beach project as pre -decisional to the Marsh and to support the equitable distribution of park resources. I fully support and commend the Council for this tough decision. I also want to thank the City staff who worked on the grant and project, getting a project to 30% and grants for 20% of costs is a lot of effort. While I advocated against this project, I want to express my appreciation of the staff effort to get grant funding. * With regard to the proposed budget amendments: * #1 A REDI manager is needed: I want to point out the need for this position by highlighting two decisions the Council made at the last meeting: * Acceptance of the Francis Anderson Lease agreement which provides tax -payer maintained space at below market value and at a lower tax burden to recreation service providers including a daycare. In contrast there are no community center facilities in the two most diverse and densely populated areas of the City (north east of five corners and the east side of SR99) and none are proposed in the Draft PROS plan. Private daycares in these areas have to pay fair market rate for their facilities, applicable maintenance and taxes, which is passed on to families in the form of tuition. I think the REDI program manager would help the City better understand the relationship between these decisions and equity to make sure that appropriate investments are made in all areas of the City, AND * The Council has just paused the Marina Beach project to promote more equitable investments, but only after a tremendous amount of City staff time and cost. The REDI program manager is needed and would likely pay for itself if you look at it through the lens of preventing the waste of staff resources and project planning costs. * #16 Public Information Officer is needed: I think I am as engaged a citizen as possible, yet I am still amazed at the amount of opportunities I miss and that I have every advantage in knowing (e.g. language). 83% of the City's population is not located in the Downtown area. The City needs a better capability to inform all Edmonds residents. * #22 New FTE is needed: It is my understanding that the Director, in addition to that role, is project managing Civic Center, the PROS plan, and other capital investments. This is not a realistic workload, and will not allow for the Director to focus on the provision of human services or on park -system wide initiatives (ADA, equity, maintenance) and the potential to implement asset management that would both save the City money and provide better service. Similar to the budget, there are so many errors in the PROS plan that I have decided not to provide direct text related comments - this is a matter of staff resources. * Motion to reflect expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2011 budget numbers - I support any needed expenses to provide this service. * Motion to add $100K for the Creative District's Fourth Avenue Corridor project design - This is planning for a special use park that exceeds the investment identified in the Draft PROS plan for all three of the new neighborhood parks in underserved areas combined. It is inconsistent with the intent of the proposed level of service for the PROS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 49 Packet Pg. 94 7.1.a plan and the planning board recommendation for the priority of this project. Please note that for the resources counted by the PROS plan, Downtown already has 38.62 acres of special use park, far more than all areas of the city combined (8.22 acres). * Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. Government should be accessible to the public. Moving City Hall and Police Station to a location more central to the city population and commercial center is needed (i.e. Five Corners or the SR99 corridor). * Motion to add $150K for streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area - this is a much needed improvement for safety and to reduce crime in this area. It is far less than the $1.5M identified in the 6-year CFP for street lights Downtown. * Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 50 Packet Pg. 95 7.1.a Public Comment for City Council Meeting 02/01/22 From: Pam Brisse Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:16 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Public Comments on the proposed 2022 Budget Amendments Dear Edmonds City Council, I'm writing to you to express my displeasure with your attempts to dismantle the 2022 City Budget. This budget was passed after many discussions and public comments, was passed legally, and in the normal order of things. Just because some of you were not on the council during that time does not mean you get to revise it - you can have your chance when it comes time for the 2023 budget. This is how politics work. You know better. I'm also disgusted to learn that you wish to eliminate the programs and services that help our most vulnerable citizens, the ones we most see people in the neighborhood groups complaining about - the homeless that wander our streets or park their families in their cars and huddle waiting for a new day. These are not the only people in our town who benefit from the social programs you wish to cut, it's also our elderly neighbors on fixed incomes with a house repair crisis or someone with food insecurity - you wish to dismantle the Human Services department that is here to help these people? Our neighbors? Programs that keep people from desperation? Not only does this help them, it helps keep our neighborhoods safe from desperate crimes and thefts which helps the rest of us. And then you want to use the money for your pet art project in the bowl? Do you even hear yourself? Do you see how that looks? I am an artist myself and of course support the arts - but over hungry children and suffering residents? No. We have plenty of people in this city who support the arts and contribute to projects, the arts will not suffer if your personal project isn't funded this year by the city. Not only are you trying to kill jobs - jobs held by our residents and friends, but you are also trying to eliminate public safety, eliminate public communications and transparency, to "defund the police" as it were. Really? Anti -jobs, anti -police? Come on. Do you see how that looks? We are watching. And then you want to defund environmental protections for the Marsh, allow pollution into the Sound, to harm our salmon and orca? Nice look. Have an Edmonds Kind of Day, right? Leave the budget alone, we want progress and solutions, environmental and social. We want a satellite police station in an area where police are needed. Where actual crime is UP. Why would you try to remove that? These programs were installed to protect the city and it's residents. Please do better. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 51 Packet Pg. 96 7.1.a Pam Brisse Edmonds Residen From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:46 AM To: Council Cc: Public Comment (Council); Public Comment (Council); Taraday, Jeff Subject: Public Hearing on 2022 Budget Amendments Please include the following public comment in your public hearing and DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT in your deliberations on the amendments to the 2022 budget. I am pleased to see the "new" Council is reconsidering the 2022 budget. The "prior" Council majority not only ignored and prevented public input, which should have been the essence of the Councils' budget deliberations, but they manipulated the budget approval process to exclude Council members who intended to `insert' public input into the budget deliberations. Any and all spending of taxpayer money should be well justified with public support. When pre -planning is required, such plans must be made available and vetted with the public well before budgets are proposed. This is especially the case with the 2022 budget items for restoring Perrinville Creek. In March of 2021, the Mayor issued a Press Release on developing a Perrinville Creek Restoration Plan, with costs involved, for public review and Council approval. But instead, the "prior" Council majority approved spending of 3.5 million dollars with no detail on what the money would be spent on, how much a `fully successful' restoration would cost, nor how much money the City of Lynnwood taxpayers would be contributing since, according to City staff, the majority of the stormwater impacting the watershed comes from Lynnwood. This is extremely bad budget planning and very poor environmental stewardship. The 2022 budget items that lack detail and adequate justification, including why prior year funds or staffing were insufficient, should be reconsidered and deleted from the 2022 budget, or delayed until adequate detail or justification is provided and approved by the "new" Council. This would include so-called green infrastructure and stormwater treatment budget items which "sound" environmentally responsible, but lack sufficient detail for an informed person to agree that it is a wise investment in protecting our environment. The bottom -line is that the reconsideration of the 2022 budget represents a great start for a "new" Council that hopefully is committed to actually listening to and considering public input in all of its deliberations and decisions, and following accepted public meeting and decision -making procedures (which is critical for good government). I urge Council members to not only look at your agenda packet information, but on this agenda item, please go back and look at all the written and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 52 Packet Pg. 97 oral public comments made about the 2022 budget from October through December of 2021, which as I noted before, were totally ignored by the "prior" Council majority in adopting the 2022 budget. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 1:18 PM To: Council; Nelson, Michael; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget Council, Mayor Nelson's inflammatory statement in his myedmondsnews commentary, "These council cuts will make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and make our residents uninformed" is unsubstantiated by fact or by the proposed amendments. I'll demonstrate with amendments that I support. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Additionally, they wish to cut funding to our new Human Services Department." Proposed amendment: #21 - $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed." My comment: Based on my five decades of work as a social worker, in and with non- profit agencies, I contend that City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. Many non-profit agencies exist that have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, outreach, and HIPPA compliance procedures (not to mention liability insurance) to better serve needy populations. Adding an additional $200,000 to the Human Services Department is an unwise use of taxpayer dollars. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Removing green streets and rain garden programs will create more flooding of our roadways and pollution of our streams." Proposed amendment: "#61 Green Street and Rain Gardens - excerpt- "There is not sufficient information to support where green streets are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding?" My comment: Without a definition of "Green Street", how can the city proceed with allocation of the American Rescue Program Act (ARPA) funds? Also, rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding. Mayor Nelson's statement: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 53 Packet Pg. 98 7.1.a "They want to cut a new pedestrian safety barrier at the police parking lot designed to protect our residents from being struck by police cars responding to emergency calls." Proposed amendment: #38 - New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. My comment: I support Council reviewing the expense of this perimeter fence. Mayor Nelson's statement: "For the first time ever, this year our city has a full time public information officer (PIO)." And "some councilmembers wish us to go backwards and cut the position from full-time to half-time." Proposed amendment: #16 - Public Information Officer - support for full time not provided. My comment: Mayor Nelson references "the recent tsunami advisory" as rationale for a full time PIO, despite that a PIO has nothing to do with emergency management. Mayor Nelson's misrepresentation of the role of the PIO is just one reason I don't support a full time PIO being at his disposal. Side note: An updated CEMP (Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan), and related staffing, as Ken Reidy has been emailing Council about for many months, would assure residents that the administration has a "comprehensive plan" in the event of a catastrophic event in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Their removal of the filtration system used to clean polluted water entering the Edmonds Marsh will allow toxic chemicals to harm salmon and wildlife in our city and Puget Sound." Proposed amendment: #55 - Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements - excerpt: "there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council" My comment: Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be extremely expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. Additional amendments I support: #60 - Perrinville Creek Projects * The COE received the $3.5 ARPA funds in 2021. The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed, which includes Lynnwood. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 54 Packet Pg. 99 7.1.a * Complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than 3.5 million, so ARPA funds should not be spent until a restoration plan for the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. * This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. This would, obviously, be fiscally prudent. # 1 - REDI Manager Adding a full-time REDI Manager, without justification, also adds significant ongoing costs associated with a new position, and new department. I support a REDI consultant. #22 - New FTE position to manage existing capital projects Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 55 Packet Pg. 100 7.1.a Public Comment for City Council Meeting 02/15/22 From: Michael Murdock Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 1:34 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: PIO > ?Good Afternoon, > I don't know why this position is even there and needs to be a paid position. > If the article in MEN from the Mayor is an example of factual literature we expect to receive I don't want to pay for it. Who edited this piece for facts? I really did not understand the reason for writing such a piece and then actually printing it. > Perhaps, another option would be to enlist the services of the independent student representative on council. It would be great experience with little cost. > Thanks for listening. > Mike Murdock > Sent from my iPhone From: Jan Wohlers Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 6:25 PM To: council@edomdswa.gov; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Request for Caspers Street Revision Attachments: Casper Street Revisions.docx Dear City Council, There is a high number of cumulative issues with traffic and congestion on Caspers Street between 2nd Ave and Sunset. These issues are ripe and long overdue for change and need further investigating and resolution. ISSUES * Excessively high trafficked vehicle and pedestrian street. Excessive for a residentially zoned area * Cars drive the wrong way down Caspers onto Sunset's one way street on average 2-3 daily * There are 25 streets signs beginning at 3rd Ave. It is very confusing in this 1 block section. * 5 to 10 vehicles turn around in our driveway daily. Does not account for turnarounds occurring in other driveways * People walk `in the street' Casper to Sunset 50+ on an average day. Summer months/ sunny days this doubles/triples * High number of speeding vehicles Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 56 Packet Pg. 101 7.1.a * Many vehicles make a high acceleration `gun it' around the corner Sunset onto Casper * Curbs are deteriorating (mostly due to high speeds and oversized vehicles hitting them) * Large RV's and semi trucks cannot maneuver corner Sunset to Caspers and become stuck. Especially when the truck goes down the wrong way. Backing up causes major congestion's and safety issues * Many unfriendly and upset tourists direct profanities and hand gestures at home owners * High number of recurring vehicle accidents in the yards of three separate homes. Majority are hit and run. Increases homeowners problems and expenses * Vehicles block access to driveways RECOMMENDATIONS * Remove all current street signage and replace with limited necessary signage * Remove parking on north side of Caspers. Special permit for local residents and guests only * Install speed bumps before and after the corner Sunset to Caspers * Limit vehicle size and prohibit large semi trucks on Sunset and Caspers * Make Caspers a one way street * Change directions on Google Maps and Waze redirecting tourists, ferry and beach access visitors I feel very privileged and love living in Edmond's, however the aforementioned issues makes it very challenging at times. Thank you for looking into this matter. Respectfully, Richard Blacklow and Janel Wohlers 114 Caspers Street Edmonds WA 98020 #425-582-7880 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 To: Council; Nelson, Michael; Subject: Budget amendments, Council, 4:58 PM Public Comment (Council) agenda for 2-8-22 Council meeting My input on budget amendments on your agenda 2-8-22 is as follows: #1 REDI manager I support option 1, continuing with the REDI consultant, at this time. The following LTE by Elizabeth Miakinin is excellent: https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/11/letter-to-the-editor-proposed-redi- manager-not-the-answer-for-achieving-citys-diversity-goals/ Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 57 Packet Pg. 102 #16 Public Information Officer I agree with Ken Reidy that the POI position should be removed entirely to ensure "the position is used properly, in a non -biased, nonpartisan fashion." However, given that is not part of this discussion, I support the "Motion: Remove this decision packet" A half-time PIO should be sufficient for Mayor Nelson to continue to promote his personal agenda for Edmonds. Since I don't see my email comments to Council attached to the February 8 agenda, here is a link to my LTE on all of the budget amendments that I support: https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/01/letter-to-the-editor-mayors-statement- on-budget-amendments-not-supported-by-facts/ Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom Edmonds is a gift. Let's show our appreciation. From: Jim Fairchild Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:41 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: Public Comment Tomorrow you will be asked to alter city code? To adopt language from the state 7.94.120 my concern is this language is set to expire I think 7-1- 2022. Why would the city adopt language set to expire? Of course the city can use this language but without knowing what the new language the state puts in place it could create a conflict. Maybe no big deal but in my mind it would give the city the opportunity to write its own language. To me this is concerning. The mayor/city has already at least once tried to make criminals of legal gun owners. I would encourage council to wait and see what the new language from the state is before adopting expiring language. Thank you Jim Fairchild. From: joe scordino Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:30 PM To: Feser, Angie Cc: Citizens Planning Board; Nelson, Michael; Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Will PROS Plan (as drafted) preclude Edmonds from federal grants to protect coastal wetlands? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 58 Packet Pg. 103 7.1.a Director Feser - if you put the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary and protection/restoration of our natural environment into proper context in the PROS Plan relaying the actual importance of the environment to Edmonds citizens - - then wouldn't the City be in better position to apply for and receive multiple grants that RCO and DOE administer such as the one described below? Isn't that one of the purposes of the PROS Plan? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Washington Department of Ecology <waecy@public.govdelivery.com> To: "joe.scordino@yahoo.com" <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022, 01:37:55 PM PST Subject: Ecology acquires federal grants to protect 237 acres of coastal wetlands <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy_images/WAECY/2021/10/50 93602/color-bar original.png> <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy images/WAECY/2021/11/51 51852/ecylogo-horiz-color-allmargins_original.png> NEWS BLOG Jan. 6, 2022 <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy images/WAECY/2022/01/53 74163/livingstonbayphoto-dawnpucci2-news-crop original.jpg> Livingston Bay shoreline. Image courtesy Dawn Pucci. Ecology acquires federal grants to protect 237 acres of coastal wetlands We are happy to announce we've helped secure nearly $3.4 million in National Coastal Wetlands Conservation grants <https://lnks.gd/1/eyJhbGciOiJIUzIlNiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsIn VyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJlbGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMjAxMDYuNTEzNzU40DEiLCJlcmwi OiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5md3MuZ292L25ld3MvU2hvdO51d3MuY2ZtP19JRDOzNzA3MSZyZWY9dS 5zLilmaXNoLWFuZC13aWxkbGlmZS1zZXJ2aWN1LWF3YXJkcyltb3JlLXRoYW4tJTIOMjAtbWls bGlvbi10byloZWxwLSZldGlfbWVkaXVtPWVtYW1sJnVObV9zb3VyY2U9Z292ZGVsaXZlcnkifQ .m3a4GrKhZxQRplGblzzRdJbljtXdhRUEjsM6Zls-3LQ/s/2126022721/br/124299911709- 1> to protect 237 acres of coastal wetland habitat in Island, Jefferson, and Mason counties. This year, Washington received the second -highest number of federal wetland conservation grants under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program. Since 1992, we've been successful in helping projects totaling approximately $132 million conserve nearly 15,000 acres of coastal wetlands in the state. Coastal wetlands often rival tropical rain forests and coral reefs as some of the most diverse, productive ecosystems on the planet. They include Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 59 Packet Pg. 104 estuarine salt marshes as well as freshwater wetlands that extend inland within a watershed. While only U.S. states and territories can apply for the federal conservation grants, we work closely with our partners in local and Tribal governments and conservation organizations to identify projects and develop wetland restoration and protection proposals for the federal government to consider. Funded in part through taxes paid on fuel and equipment purchases by recreational anglers and boaters, the federal National Coastal Wetland Conservation grant federal program provides up to $1 million for individual wetland projects. Here are the Washington projects receiving funding in 2022. From: Will Magnuson Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:19 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn; Public Comment (Council); Planning; Lien, Kernen; McLaughlin, Susan Subject: Re: Mayor's comments I have a few questions regarding the gbh holdings proposed development on Main Street. These questions may have already been addressed but I have not seen any correspondence accordingly. 1) Parking - The site appears to require a pass through drive isle from Main to the rear alley to accommodate parking 24 vehicles. If this is the case, has a traffic study been conducted to evaluate impact to the traffic and congestion on Main Street? 2) Parking - What impact will this parking inclusive of more than 24 resident vehicles have on the existing limitations of parking on Main Street and surrounds? 3) Parking - Will this project be required to accommodate ADA vehicle(s) parking and ADA van access? 3) Loading - Where will moving vans be located to accommodate residents? 4) Trash/Recycling - Where will trash and recycling be staged for disposal service? 5) Emergency Power - I assume this project will require elevator access. Will emergency power be required and if so, how will this be provided? 6) Pet Area - This project may have a no pet policy at opening but this prohibitive policy seldom survives very long with a project of this number of units. A pet prohibitive policy is too restrictive for the number of household pets in our region. How will residential pet waste be managed? Thank you, Will Magnuson 423 2nd Ave N Edmonds, WA Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 60 Packet Pg. 105 7.1.a On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:01 AM Will Magnuson > wrote: Greetings, I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night This new initiative will: * identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction * create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions * prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding "We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public spaces for our neighbors to gather," Nelson concluded. "Edmonds is and will continue to be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may hold, we will move forward together." This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere. These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. Thank you, Will Magnuson From: Pam Brisse Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:40 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: City Budget Amendments Dear City Council, I was disappointed to see you vote against hiring a full-time REDI manager last week. Not only did you disregard the HR staff-person's advice that it would be harder to attract, hire and retain a contractor for this vital position, but you also seem to think it's just about race. NO, it's about fairness and equity for all of us - no matter the color of our skin, the gender and physical abilities of our bodies, our religion, and so on. This isn't just something that can be dictated by the mayor or something we can rely on a person's change of heart for - this is a legal protection for the city and it's employees. This is to avoid future problems by biased and unfeeling hiring practices - like insisting on a contractor for a low price. How short-sighted. I'm also really disgusted to see how you are all talking about various employees of the city - not only is it rude and distasteful, it's an ethics violation. Value our city staff or we will lose them! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 61 Packet Pg. 106 7.1.a I'm sure the Human Services department is up on the chopping block today - please don't. The way many of you have been framing this and continue to do so is causing services to question working with our city - why would you push out the people who want to help keep at -risk families in their homes and get homeless into safe places? This department helps not only the homeless but our elderly, our young families, students, vets, all of us. Support it! Thank you, Pam Brisse Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 62 Packet Pg. 107 7.1.a Public Comment for City Council Meeting 03/01/22 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 5:36 AM To: Public Comment (Council); Public Comment (Council) Cc: Nelson, Michael; McLaughlin, Susan; Clugston, Michael; McConnell, Jeanie; Taraday, Jeff; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com Subject: Public Comments for the March 1, 2022 Council Meeting. Please see Dave Gebert email to Jeanie McConnell dated June 8, 2007 plus notes dated November 17, 2009 attached. Attachments: Gebert Email - Thuesen Civils.pdf; November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting.pdf The Hearing Examiner Annual Report is scheduled for March 1, 2022. Please ask ALL the following questions during this Presentation: 1. What should a former Hearing Examiner do if the City of Edmonds contacts a former Hearing Examiner months after the Hearing Examiner contract has expired and asks the former Hearing Examiner to conduct a Hearing? The City of Edmonds has done this in the past, even when the City had a new Hearing Examiner under contract. On June 6, 2007, City employee Diane Cunningham contacted and informed former Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell that the City Attorney would like him to conduct a Hearing. 2. Does the City Attorney have the authority to determine who will conduct a Hearing? When can a mayor appoint a temporary hearing examiner? 3. What should happen if City Staff ACT in front of a Hearing Examiner decision? Please see the attached Dave Gebert email dated June 8, 2007 (two days after Diane Cunningham's June 6, 2007 email to Ron McConnell) which proves City Staff acted in front of a Hearing Examiner decision that would not be decided upon until June 11, 2007. Gebert actually said: "Per Duane's e-mail below, please complete review of Thueson's civils by next Friday, June 15. So, that means move it to the top of the list. Before you review, please talk to Duane about the impact of the judges decisions and settlement, since that may effect our review comments and result if different comments than Lyle's previous comments." 4. Can a Hearing Examiner violate a Court Order by accepting a Court required letter from somebody other than the party specifically identified in the Court Order? 5. What should happen if City Staff violate a Hearing Examiner's Order, such as 2006 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell's clear decision that "Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not approved."? 6. Can the City and its Insurance Pool (WCIA) go "well beyond" a Hearing Examiner's Order? 7. Can a Hearing Examiner speculate about what would have happened had a citizen applied for a permit in a Hearing Examiner decision? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 63 Packet Pg. 108 7.1.a 8. What should happen if City Staff and City Attorney knowingly choose to not provide a Hearing Examiner all relevant code sections in front of a Hearing? 9. What should happen if a City Attorney represents to the Hearing Examiner that a code section does not apply when City Staff knows that the specific code section does apply and had discussed applying it in the attached November 17, 2009 notes? City Staff and City Attorney both knew that Setbacks will be grandfathered, but that was not shared with the Hearing Examiner. They also did not provide the Hearing Examiner with the attached notes. Thanks. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 6:58 AM To: Public Comment (Council); Public Comment (Council) Cc: Council; Nelson, Michael; Taraday, Jeff Subject: Public Comment for the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting PLEASE review how Edmonds City Government obtains its legal advice! Please appreciate that I am talking about how Edmonds City Government obtains its legal advice. History argues that the way we have obtained legal counsel has not worked well for citizens of Edmonds. The poor shape of our City Code for over 20 years provides evidence supporting this argument. Per ECC 2.05.010: Legal counsel services for the city of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.12.020 shall be provided through a professional services contract. The professional services contract shall be let on such basis as a majority of the Edmonds city council shall determine. The city council shall utilize the consultant selection process established by Chapter 2.80 ECC provided that the mayor shall participate with the city council consultant selection committee in the selection of up to three candidates for presentation to the city council for its final approval. Chapter 2.80 ECC was repealed in the year 2000. Shouldn't we have looked at this, studied this and fixed this many years ago? What former City Councilmember D.J. Wilson stated in his February 23, 2011 Article titled "Why I voted for a new Edmonds City Attorney" provides food for thought. The article can be found on the internet. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 64 Packet Pg. 109 7.1.a Please note his statement - "But Council passed it upon staff and City Attorney advice". Why do we pay huge amounts for legal services and allow City Attorneys to play such a major role in City government? Has allowing that served our citizens and property owners well? My strong opinion is that it has not. The Westgate Chapel Street vacation and the effort to change the City's street vacation laws afterwards provides great insight into these matters. I am very happy to walk any and all of you through that situation. All you have to do is ask me. RCW 35A.12.020 states that provision shall be made for obtaining legal counsel for the city, either by appointment of a city attorney on a full- time or part-time basis, or by any reasonable contractual arrangement for such professional services. State law provides for much flexibility in how the City obtains legal counsel. Why have City Attorneys been allowed to intervene into City Council Meetings and make legislative recommendations? Please see the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes and the December 15, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes for two examples. Why do we allow City Attorneys to play such a major role in Edmonds City Government? Thank you. Ken Reidy From: joe scordino Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 1:35 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Council Subject: Planning Board Agenda for draft PROS Plan Approval Tonight The Planning Board's PROS Plan agenda item includes a staff recommendation for the Planning Board at the end of the Public Hearing to: "recommend to the City Council for consideration of approval the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan with their collective suggestions for revisions". There are several problems with that: 1. Is there time for the Planning Board to discuss and deliberate on the Public Hearing input if the Board is supposed to finalize all of its recommendations by the end of the agenda item? Does anyone know in advance how many citizens will be commenting? Will there be new comments raised that the Board hasn't considered or discussed? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 65 Packet Pg. 110 7.1.a Has the Board discussed and deliberated on all the written comments it has received? Why rush the Planning Board approval - is it an attempt to just have "rubber stamp" approval? 2. The action by the Planning Board needs to be clarified. There is an obvious distinction between the staff's recommendation for the Board to "recommend approval with suggestions for revisions" VERSUS "recommend approval with revisions". The latter makes it clear the Planning Board is recommending approval ONLY IF the revisions are made. The former ("with suggestions") is the "rubber stamp" approach that City staff seem to always try and force the Planning Board to accept - AND THAT IS WRONG! 3. The agenda packet confuses PROS Plan approval with Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) approval. The Council has always dealt with CFP/CIP approvals as a totally separate budget discussions and approvals. It is a separate element in the City's Comprehensive Plan and should not be confused into the PROS Plan content and approval. 4. Is the Board going to speak for itself (i.e., the Board Chair presents the Board deliberations and recommendations to the Council), or is it going to defer to City staff who may or MAY NOT present the Boards' concerns or what the Board actually heard from the public). The Planning Board should listen to (and read the written) public comments tonight and then discuss and deliberate on BOTH. Then the NEXT Planning Board meeting should be the action item to 1) Approve, 2) Approve with "suggestions", 3) Approve with revisions, or 4) NOT Approve with request that City staff bring back a revised draft for consideration of Board approval. This is what good governance is all about! This PROS Plan needs to be taken seriously as it sets the stage for "Its an Edmonds Kind of Day" and why citizens enjoy living in Edmonds and why visitors come here. The Plan should highlight the "gems" in this City and what needs to be done to preserve and improve them for future generations. The Plan should identify and propose solutions to the problems that prevent our Parks and Open Spaces from achieving their intended use (i.e., what the citizens of this City want and pay taxes for). So far, it doesn't! Please read my commentary at: Reader view: Is Edmonds losing its livability and charm? - My Edmonds News <https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/02/reader-view-is-edmonds-losing-its- livability-and-charm/?mc cid=d8dalca965&mc eid=e6f3145861> <https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/02/reader-view-is-edmonds-losing-its- livability-and-charm/?mc cid=d8dalca965&mc eid=e6f3145861> Reader view: Is Edmonds losing its livability and charm? - My Edmonds News Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 66 Packet Pg. 111 7.1.a I used to be proud to say that I've lived in Edmonds for over 40 years; but it's becoming embarrassing to admit ... Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 67 Packet Pg. 112 7.1.a Public Comment for City Council Meeting 03/15/22 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 10:52 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Feser, Angie; Nelson, Michael Subject: Public hearing, Draft PROS plan Council, Please take your time in reviewing the draft PROS plan. One public hearing is not sufficient to address the complexity of this document, and to include input from the many residents and stakeholders who have engaged with the Parks department, the Planning Board and Council, for over a year, regarding this plan. The Planning Board had eight meetings from January 2021 to February 2022 to discuss and deliberate this draft plan. Council should allot sufficient time to finalize this critically important document. In the year that this work has been going on, many issues have been brought to light, as reflected in the public comments in the packet, and comments received by Council. The work done by Director Feser and by our Planning Board is greatly appreciated. Deliberations by the Planning Board were thoughtful and inclusive of points expressed in the surveys, meetings, and public comments. The Planning Board was able to discuss these issues, over a long period of time. Your packet includes 569 pages, 240 pages of which were public comments to the Planning Board (Jan 7-22 through March-10-22). Council has received many more emails regarding the draft PROS plan than are represented in the packet. It takes several hours to review the materials. Fully understanding and deciding upon its adoption will take much longer because of the breadth and complexity of the PROS plan. Concerns brought by the public should be discussed. For example: * Pilchuck Audubon members. * Underwater Park users. * Requests that Edmonds take over management of SW County Park. * Poor condition of Edmonds' part of the Interurban Trail and of its access to Lake Ballinger Park. * Improvements and access to Mathay-Ballinger Park * Detailed recommendations by Save Our Marsh members. * Development of a park on the Edmonds side of Lake Ballinger Park. * The planned addition of a play area to the (open space) Pine Ridge Park, currently used extensively by bird watchers. * Degradation of our environmental assets and wildlife habitat in our parks, including forests, streams, wetlands, steep slopes and our Marsh - estuary. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 68 Packet Pg. 113 7.1.a * A planning board member's comment about acquisition of Perrinville Woods property, recognizing residents who for years have opposed its development. * Creation of an action plan regarding global warming throughout the entire PROS plan that would reflect the city of Edmonds' commitments to reduce our carbon footprint. * Restoration of Edmonds' watersheds, specifically those in our parks. * Clarity about the city's plan to acquire the Unocal property to expand and support the Edmonds Marsh estuary. * Restoration of the Marsh estuary, and of salmon bearing creeks and streams flowing through our parks to Puget Sound through Edmonds. It would also be prudent for Council to carefully assess whether allocating over 8 million dollars in the Capitol Facilities Program (p.579 of packet) for the acquisition, master plan, and development of three new parks (two in SE Edmonds, one on 99) is realistic to implement within six years. There's still a lot of work to be done on this draft PROS plan. Since grant applications for this year were due on March 1, 2022, Council now has the time to properly vet this document. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds city council member From: Inae Piercy Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:59 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: Edmonds Floretum Garden Club art piece Hi, My name is Inae Piercy, a member of Edmonds Floretum Garden Club and a long-time Edmonds resident. As I walk around the town in the spring and summer times Edmonds is full of beautiful flowers, plants, and trees all over the City and people's yards. This is not just a coincidence. Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, from its inception in 1922, this club has encouraged the growing of gardens and flowers throughout the city, in public and private spaces. Last 100 years, the Floretum Garden club has been working with the city's parks department to beautify Edmonds by planting hanging baskets, corners, and weeding beds and parks around the city. To commemorate this club's long history of working together with the City parks department to beautify Edmonds, Floretum Garden Club is donating these beautiful mosaic art pieces that represent the Edmonds Floretum garden club to the city. We want our current and future members, and the Edmonds residents to enjoy the art pieces, be proud of the club, and honor and remember the club's long history and legacy. Please accept our donation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 69 Packet Pg. 114 7.1.a Thank you. Inae From: votepetso (null) Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 5:31 PM To: Council Cc: Buckshnis, Diane; Johnson, Kristiana; Johnson, Laura; Paine, Susan; Tibbott, Neil; Olson, Vivian; Chen, Will Subject: PROS Plan - Public hearing Please include these comments in the record of the public hearing. Please prioritize land acquisitions in the PROS plan. Whether the land is used for active recreation, open space, or environmental benefits, or some combination, it needs to be in the plan to access funding assistance. If not specifically, at least in general: "waterfront access", "environmental restoration", "climate resiliance", "equity", and the old standby "miscellaneous land acquisition" for example. Have we included specifically the waterfront parcels adjacent to the one we were able to purchase about 10 years ago? Did we also include a "misc" waterfront provision? Did we include Perrinville Woods, and a "misc" provision for other remaining wooded areas? Did we include the Unocal and other properties near the Marsh? Did we include properties near lakes and streams, or in areas underserved by parks? Properties in areas needing improved tree canopy? Previously, park acquisition had excellent funding assistance through the State grants. I believe funding opportunities are even better now, with new State and Federal programs. If the plan doesn't need adopted immediately, Council might ask staff for a review of all recently created State and Federal funding opportunities regarding parks, recreation, salmon recovery and passage, equity, climate resiliance, habitat restoration, etc. Language could be deliberately tailored for the PROS plan to include these new funding opportunities, and appropriate partnerships could be initiated. Finally, please don't look at this as parks v, growth. If you add only people, you achieve only parks that are standing room only (and environmental degradation). If you add people, you also need to add parks. Lora Petso, Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 70 Packet Pg. 115 7.1.a Submitted by hand -delivered letter March 4, 2022 For public record and to each council member Dear Respected Representatives: I am profoundly grateful for the wisdom this assembly has shown in slowing down approvals when further study is warranted. I urge you to do so again for the PROS plan. Citizens are begging for a rewrite with their priorities addressed and I am one of them. This plan will have serious implications for the future beauty, livability and resilience to climate change and it is lacking in some important respects. CO2 reduction and sequestration are opportunities only the Parks Department has. I maintain that goals for each park and open space need to be specifically addressed in this regard, including retention and protection as well as aforrestation plans. Likewise, the negative impact of sea level rise and the positive impacts of marsh valuation have not been prioritized. (Their neglect may exact a price long before a new pros plan is written years from now.) This one is where they must be specifically addressed, preferably with target timelines. By heeding the outcry of informed stakeholders, this important document can be a gem; a watershed moment. In all sincerity, Dawna Lahti Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 71 Packet Pg. 116 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #251622 through #251718 dated March 17, 2022 for $490,071.31. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 03-17-22 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 3-17-22 Packet Pg. 117 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 : 47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 251622 3/17/2022 076040 911 SUPPLY INC INV-2-16722 INV-2-16722 - EDMONDS PD - HATC W MNS V2 TAC PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 INV-2-16723 INV-2-16723 - EDMONDS PD- SONC MNS V2 TAC PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total 251623 3/17/2022 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 54986 LOG CABIN - 1 BAIT STATION SERA LOG CABIN - 1 BAIT STATION SERV 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 55057 WWTP: 3/9/22 PEST CONTROL SEI 3/9/22 Pest Control Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota I : 251624 3/17/2022 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 144295645 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 122 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 144295646 FIRE INSPECTION - CITY HALL fire inspection CITY HALL 121 5TH A 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Tota I : 251625 3/17/2022 077000 ADVANCED VALVE TECHNOLOGIES 002292 E21JA: 12" EZ VALVE PH12 WATER E21JA: 12" EZ VALVE PH12 WATER 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 7.2.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 118 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251625 3/17/2022 077000 ADVANCED VALVE TECHNOLOGIES (Continued) Freight 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 737.7' Total: 9,546.0: 251626 3/17/2022 065568 ALLWATER INC 030722021 FINANCE DEPT WATER Finance dept water 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 42.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.3 , 030722023 WWTP: ACCT: COEWASTE: 3/1/22 Acct COEWaste:- 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 45.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.7- Tota I : 96.3: 251627 3/17/2022 073573 ANIXTER 231<295155 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 193.0, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.0E Total: 213.1, 251628 3/17/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 656000203130 WWTP: 3/9/22 UNIFORMS,TOWELS Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.98 tax = $5 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 52.8( Rentals: shirts, prep charges, cargo 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 52.1 < 656000203145 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.9 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.9( 656000204810 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Page: 2 Packet Pg. 119 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251628 3/17/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1 - PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1 - E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE: 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE: O 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ > 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3( a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6, N 10.4% Sales Tax N 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6, r 10.4% Sales Tax c 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6, 10.4% Sales Tax E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6 1 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.3( c 656000204814 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT E FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS U �a 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� Q FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.4' Total : 202.6: Page: 3 Packet Pg. 120 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 4 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251629 3/17/2022 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 79675 ROUGH BOX - MCLAUGHLIN ROUGH BOX - MCLAUGHLIN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 738.0( Total: 738.0( .. 251630 3/17/2022 075629 AV CAPTURE ALL INC 2573 JUDICIAL RECORDING APPLICATIC N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.51.49.00 156.0( U JUDICIAL RECORDING APPLICATIC E 001.000.23.512.51.49.00 1,500.0( Z Total : 1,656.0E o 251631 3/17/2022 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2022-EDM-01 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SEF 'R o Professional Consulting Services- Q. 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 64,609.4, c Total : 64,609.4L " N N 251632 3/17/2022 06922E BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0015461 WWTP: 1/22-2/18/22 PROF SERVIC 1/22-2/18/22 PROF SERVICES r 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 M 438.0( Total: 438.0( E 251633 3/17/2022 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0008684-IN FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 671.10 GF .2 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 671.10 GF r 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,448.E , 1303241 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 651.40 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 651.40 GF U �a 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,457.2E Q 1305893-IN FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 604.70 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 604.70 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,364.4, 1316472 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 545.80 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 545.80 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,276.8z Total: 5,547.11 251634 3/17/2022 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 23049 E21JA.SERVICES THRU 2/26/22 Page: 4 Packet Pg. 121 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251634 3/17/2022 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) E21JA.SERVICES THRU 2/26/22 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 7,566.0( 23100 ON -CALL STORM REVIEW SERVICE ON -CALL STORM REVIEW SERVICE 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 5,723.5( 23102 E22JA.SERVICES THRU 2/26/22 E22JA.SERVICES THRU 2/26/22 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 32,638.2E Total : 45,927.7E 251635 3/17/2022 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 671786 UNIT 47 - PARTS/ PURGE VALVE UNIT 47 - PARTS/ PURGE VALVE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 85.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.8, Total : 94.1; 251636 3/17/2022 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 10266 YOGA 10266 YOGA INSTRUCTION 10266 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 1,292.2( Total: 1,292.2( 251637 3/17/2022 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5816974 ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 691.6E 5817237 ROADWAY - 1 /2" HMA & ASPHALT E ROADWAY - 1 /2" HMA & ASPHALT E 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 172.81 5818465 ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 178.1 5819873 ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 402.0( Page: 5 Packet Pg. 122 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251637 3/17/2022 076240 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC (Continued) Total : 1,444.61 251638 3/17/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 28227263 ENG COPIER MARCH 2O22 ENG COPIER MARCH 2O22 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 253.4E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 26.3E Total : 279.8' 251639 3/17/2022 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN02220992 YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 6.5E YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 63.0( Total : 69.5E 251640 3/17/2022 073249 CG ENGINEERING, PLLC 46576 TO 22-01 SERVICES THRU 3/14/22 TO 22-01 SERVICES THRU 3/14/22 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 747.5( Total: 747.5( 251641 3/17/2022 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 122001407 12201407 - EDMONDS PD 2022 SHARED TRAINING COST 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 1,200.0( Tota I : 1,200.0( 251642 3/17/2022 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 9056920000 WWTP: 1/11-3/14/22 FLOWMETER i 1/11-3/14/22 FLOW METER #87902I 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 26.0, Total : 26.0' 251643 3/17/2022 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC MAR-2022 C/A CITYOFED00001 Mar-2022 Fiber Optics Internet 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 661.5� Total: 661.51 251644 3/17/2022 072786 CTS LANGUAGE LINK 208481 LANGUAGE LINK INTERPRETER SE Page: 6 Packet Pg. 123 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251644 3/17/2022 072786 CTS LANGUAGE LINK (Continued) LANGUAGE LINK INTERPRETERS[ 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 58.3E Tota I : 58.3E 251645 3/17/2022 068190 DATEC INC 35282 INV 35282 - EDMONDS PD POCKETJET USB PRINTERS 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 1,618.8( HONEYW ELL SECTOR SCANNER 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 1,530.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 25.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 330.0E Total: 3,503.8E 251646 3/17/2022 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 505462 TO 21-02 SERVICES THRU 2/12/22 TO 21-02 SERVICES THRU 2/12/22 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 2,099.0- Total : 2,099.01 251647 3/17/2022 074303 DENT DESTROYER INC MH15179 UNIT 436 - DENT REPAIRS UNIT 436 - DENT REPAIRS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 300.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 29.4( Total : 329.4( 251648 3/17/2022 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY LN-000001953 WWTP: L140002 #16 LOAN PAYMEP Principal: 423.000.76.591.39.78.10 15,396.5E Interest: 001-727-1-1400002N-0409-0 423.000.76.592.35.83.10 2,786.3� Admin/Debt Service Charge: 423.000.76.592.35.89.00 2,102.0, Page: 7 Packet Pg. 124 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 8 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251648 3/17/2022 006626 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY (Continued) Total : 20,284.9, 251649 3/17/2022 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2022020029 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098 Scan Services for February 2022 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 285.0( Total : 285.0( 251650 3/17/2022 076172 DK SYSTEMS 30234 LIBRARY - SERVICE & REPAIRS LIBRARY - SERVICE & REPAIRS 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,922.1( PREVAILING WAGE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 199.9( Total : 2,162.0( 251651 3/17/2022 078870 DORIS EAKER 3-29550 #21-325021 UTILITY REFUND #21-325021 Utility refund 411.000.233.000 5.3- Total : 5.3' 251652 3/17/2022 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 03102022 DC Grant DIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT A DIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT A 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.0( Tota I : 500.0( 251653 3/17/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2878 PM: BOX FANS, SYRINGE PM: BOX FANS, SYRINGE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2� 2882 PM: NAILS, SCREWS, BITS 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.0 " PM: NAILS, SCREWS, BITS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 48.7,1 2884 WWTP: PO 735 SPRING LINK & SP( Page: 8 Packet Pg. 125 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251653 3/17/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 9 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PO 735 SPRING LINK & SPONGE & 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 66.5E 10.4% Sales Tax -71 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.9, 2886 PM: CAULK m PM: CAULK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.1 E E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 _M 0.7E 2887 PM: PRIMER, SPRAY PAINT O PM: PRIMER, SPRAY PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.9z 0- 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.4( Q 2888 PM: PAINT N PM: PAINT N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.9� r STATE PAINTCARE GALLON FEE c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.9E 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.9E 2890 PM: SPRAY PAINT PM: SPRAY PAINT y 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.9E E 10.4% Sales Tax @ 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.4� Q 2893 PM: PAINT SUPPLIES, CLEANER, S PM: PAINT SUPPLIES, CLEANER, S 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.5z 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.5' 2895A F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ FELT PAD F.A.C. - SUPPLIES/ FELT PAD 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.5E Page: 9 Packet Pg. 126 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251653 3/17/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 251654 251655 3/17/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2895B V111V 5-10351 3/17/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR211549 AR214013 A R214224 7.2.a Page: 10 PO # Description/Account Amoun 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.2( NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - Sl 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.5E 10.4% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.5E E SEWER - SUPPLIES/ HOSE SEWER - SUPPLIES/ HOSE 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 8.5� O 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.8� o Total: 468.6, a a IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE .. IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.3E r INTERURBAN TRAIL r� INTERURBAN TRAIL y 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.3E E Total: 112.7E R C165 CONTRACT CHARGES 01/31/, c Contract overage charge 1/01/2022 - E E 001.000.31.514.31.45.00 364.4� u 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.31.45.00 r 37.9' a C165 CONTRACT CHARGES 2/28/21 Contract overage charge for 2/01/202 001.000.31.514.31.45.00 217.7E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.31.45.00 22.6E ENG COPIER FEBRUARY 2022 ENG COPIER FEBRUARY 2022 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 102.2' Page: 10 Packet Pg. 127 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251655 3/17/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 10.6' Tota I : 755.6' 251656 3/17/2022 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH949799 4249 ORDINANCE 4249 Ordinance 001.000.31.514.31.41.40 22.3E EDH949993 PLANNING - LEGAL AD Advertisement of City Notice- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 44.7, Tota I : 67.0f 251657 3/17/2022 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1072461 WATER INVENTORY & PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,772.0( WATER INVENTORY 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,612.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 288.2� 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 375.6E 1080446 WATER - INVENTORY WATER - INVENTORY 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,255.3( 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 338.5E 1080451 WATER - INVENTORY - WATER - INVENTORY- 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 1,627.6E 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 169.2E Total: 12,438.8, 251658 3/17/2022 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0267093 WWTP: PO 792 LF 1 BRS 600# WO PO 792 LF 1 BRS 600# WOG THIRD Page: 11 Packet Pg. 128 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251658 3/17/2022 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 251659 3/17/2022 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 172327 172486 172579 251660 3/17/2022 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC BINV0009495 Total : MITEL M695 PKM Mitel M695 Programmable Key Modd 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 MITEL 6940 IP PHONE AND PKM Mitel 6940 IP Phone w/cordless hand 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 MAR-2022 SUPPORT SERVICES Mar-2022 Support Services 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total WWTP: PO 786 PENV PO 786 PENV 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 251661 3/17/2022 075923 GOV QA LLC INV1285 GOVQA YEAR 2022 POLICE GOVQA redaction licenses for Police 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 7.2.a Page: 12 Page: 12 Packet Pg. 129 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251661 3/17/2022 075923 GOV QA LLC (Continued) 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,275.5E Total: 13,540.5E 251662 3/17/2022 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 1222336 OLD PW - SECURITY OLD PW - SECURITY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.0( 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5.7' Total : 60.7; 251663 3/17/2022 073960 GUTTER KING INC 2202131 WADE JAMES THEATER - GUTTER; WADE JAMES THEATER - GUTTER; 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 645.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 67.0� Total : 712.05 251664 3/17/2022 078839 HAHN, ROSS RHahn3-2022 WWTP: RHAHN - REIMBURSEMEN- RHAHN - REIMBURSEMENT FOR20 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 120.0( Total : 120.0( 251665 3/17/2022 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 29807 UNIT 502 - PARTS/ KEY UNIT 502 - PARTS/ KEY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.9� 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.8� FOCS554053 UNIT 436 - SERVICE/ REMOVE & RE UNIT 436 - SERVICE/ REMOVE & RE 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 3,226.8( 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 338.8- Total : 3,585.4< 251666 3/17/2022 076333 HASA INC 796842 WWTP: PO 738 1/29/22 SOD. HYPO Page: 13 Packet Pg. 130 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251666 3/17/2022 076333 HASA INC 251667 3/17/2022 078411 HERITAGE BANK 251668 3/17/2022 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 251669 3/17/2022 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 83159 EOJA.RET 3 50595 2019-307 251670 3/17/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1021554 12474 PO # Description/Account PO 738 1/29/22 SOD. HYPOCHLORI 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 Restocking Fee - credited back on 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 WWTP: CREDIT FOR RESTOCK FIE CREDIT FOR RESTOCK FEE ON IN` 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 Total EOJA.RET 3 THRU 9/30/21 EOJA.RET 3 THRU 9/30/21 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 Total : E6FD.SERVICES THRU 2/25/22 E6FD.SERVICES THRU 2/25/22 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 Total REIMBURSEMENT FOR VIMEO PLL REIMBURSEMENT FOR VIMEO PLL 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - SI NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - Sl 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 7.2.a Page: 14 Page: 14 Packet Pg. 131 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251670 3/17/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.1 2020220 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 789.4E 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.3, 2070108 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St E NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.4.E 10.3% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.2E 'R 2091337 SEWER - SUPPLIES o SEWER - SUPPLIES a 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 192.0E Q 10.3% Sales Tax N 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.7E N 2614323 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES r TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES c 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 170.4E N 10.3% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 17.5E 3343086 WATER - SUPPLIES FOR ICE MAKE a ; WATER - SUPPLIES FOR ICE MAKE m 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 26.0E E 10.5% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 M 2.7z r 4053352 WATER - SUPPLIES FOR ICE MAKE Q WATER - SUPPLIES FOR ICE MAKE 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 20.5E 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.1 , 4513291 ROADWAY - SUPPLIES/ BLUE TARF ROADWAY - SUPPLIES/ BLUE TARF 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 394.0( Page: 15 Packet Pg. 132 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 16 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251670 3/17/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 40.5f 5342930 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - Sl 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.9E 10.5% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.5" E 6010686 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St M NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St z 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 242.0, o 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.9' o 6011872 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St Q- NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St a Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 147.9E N 10.3% Sales Tax N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.21 r 6031174 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St c NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St rn 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 92.9E .9 10.3% Sales Tax `° 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.5E 6053972 BRACKETTS LANDING - SUPPLIES BRACKETTS LANDING - SUPPLIES E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 50.7E u 10.3% Sales Tax r 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.2< Q 6081003 SEWER - SUPPLIES/ SCREWDRIVE SEWER - SUPPLIES/ SCREWDRIVE 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 42.9' 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.4, 6275191 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - C/ NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - C/ Page: 16 Packet Pg. 133 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 251670 3/17/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6620745 SEWER - SUPPLIES/ BAGS SEWER - SUPPLIES/ BAGS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7011762 NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9020573 PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ DRAV PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ DRAV 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9021779 CITY PARK - SUPPLIES/ FENCING E CITY PARK - SUPPLIES/ FENCING E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota I : 251671 3/17/2022 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC 14315 E20CE.SERVICES THRU 2/23/22 E20CE.SERVICES THRU 2/23/22 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total 251672 3/17/2022 072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC 6059167 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total 7.2.a Page: 17 Amoun 29.3, > 0 L 3.0, a Gl N 23.9, N r- r 2.4E c N E 494.4, 50.9< 3,003.2E E U �a r Q 9,871.0E 9,871.0( 500.0( 500.0( Page: 17 Packet Pg. 134 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251673 3/17/2022 078250 KAUFER DMC LLC 2593 BIZ BOOSTER - WEB HOSTING/SIT BIZ BOOSTER - WEB HOSTING/SIT 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 900.0( Total: 900.0( .. 251674 3/17/2022 067568 KPG INC 2-11822 EBCA.SERVICES THRU 2/24/22 N EBCA.SERVICES THRU 2/24/22 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 12,993.9( U Total: 12,993.9( M 251675 3/17/2022 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 47373455185 INV 4737345185 -ACCT 2185-95277 Z SHRED 3 - 65 GAL TOTES 0 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 R 12.0< o Total: 12.01 Q. a 251676 3/17/2022 078719 LESS LETHAL LLC IN5716 IN5716 - EDMONDS PD Q RE VALVE O RING PACK- PEPPERE N 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 45.0( AIR VALVE O RING PACK- PEPPER[ r 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 M 61.0( AIR CHAMBER ORING PACK-PEPP[ N E 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 110.0( AIR CHAMBER OD RING- PEPPERE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 8.9E REG SEAL O RING- PEPPERBALL 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 30.7.E PUSH ROD O RING - PEPPERBALL U 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 8.9E Q REG SPRING PAD ORING- PEPPER 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 53.0( TANK O RING- PEPPERBALL 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 71.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.0( IN5717 IN5717 - EDMONDS PD VKS FEED ELBOWS- PPR BALL LAI Page: 18 Packet Pg. 135 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251676 3/17/2022 078719 LESS LETHAL LLC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 179.5( Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.0( Tota I : 598.1 E 251677 3/17/2022 074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC 2022-1025 REAL ESTATE/LAND ACQUISITION i REAL ESTATE/LAND ACQUISITION i 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 301.2E Total: 301.2E 251678 3/17/2022 078809 MCKAY POLYGRAPH 12422EPD INV 12422EPD - EDMONDS PD 2 POLYGRAPH EXAMS 1/24 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 350.0( Total : 350.0( 251679 3/17/2022 072100 MEHL, ANDY 03-09-2022 MEAL REIMBURSEMENT - MINORS REIMBURSEMENT- MEALS FOR MII 001.000.41.521.21.49.00 23.1E Tota I : 23.1( 251680 3/17/2022 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 368226 STREET - THROTTLE TRIGGER, SP STREET - THROTTLE TRIGGER, SP 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 61.2' 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 6.3, Total: 67.5f 251681 3/17/2022 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC 4 HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES Hearing Examiner Services- 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 5,344.0( Total : 5,344.0( 251682 3/17/2022 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES 19017157 SEWER - BATTERY SEWER - BATTERY 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.11 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 19 Packet Pg. 136 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 251682 3/17/2022 060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Tota I : 251683 3/17/2022 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 43307 INV 43307 - EDMONDS PD 4 PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total 251684 3/17/2022 073231 POLYDYNE INC 1622252 WWTP: PO 475 POLYMER (CLARIFI PO 475 POLYMER (CLARIFLOC) 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 1622253 WWTP: PO 475 POLYMER (CLARIFI PO 475 POLYMER (CLARIFLOC) 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 Tota I : 251685 3/17/2022 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR 422.000.72.531.90.41.50 Total 251686 3/17/2022 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 23738 FAC MAINT - FLEXCARDS FAC MAINT - FLEXCARDS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23747 INV 23747 - EDMONDS PD EVIDENCE LAB YEARLY ALARM MC 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 23748 INV 23748 - EDMONDS PD IMPOUND LOT YEARLY ALARM MOI 7.2.a Page: 20 Page: 20 Packet Pg. 137 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251686 3/17/2022 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA (Continued) 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 359.4( 23749 INV 23749 - EDMONDS PD PROPERTY RM YEARLY ALARM MC 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 299.5( Total: 1,626.31 251687 3/17/2022 066977 RHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC 100987 STREET- RHOMA-SOLASPHALT AI' STREET - RHOMA-SOL ASPHALT AI' 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 519.5( Freight 111.000.68.542.66.31.00 121.1 E Tota I : 640.6E 251688 3/17/2022 067266 RODDA PAINTS 20886685 PM: PAINT PM: PAINT: BRACKETT'S LANDING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 78.8, 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.2£ Total: 87.1 251689 3/17/2022 072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC 61428596 WWTP: 2/2022 RENTAL CHG FOR F 2/2022 RENTAL CHG FOR FERRULE 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 500.0( Total : 500.0( 251690 3/17/2022 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-7093049 UNIT 437 - PARTS/ SPARK PLUGS 8 UNIT 437 - PARTS/ SPARK PLUGS 8 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 123.7( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.8 , Total : 136.51 251691 3/17/2022 077424 SEFAC USA INC 17113313 FLEET - TRUCK LIFT SERVICE/ INS FLEET - TRUCK LIFT SERVICE/ INS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1.649.0( Page: 21 Packet Pg. 138 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251691 3/17/2022 077424 077424 SEFAC USA INC 251692 3/17/2022 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 251693 3/17/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 22 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Total : 1,649.0( 9813-0 PM PAINT SUPPLIES PM PAINT SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 74.8E ui 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.7E Total: 82.61 U 200326460 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 20.7( 'R 200663953 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M o ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M Q. 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 681.1.E Q 201054327 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 501 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 501 N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 130.1( r- 201103561 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI M TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.5- E 201501277 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 22.8E 201557303 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 186.6E m 201790003 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH Q ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 24.01 202139655 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 28.4E 202161535 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 85.0, Page: 22 Packet Pg. 139 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251693 3/17/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 202250635 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 22.0z .. 202356739 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.6z 205307580 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING E DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 186.2z 221593742 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W o TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W �a 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 90.8E o 222398059 SIGNAL CABINET 22730 HIGHWAY' L a 22730 Highway 99, Signal Cabinet - Q 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 84.9� N 222704272 WWTP: 2/4-3/7/22 FLOWMETER 10( N 2/4-3/7/22 FLOW METER 2400 HIGI r 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 21.3 1 c 222818874 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND A) y Decorative Lighting 115 2nd Ave S / E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 19.3E T Total: 1,673.0° a ; c 251694 3/17/2022 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 81059 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES E E PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 623.0(° ILLEGAL DUMP FEES r Q 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 5.0( Tota I : 628.0( 251695 3/17/2022 072135 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 1000577356 GIS IMAGERY DATA & NETWORK E Enterprise Infrastructure - Network 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 630.0( GIS Imagery data EagleView PlCtomE 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 3,465.0( Page: 23 Packet Pg. 140 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251695 3/17/2022 072135 072135 SNOHOMISH COUNTY (Continued) Total : 4,095.0( 251696 3/17/2022 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 4406 MAR-2022 COMMUNICATION DISPA MAR-2022 COMMUNICATION DISPA 001.000.39.528.00.41.50 76,390.8E ui MAR-2022 COMMUNICATION DISPA 421.000.74.534.80.41.50 2,010.2E MAR-2022 COMMUNICATION DISPA U 423.000.75.535.80.41.50 2,010.2E Total: 80,411.4: 251697 3/17/2022 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 69187 INV 69187 - EDMONDS PD O MAILBOX TAGS MCARTHUR&ANDR R o 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.0( Q. LOCKER MAGNET- ANDREA C 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.5( " Freight N 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.2E r-- 10.4% Sales Tax T M 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.3 1 N Total: 25.1: E .i 251698 3/17/2022 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 57288 FIRE STATION 16 - LABOR & PARTE 0 FIRE STATION 16 - LABOR & PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 4,713.0( 10.4% Sales Tax t 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 490.1.E m 58077 FIRE STATION 17 - SERVICE & REP Q FIRE STATION 17 - SERVICE & REP 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 639.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 66.4( 58206 FIRE STATION 20 - SERVICE CALL FIRE STATION 20 - SERVICE CALL 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 425.2, 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 24 Packet Pg. 141 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251698 3/17/2022 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 44.2, 58258 FIRE STATION 20 - SERVICE & REP FIRE STATION 20 - SERVICE & REP 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 416.3( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 43.3( Total : 6,837.6! 251699 3/17/2022 078410 SRV CONSTRUCTION INC EOJA.Pmt 3 EOJA.PMT 3 THRU 9/30/21 EOJA.PMT 3 THRU 9/30/21 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 42,597.2� Total: 42,597.21 251700 3/17/2022 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 27821 E4FE.5-CORNER TRANSDUCER E4FE.5-CORNER TRANSDUCER 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 3,537.1: Total : 3,537.1; 251701 3/17/2022 027269 THE PART WORKS INC INV77760 F.A.C. - PARTS F.A.C. - PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 56.5( Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.2� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.0E Tota I : 74.9' 251702 3/17/2022 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 00730487 FLEET - WINDSHEILD SOLVENT FLEET - WINDSHEILD SOLVENT 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 69.9, 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.2, Total : 77.2' 251703 3/17/2022 074800 TURNSTYLE INC BID 5544 BID/ED! WEBISTE UPDATES MARC Page: 25 Packet Pg. 142 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251703 3/17/2022 074800 TURNSTYLE INC (Continued) BID/ED! WEBISTE UPDATES MARC 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 360.0( Tota I : 360.0( 251704 3/17/2022 070774 ULINE INC 145921522 WWTP: SAFETY GLASSES+ READE SAFETY GLASSES+ READERS & Hj 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 165.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 15.0- 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 18.7, Total: 198.7: 251705 3/17/2022 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 263671 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 105.0( Total : 105.0( 251706 3/17/2022 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 902612 WWTP: PO 793 FLOWMETER PO 793 FLOWMETER 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 237.9E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.81 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 25.8, Total : 274.6E 251707 3/17/2022 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 2020146 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 105.5, UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 105.5 , UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 108.7£ Page: 26 Packet Pg. 143 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 27 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251707 3/17/2022 044960 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTI (Continued) Total : 319.9: 251708 3/17/2022 075762 VECA ELECTRIC & TECHNOLOGIES 110433 UPTOWN CITYHALL CABINET & CA Cabinet & cable installation for Uptow 001.000.60.557.20.41.00 2,975.0( ui 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.60.557.20.41.00 309.4( Total: 3,284.4( U 251709 3/17/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9900298359 C/A 772540262-00001 Cradlepoint 1 - IT o 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 100.0 Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm R o 421.000.74.534.80.49.20 3.3z Q. Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm Q- a 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 3.31 " Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm N 423.000.75.535.80.49.20 3.3z r-- Trimble 1 - Storm T M 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 10.0, N Lake Ballinger monitor E 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 31.5z 2 Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Te a: 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 17.0z r- Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Te m E 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 17.0< � 9900771524 C/A 442201730-00001 fd iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office r a 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 35.1 , Dayton St Stormwater Pump Station 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.6- Total : 247.% 251710 3/17/2022 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 7267 WRPA ANNUAL CONFERENCE: COI WRPA ANNUAL CONFERENCE REC 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 310.0( Page: 27 Packet Pg. 144 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 251710 3/17/2022 047200 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC (Continued) 251711 3/17/2022 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION 2-2022 251712 3/17/2022 075283 WAVE 251713 3/17/2022 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 251714 3/17/2022 064800 WEHOP 251715 3/17/2022 063008 WSDOT 3201-1027483-01 Description/Account Total ; PMT 8 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF PMT 8 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 PMT 8 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF High Speed Internet service 03/01/22 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 Total 12684184 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 645235 645236 RE 41 JZ0186 L022 Total : FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total E20CE.PROJECT COSTS JANUARY E20CE.PROJECT COSTS JANUARY 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 7.2.a Page: 28 Amoun 310.0( 48,962.4, ui 4,896.2E t 53,858.7: U R 0 816.0( R 816.0( o L a a 1,210.2( N r- 125.8E r M 1,336.0( c U) E 1,224.41 m 127.3z E U �a r 1,447.2, a 150.5 - 2,949.5' 384.7, Page: 28 Packet Pg. 145 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251715 3/17/2022 063008 063008 WSDOT 251716 3/17/2022 078773 ZERO9 HOLSTERS 251717 3/17/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 3752 INV 3752 - EDMONDS PD 10 RADIO HOLDERS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 253-011-1177 425-712-0417 425-712-8251 Total 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 7.2.a Page: 29 Amoun 384.7, 469.0( ui 17.5( t 486.5( U 0 6.4< 0 24.4< Q. a a N N 24.4( r-- r M 24.4( N E 24.4< .2 c 35.6� E t U 35.6� r Q 16.8E 84.21 70.7E 70.7E Page: 29 Packet Pg. 146 vchlist 03/ 17/2022 12 :18 :47 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251717 3/17/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 251718 3/17/2022 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 97 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 97 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 30 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 94.3z 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIALACC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 37.0E 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII E 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 110.8 '_M Total : 684.81 0 39106 PARKS - SIGN BLANKS FOR BEACF 'R PARKS - SIGN BLANKS FOR BEACF 0 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 285.0( 0. Freight Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 62.6< .. 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.1 E r Total : 383M r� 0 Bank total : 490,071.31 u) .2 Total vouchers : 490,071.31 0 r c m E s U R Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 147 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 im STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study qMi s018 EBFA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA 20 Overlay Progranla i042 STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force 02 STIR 2020 Traffic Calming _ i048 EOAC STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program 051 E21 CA STIR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force i062 E21DB SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21CC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21 AA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21CB STIR 2022 Guardrail Program i073 E22AC STIR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA STIR 2022 Pedestrian Safety program i072 E22DA 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC _ STIR 2022 Signal Upgrades i070 E22AA STIR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program i066 E22CD STIR 2022 Traffic Calming Program 071 E22AB UTILITIES 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study s030 E22NB STIR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program i064 E22CB 220th Adapti i028 EBAB STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC 11111110& 2j/3th St,ysland & Mj�c. Ramna i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD urb Ram i033 EBDB STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E91DA STD Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citvwide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c488 E6GB STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA Revised 12129/2021 Packet Pg. 148 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 7.2.b Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB MENfilfiiii Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 Jim FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 E21 FE STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement 6 c561 E21JB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coati c473 ESKA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR Minor Sidewalk Program STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) GF Official Street Map & SidewalkIan Update STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c282 s014 i067 i068 c436 s011 c461 017 m013 s025 m105 c552 STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 SWR Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project c566 WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 WTR Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project c565 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 L STM Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project c567' SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 STR SR 104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th_ 9 STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 STR Trackside Warning System c470 UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study s029 STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades m160 PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facili c556 EBMA E6AA E22CE E22CF E4FD ESGB E4GC E6DD E7FG EONA E7FA E20FC E21FC E22GA EOJA E21JA E22JA EOFB E21FD E22FA EOGA E21 GA E9MA E21 GB ESFD EOFA E4HA E22CG E20CE ESNA E7FB E6FD E1 DA ESAA E22NA E9DC E7MA E7MA E7MA E4FC ESHA EOJB E22JB E21 FA Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 149 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number i046 STR EOAB i047 o STR EOAC i048 STR EOCA i042 STR EOCC i053 STR EODA s024 STR i049 STR EODC i05O STM EO STM EOFB c547 SWR EOGA JL48 WTR EOJA c549 Project Title 2020 Guardrail Installations 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades 2020 Traffic Calming 2020 Overlay Program 2020 Waterline Overlay 2020 Pedestrian Task Force 2020 Pedestrian Safety Prog Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Projec Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR EOJB 26 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) MEOPME" - GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update STR E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E20CB M 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD1 STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvem STR E21AA iO56 2021 Traffic Calming STR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STR E21 CA 051 2021 Overlay Program WTR E21 CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i06O 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STR E21 DA iO58 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave STR r E21 DB M 2021 Pedestrian Task Force PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility E21 FB � AMSW Slope Stabilization STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study STM E21 FD e 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project Ed STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project MLSWR E21 GA JL59 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Proje SWR E21GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services WTR E21JA 8 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement STR F99AA i07O 2022 Signal Upgrades STR E22AB i071 2022 Traffic Calming Program STR i073 2022 Guardrail Program STR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STR i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STR i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Progra STIR E22CE i067 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STR E2 i068 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STR E22CG i069 SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) STR E22DA i072 2022 Pedestrian Safety program STM E22FA c567 Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project SW c566 Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E22JA c565 Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project WTR m160 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades UTILITIES E22NA s029 Utility Funds reserve Policies Study Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 150 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title UTILITIES E22NB s030 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA JS c446 J�tfall Groundwater Monitoring FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E57 c470 cside Warning System STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GB 11 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) ST Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB 88 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization IV STM E7FB Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WT c498 2019 Waterline Replacert, PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7Mq2WW c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 21 STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR E8DIff i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWJ& E8GJW c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Proj4h WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES s020 Zulu utlilre & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor IV STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overla STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 151 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Ouffall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III 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 STM E21 FD c563 Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project WTR E22JA c565 Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project SWR E22GA c566 Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E22FA c567 Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals 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 Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 152 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR EBCC 031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STIR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STIR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STIR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STIR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STIR E21 AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STIR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave WTR E21 CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21CD i061 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E21DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force STIR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STIR E22CB i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STIR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STIR E22CD i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E22CE i067 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STIR E22CF i068 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STIR E22CG i069 SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) STIR E22AA i07O 2022 Signal Upgrades STIR E22AB i071 2022 Traffic Calming Program STIR E22DA i072 2022 Pedestrian Safety program STIR E22AC i073 2022 Guardrail Program STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization WTR E22JB m160 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study UTILITIES E22NA s029 Utility Funds reserve Policies Study UTILITIES E22NB s03O 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study Revised 12129/2021 Packet Pg. 153 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding ProiectTitle Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project c567 E22FA STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 E21 FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 E21 FE STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 E0D13 STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21 AB STR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) i067 E22CE STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) i068 E22CF STR SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) i069 E22CG STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 154 7.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding ProiectTitle Number Number STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing 040 E9DA STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 026 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) 055 E20CE STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STIR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force 061 E21 DB STIR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA STIR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program 064 E22CB STIR 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC STIR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program 066 E22CD STIR 2022 Signal Upgrades i07O E22AA STIR 2022 Traffic Calming Program 071 E22AB STIR 2022 Pedestrian Safety program i072 E22DA STIR 2022 Guardrail Program 073 E22AC STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 220th Adaptive 028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program 060 E21 CC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III 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 SWR Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project c566 E22GA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study s029 E22NA UTILITIES 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study s030 E22NB WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay 043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program 059 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 WTR Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project c565 E22JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades m160 E22JB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 155 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Megan Menkveld Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Lori Palmer Background/History Approval of payroll check #65016 for $6,017.51 dated March 18, 2022, payroll direct deposit for $654,731.52, benefit checks #65019 through #65024 and wire payments for $640,688.54 for the pay period March 1, 2022 through March 15, 2022. Staff Recommendation Approval of 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: 03-01-22 to 03-15-22 benefits checks summary 03-01-22 to 03-15-22 payroll earnings summary Packet Pg. 156 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,043 - 03/01/2022 to 03/15/2022 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 65019 03/18/2022 bpas BPAS 5,717.43 0.00 65020 03/18/2022 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 6,150.00 0.00 65021 03/18/2022 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 548.63 0.00 65022 03/18/2022 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,259.56 0.00 65023 03/18/2022 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,434.00 0.00 65024 03/18/2022 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 5,239.52 0.00 25,349.14 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3338 03/18/2022 awc AWC 337,212.44 0.00 3341 03/18/2022 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 26,208.19 0.00 3342 03/18/2022 us US BANK 125,082.73 0.00 3343 03/18/2022 mebt WTRISC FBO #N317761 119,405.75 0.00 3345 03/18/2022 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,611.29 0.00 3347 03/18/2022 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 819.00 0.00 615,339.40 0.00 Grand Totals: 640,688.54 0.00 7.3.a 3/16/2022 Packet Pg. 157 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,043 (03/01/2022 to 03/15/2022) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 24.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 507.25 20,333.65 122 VACATION VACATION 513.50 22,799.70 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 92.00 3,771.43 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 41.00 1,511.21 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 171.75 6,625.00 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 56.00 2,526.65 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEAVE 4.50 79.70 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 12.00 405.87 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 132.00 6,166.57 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 168.65 8,988.73 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 5.00 339.75 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,029.70 736,559.99 194 SICK Emerqency Sick Leave 80.00 4,120.89 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 254.00 9,211.54 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 258.00 13,461.37 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 10.75 366.84 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 2,256.80 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,426.98 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 386.25 31,276.36 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 6.25 446.33 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 -104.21 403 MISCELLANEOUS PREMIUM PAY 0.00 62,167.50 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 503.76 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 381.05 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,415.32 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 853.78 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 43.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 187.15 0.00 903 MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 0.00 787.50 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 134.53 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 148.12 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 92.72 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 185.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 308.91 03/16/2022 Packet Pg. 558 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,043 (03/01/2022 to 03/15/2022) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 330.00 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 171.68 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 127.02 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 895.02 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 717.15 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 772.80 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 6,586.71 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 461.43 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 88.00 0.00 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 110.00 6,769.53 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 273.06 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 88.70 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 974.58 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 527.63 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 9% 0.00 4,697.39 Ig13 LONGEVITY Longevity 7% 0.00 945.39 Ig14 LONGEVITY Longevity 5% 0.00 706.98 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 259.00 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 401.43 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 3% 0.00 1,313.39 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevity .5% 0.00 294.14 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 1.5% 0.00 360.52 Iq8 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 8% 0.00 252.04 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 127.02 ooc MISCELLANEOUS OUT OF CLASS 0.00 431.45 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 103.70 pfml ABSENT Paid Family Medical Leave 84.00 0.00 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 26.63 0.00 pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 2.37 107.62 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,682.83 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER 0.00 201.50 pto MISCELLANEOUS Traininq Officer 0.00 161.22 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 329.16 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 201.50 st REGULAR HOURS Serqeant Pay 0.00 151.13 03/16/2022 Packet Pg. 159 Hour Type Hour Class traf MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,043 (03/01/2022 to 03/15/2022) Description TRAFFIC Hours 0.00 20,344.75 Total Net Pay: Amount 127.02 $972,099.52 $660,749.03 7.3.b 03/16/2022 Packet Pg. 160 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Dedication of 15 feet for 203rd St SW Right of Way adjacent to 20323 81st Ave W Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Rob English Background/History On March 8, 2022, this item was presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was placed on the March 15th consent agenda for approval. The item was pulled from the March 15th consent agenda and placed on the March 22nd consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve the dedication of 15 feet for 203rd St. SW Right of Way adjacent to 20323 81st Ave W. Narrative The City is currently reviewing a proposed 2-lot subdivision, at 20323 81s' Ave W. In accordance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.75.085 (Subdivision - Review Criteria), the city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use. In accordance with ECDC 18.50.020 (Official Street Map - Dedication presumption and requirement), applicants for a subdivision shall be presumed to create development impacts upon the street and transportation system of the city and such presumed impacts shall be mitigated by the dedication of such right-of-way to the city and to public use. An Official Street Map Amendment, with an effective date of August 1, 2008, was approved by Ord. 3690 reducing the planned line right-of-way on 203rd St SW, adjacent to 20323 815t Ave W, from thirty (30) to fifteen (15) feet in width. As a condition of development, the 15-foot right-of-way shall be deeded to the City. Subsequent to Council approval, the street dedication will be recorded against the subject property with the final plat documents for the subdivision. Attachments: ATTACHMENT 1 - VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT 2 - PARTIAL SURVEY WITH DEDICATION ATTACHMENT 3 - OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT 20323 81ST AVE W Packet Pg. 161 Vicinity Map - 20323 81st Ave W I +� HTs sr 7N LU -— — —— —-— —-— —-— — 00 H 00 � L I I 2 OTH TPV L�� m I o SHT ►�� �� 57 7 R4E I — I C I I MAIN S L IJL I I I W� I I Q I I 0) WAL T 5T ------------------------------ -� _ n " City Of Edmonds 7N IC S24 T SHT6 [ lS77 T27 R4E 316TH-S-T--SW------------ ---- 1 SHT ' 1 520 TL I R4E � I II fL I I� .�. i► 1 i 1 f LU Q L ---54T-lg------- 12TH 1:12,125 530 T27N R4E i 0 1,010.38 2,020.8 Feet 1,SO4.7 This ma Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 18,056 p B p pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 7.4.a iynnwoP ;• O Duri:l.. W Legend N Sections Boundary fA Sections Cl) ' Edmonds Boundary N ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN C - <all other values> 4- tv Interstate ,F Principal Arterial r Minor Arterial; Collector 4— O - - Local Street; On Ramp 0 O State Highways r R V — <all other values> 'p a� -- 0 0 1 fi Q 2 County Boundary r H Parks Z ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_WASHII ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES ' ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES City of Edmonds Z w City of Lynnwood City of Mountlake Terrace V Unincorporated King Co; Unincor City of Woodway Q City of Arlington; City of Bothell; C r— City of Gold Bar; City of Granite F N Citv of Marysville: Citv of Mill Cre, E t Notes tr° a Packet Pg. 162 1 7.4.b --------- ------------------------- PoUND CASED CONC. MON. W/ 1-3/4' BRAss Disc & x- 200 TH ST. S.W. DOWN 0.9, VISITED 10-6-20 4— L I 30' i 30' i 1 h I I I I � � I �I b _ I � ryJ�t hllo I gl_ I I I I I FOUND CASED CONC. MOH. W/ 1-3/4" BRASS DISC & x" DOWN OY, VISITED 10-6-20 1 r f � 1 r ! / CITY OF EDMONDS SNORT PLAT S-2000-150 A.F.#200104255001 FOUND MIAR W/CAP STAMPED 203RD ST. S.W. 30433' O.3'(W) & O. i (S) OF 10' PRIVATE SIDE SEWER CORNER. FENCE COR. 2.5'(S) & EASEMENT AFN 1877046 (PUBLIC M6HT OF WAY) .......... 0.7'(E) OF CORNER _ N 89'18"17" W 153. 15' 30.00' x x . WOOD FENCE +r�FENCE 15' RICFIT OF Way x WOOD FENCE o I 2 3 I I —---- 1----------- FOUND REBAR W/CAP STAMPED '30433- AT CORNER FENCE INT. 1.6'(S) & 0.7'(E) OF CORNER —x -----7-- CHAIN LINK FENCE OF PROPERTY LINE DEDICATION I _,----,— --Z—' ---- —. 2.297 SF- v 10' JOINT UTILITY -- - " EASEMENT '-- — — — � r/T?i7Ti�JTi� 9.4r r� 'a d, /1 r/ ,a d; ;a HOUSE '9 1 h/ TO REMAIN )1-. 9,581 SF d, w xxxx 203RD ST SW ��" A'OOD FENCE 85.17' 155.1E I FOUND REBAR WICAP N 89'19'34' W T STAMPED CORNER. '30433' AT 2'9 10' JOINT UTIU Y — — — `— — — — EASEMENT og O n n O W p 2 o xxxx 20JRO ST SW TRACT A BELT ADD. DIV 3 SNARED INTEREST PARCEL VOL. 21, PG. 2 FOUND REa4R W/CAP STAMPED "30433" AT CORNER FENCE COR. 0.3'(N) & 0.5'(E) OF CORNER 00431200001502 t N ATTACHMENT 2 �1 Packet Pg. 163 7.4.c 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/7/08 ORDINANCE NO.3690 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP, AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO MAKE CHANGES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008, the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing regarding amendment of the Official Street Map (OSM) to reduce certain planned line right of way on 203rd Street SW from thirty (30) to fifteen (15) feet in width; and WHEREAS, this matter came to the Edmonds City Council with the recommendation of approval from its Hearing Examiner pursuant to a decision dated April 17, 2008; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's decision of April 17, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Official Street Map (OSM) of the City of Edmonds is hereby amended to reduce the right of way of 203rd Street SW as shown in File No. ENG-2008=76 for that segment of 203rd Street SW adjacent to single family residential property located at 20323 - 81 st Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington. { W SS700027. DOC,1 /00006.900000/) - 1 - Packet Pg. 164 7.4.c Section 2. The Development Services Director or his designee is hereby authorized to amend the Official Street Map to reflect this change. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: L'4�� MAY R'60 AAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: - A '. 'e, Z &'�� — CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF nC Y A EY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/18/2008 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/22/2008 PUBLISHED: 07/27/2008 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/01/2008 ORDINANCE NO. 3690 {WSS700027.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Pg. 165 7.4.c SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3690 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 22nd day of July, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3690. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP, AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO MAKE CHANGES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 23rd day of July, 2008. ITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS700027.DOC;1/00006.900000/}- 3 - Packet Pg. 166 Zoning and Vicinity Map File No. ENG-2008-76 N 0 125 250 500 FGQ A ATUOHR'-NT 2 I Packet Pg. 167 1 7.4.c 0, fbt co � N Q Ei FIRST BANK MTQ. CORP. F 810) AVE • W, se >a H 74 N �. s 1 P: ui m It i Packet Pg. 168 7.4.c Affidavit of Publication STATE OF -WASHING i ON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH } S.S. REl"r-ij N J OG p EDMOND, Account Name: City of Edmonds The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summer. of Ordinance No. 3690 Amending the Official Street Map a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: Julv 27.2008 and that said newspaper was'regularly distributed -to its:subscribers during 91T of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of July, zoos Notary Public in nd for c State of=apc1d11�a¢�4�ing A�Everet Snohomish County. �r�..::.:lt` ��I►. Account Number: 10141 :0 r dV,..!Bmber: 0001603276 /t �U ev -Az %P�' ot$, �1 9 'iht►►.....r�``��� OF W Packet Pg. 169 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Civic Park Public Art Project Staff Lead: Frances Chapin Department: Arts Commission Preparer: Laurie Rose Background/History The Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) was established by City Council in 1975 (Ordinance 1765). The overall mission of the Arts Commission is to ensure that the arts are integral to our community's quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity. In 1975 the Percent for Art Ordinance 1802 was also adopted, providing a funding source for future public art. The Arts Commission is charged with advising and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council with regards to public art. For each public art project the Arts Commission works with staff to define the project, identify the best process for artist selection, and develop a call for artists that is approved by City Council. On February 18, 2020, the call to artists for Civic Park, with a total artist budget of $90,000, was approved by City Council. The City's public art process for integrated design selects and hires an artist based on their qualifications and past work to design, create and fabricate public art in a designated location. In accordance with this process, a five member Selection Panel was established in spring 2020 with the following members: Kristiana Johnson - City Council representative; Marni Muir - Arts Commission representative; Isabela Wilhelm - student representative; Jack Mackie - Edmonds resident and professional public artist; and Steve Shelton - downtown Edmonds resident and business owner. Due to the pandemic, the selection process was conducted on Zoom. On September 23, 2021, five finalists were interviewed at an advertised public meeting on Zoom and the panel selected artist Clark Wiegman to recommend to the Arts Commission for the Civic Park art project at their October 4 meeting, and the EAC recommended Clark Wiegman to City Council. The design contract ($18,000) with the artist was approved by City Council on October 19, 2021 following a Public Hearing. Following two subsequent community meetings and outreach to other commissions and citizens, the artist presented his design concept at the EAC meeting on February 7, 2022. On March 7, 2022, the EAC recommended approval of the design concept and authorization to sign the artist fabrication contract. On March 8, 2022, the City Council Parks and Public Works Committee approved forwarding the design concept to full Council with a Public Hearing on March 15, 2022, and consideration of authorizing the Mayor to sign the artist fabrication contract ($72,000). On March 15, 2022, a Public Hearing was held and Council moved the item to the March 22, 2022, Consent Agenda. Staff Recommendation Recommendation for approval of proposed design concept cascadia by Clark Wiegman for Civic Park public art project and authorization for Mayor to sign final design specification and fabrication contract for $72,000. Narrative Packet Pg. 170 7.5 Under the design contract, the artist Clark Wiegman participated in meetings with the park design team and with a variety of citizens and community groups, including the Diversity Commission, Arts Commission and Youth Commission. In addition to meeting with community members the artist has conducted other research as he developed a conceptual design for his proposed public art at Civic Park. Following a community meeting on February 24, 2022, Wiegman finalized his design and presented it to the Edmonds Arts Commission on March 7, 2022, were it was unanimously recommended to City Council for approval. The artist, Clark Wiegman, presented the recommended conceptual design at a City Council Public Hearing on March 15, 2022. Attachments: cascadia concept design narrative CC (3.4.22)opt Fabrication Agreement for Commissioned Artwork_drft 3.10.2022 Draft Minutes Mar 7 22CC Packet Pg. 171 7.5.a cascadia a conceptual design for public artwork at Edmonds Civic Park by Clark Wiegman Packet Pg. 172 7.5.a Described as `a love letter to the Salish Sea', the public artwork designed for Edmonds Civic Park is a multimedia, multi -sensory installation celebrating our collective relationship with the local environment. Using the shade structure as an armature for a suspended three-di- mensional sculpture and the restroom wall as a canvas for a supergraphic two-dimensional artwork, cascadia is a duet in illuminated form, vibrant color and organic patterning. Har- monized as a bold cohesive statement, cascadia will serve as a luminous greeting to the crowning jewel of Edmonds' emerald necklace of parks, streams and shoreline. mem r$� I Edmonds Civic Center Playfield Site Plan WAIKCR Cascadia expresses a relationship to the regional environment that brings viewers into a dia- log between form and shape, color and pattern, light and shadow, sound and silence, biota and habitat. It strikes a balance between iconic universality and locational uniqueness, par- ticularly as it relates to Edmonds' extensive green infrastructure and vibrant downtown cul- tural district. The project encourages viewers to contemplate their place within the web of life of our shared natural world. Through the spatial relationship between an iconic lifeboat and a luminous seawall, the artwork will create a feeling of belonging to a larger bio-region, fostering a sense of caring for each other and our environs. Packet Pg. 173 7.5.a Lifeboat is an archetype, a cross-cultural universal symbol of human -powered water trans- port, a beacon boat, a vivid vessel, a cargo kayak, a star ship, a proverbial ark, a cedar dream... Brackett's canoe, a Salish skiff, a Nordic clinker, a Chippewa raft, a Polynesian pon- toon, a Swahili mtumbwi, an Uro totora, a Neolithic dugout... an intricately -patterned sculp- tural form... a brilliant torso, a floating totem... a stylus, quill, pen, brush, scribe... flickering, flying, floating, rowing, writing, drawing... ... a beautiful seawall that's an iconic luminescent wayfinder, a topographical map, a land- scape painting, a giant terrestrial print, an expressionist canvas, a fantastic fresco, a cogni- tive landscape or mythical map of Cascadia... a habitat mural, a meditation on a watery cor- ner of the continent... an aerial view of watersheds, mountains and forests that signifies a gathering place for families, friends and neighbors. 7.5.a community outreach Background research and community outreach informs my overall approach. The concept draws on documented regional history, current maps, and environmental issues, along with conversations with residents and business owners, meetings with stakeholder groups and numerous walks through Edmonds' downtown, cultural district, waterfront and parks. Building on this framework, strategies to solicit community input on the patterning of lifeboat and mapping of seawall include a survey and interactive blog that will collect de- scriptions, images and sounds of residents' favorite area flora and fauna. The collected im- agery will be digitized and incorporated into vinyl graphics affixed to wall and suspension. Packet Pg. 175 7.5.a lighting/landscape As base project infrastructure, lighting and landscaping will play a crucial role in determining the overall visibility and impact of cascadia. Spotlights will provide evening and nighttime illumination of lifeboat and seawall, enhancing site safety and visibility. Artwork spotlighting will be augmented with light and sound effects housed within the suspension, adding to the multi -sensory experience. Color -coordinated plantings within the entry ramp planter will ex- tend the esthetic -architectural palette, contributing to an inviting hearth -like sense of warmth throughout the plaza in all seasons. Packet Pg. 176 7.5.a materials/technicals Utilizing the shade structure and restroom as mounting surface, suspension armature and shelter from the elements (rain, contaminants, UVs, wind, etc) allows the materials palette to expand. Vinyl graphics, resin -coated fiberglass and wood, stainless steel, aluminum, spe- cial effects RGB-LED lighting and soundwork are all viable approaches under these condi- tions. Given the shade structure will protect from a majority of UV daylight impact, vinyl graphics should last well beyond a decade. And urethane -coated fiberglass and wood, stainless steel and aluminum should last indefinitely. Internal lighting and electronics (programmable RGB- LEDs, industrial mp3 players and marine grade speakers) will require minimal maintenance while providing a long lifespan. The advantages of using vinyl graphics include the potential for bright color and complex patterning via digitization (offering easy replication and replacement with vector files in case of vandalism or other damage). This applies as well to all other products and materials used in this project, as everything will be replaceable. Qualities that may be appreciated in the fu- ture at a busy recreation park. Packet Pg. 177 7.5.a The suspension will be engineered and fabricated to withstand basic tampering (hanging/ shear load, projectiles, graffiti, etc), high wind loads and seismic events. Though exact speci- fications are to be determined during construction document review, the suspension will be held rigidly in place with stainless steel threaded rods anchored to the shade structure beams (via load -rated weld -on attachments). There will be an internal support structure retrofitted to the boat shell to provide structural bracing, reinforcement for attached oars and a secure location for internal lighting and soundwork. Packet Pg. 178 7.5.a preliminary budget research/design/review process research, outreach & preliminary concept development $5000 conceptual proposal development, presentations & approval $8000 final design development (engineering, CDs, budget) $4000 final review & approvals (to AC & City) $1000 subtotal $181000 fabrication, installation & documentation image compilation, layout, shop drawings & digitation lifeboat & seawall imagery/soundwork (incl outreach) $6000 vector enlargements $4000 digital files (maintenance/replacement) $2000 labor & materials boat, frame & oars $12,000 vinyl graphics $8000 programmed RGB-LED lighting/soundwork $4000 suspension rigging $1000 installation vinyl graphics $4000 Genie lift $1000 forklift $1000 install crew $3000 supplies $1000 documentation photo/video/audio $3000 website/blog/podcast $3000 subtotal $53,000 insurance, taxes & contingency insurance $1000 WA state excise taxes $9000 contingency (lo%) $9000 subtotal $19,000 TOTAL $90,000 U Packet Pg. 179 7.5.b City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department FABRICATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSIONED ARTWORK THIS FABRICATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSIONED ARTWORK (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department (the "City"), and Clark Wiegman d/b/a Artifacture, Inc. (the "Artist"), whose address is 1214 NW 121st Street, Seattle, WA 98177 and telephone number is 206-669-6082. This Agreement sets forth the terms for fabrication, installation and other work relating thereto of a site -specific public artwork described herein (the "Artwork") and such services related to the Artwork (the "Services"). The City desires to retain the Artist to perform the Services for the Civic Park project (the "Project") and the Artist agrees to perform the Services on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has committed to a public art program that will enrich and contribute to the understanding of art and culture of the Northwest; provide a cultural resource for the community; resonate with people of diverse backgrounds, visitors and local residents; encourage communities to engage with art and each other in a way that inspires repeat visits, and invites shared experiences; and that will enhance and support the design and experience of Civic Park; and WHEREAS, the Artist previously has prepared a design for the Artwork which has been approved by the City and pursuant to this Agreement has been selected by the City to perform the Services, all within established procurement policies and procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do mutually agree as follows: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. DURATION OF CONTRACT A. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the Services, unless it is extended by agreement of the parties or terminated earlier pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City reserves the right to extend the date for commencement of the Services based on the progress of the Project but any extension beyond two (2) months shall permit the Artist and the City to revise the Compensation by mutual agreement. B. If the Artist and the City have entered into any prior oral or written agreements for the Services, this Agreement supersedes and replaces any and all prior agreements or understandings. SECTION 2. SCOPE OF WORK A. The City shall oversee the activities of the Artist under this Agreement. The City may also hire an Art Consultant (the "Art Consultant") to coordinate and facilitate the Artist's work. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all final decisions under this Agreement shall be made by the City. Packet Pg. 180 7.5.b B. The Artist will perform the Services in a satisfactory and competent manner. Should the Artist engage any subcontractors in the performance of the Services, the Artist agrees that the Artist will cause all such subcontractors to be subject to and bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Artist shall identify all such subcontractors and their portion of the Services upon request by the Art Consultant or the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Artist shall not assign the creative or artistic portions of the Services to another party without the prior consent of the City. Clark Wiegman shall perform the creative and artistic portions of the Services. The Artist agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, regulations and ordinances regarding performance of the work and the Services. In providing Services under this Agreement, the Artist is an independent contractor. The Artist, its subcontractors, agents or employees are not employees of the City for any purpose. The Artist shall make no claim of career service or benefit rights, which may accrue to a City employee under state or local law. C. The City retains the Artist upon the terms and conditions contained herein to provide the Services described in Exhibit A ("Scope of Services") and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. SECTION 3. COMPENSATION A. The City shall reimburse the Artist for satisfactory completion of the Services in an amount not to exceed $72,000 (the "Compensation"), payable in the amounts and upon satisfactory completion of the milestones specified in Exhibit B ("Scope of Compensation"). All amounts paid under this Agreement are inclusive of all applicable state and federal taxes including any Washington State Sales/Use Tax, if applicable, owed by the City as a result of this Agreement. It is the responsibility of the Artist to remit the sales or use taxes, if applicable, to the Washington State Department of Revenue. B. The City shall have the sole responsibility and authority for determining acceptable stages of completion and approval of the Services. It is understood that the City has no obligation regarding sales commissions or any agreements with galleries or agents with whom the Artist may have contracted. C. The Artist shall submit invoices to the City for payment as described in the Scope of Compensation, Exhibit B. D. If the Artist fails to comply with any terms or conditions of this Agreement or to provide in any manner the Services agreed to herein, the City may withhold any payment due the Artist until the City is satisfied that corrective action, as specified by the City, has been completed. This right is in addition to and not in lieu of the City's right to terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 18. SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARTIST A. The City may request that the Artist provide extra services beyond those required in the Scope of Work. These services, if performed due to unusual circumstances not reasonably anticipated by the Artist causing the Artist extra work and expense, shall be paid for by the City if approved in addition to the Compensation. B. Payments for extra services shall be made on the basis of additional Compensation determined and must be approved in writing by the City prior to authorization of the extra services. Packet Pg. 181 7.5.b SECTION 5. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARTIST A. The Artist shall notify the City of changes in its address and/or email, and failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver of the City's responsibilities described in Sections 16 and 17. B. The Artist shall give credit in the following form for any public showings of photographic or other similar reproductions of the work: "From the City of Edmonds Public Art Collection." SECTION 6. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY A. The City or its assigns shall examine documentation such as design drawings or changes to approved design, on -site installation plans and proposed work activity, and progress schedules submitted by the Artist, render decisions, and advise the Artist promptly to avoid any unreasonable delay in the progress of the Artist's work. B. The City or its assigns shall ensure that a plaque identifying the Artist, the title (if any) of the Artwork, the year of completion of the Artwork, and a copyright notice in favor of the Artist is displayed in the immediate vicinity of the installed Artwork. This plaque shall be provided at no expense to the Artist. C. The City or its assigns shall keep a current record of the disposition and condition of the Artwork and make that information available to the Artist upon request. In the case where the work was designed for a specific site, the Artist will be notified if, for any reason, the work has to be removed or moved to a new location, and the Artist shall have the right to consult with the City regarding the placement of the Artwork, pursuant to Section 16. D. The City will be responsible for determining if any building permits are required in connection with the construction and installation of the Artwork on the Project. If permits are required, the City agrees to submit to the appropriate governmental agency or agencies any necessary documentation to secure any permits and to pay all fees related to the issuance of any such permits. The Artist shall cooperate with the City if required by the City. E. The City shall be responsible for providing information on design specifications pertaining to the attachment of the Artwork to the Project. The Artist and the Artist's Engineer shall coordinate with the City's team to develop an agreed upon structural attachment approach. The City shall ensure that all structural specifications, work and substrates necessary for attachment of the Artwork to the Project are in place before the Artwork installation begins. SECTION 7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Artist shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and each of their officers, managers, agents and employees from and against all claims, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from claims by third parties arising out of or incident to the Artist's or any subcontractor's or any of their respective agents', employees' and officers' misconduct or acts or omissions in the performance of the Agreement. "Claim" as used in this Agreement means any economic loss, claim, suit, action, damage, or expense, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, attributable to the breach of this Agreement or for bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or injury to or destruction of tangible property including loss of use resulting therefrom arising out of performance of the Services. The Artist's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless includes (without limitation) any Claim by Artist's agents, employees, representatives, or any subcontractor or its employees. For the sole purpose of effecting the indemnification obligations under this Section and not for the benefit of any third parties unrelated to the indemnified parties, the Artist specifically and expressly waives Packet Pg. 182 7.5.b any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act (Title 51 RCW) or similar acts of any other state (Artist to Initial here: ). Further, the indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for any third party under Worker Compensation Acts, Disability Benefit Acts or other employee benefit acts. B. Provided, however, that: (1) the Artist's obligations hereunder do not extend to Claims caused by or resulting from the sole willful misconduct or sole negligence of the City or Development Manager and their officers, agents or employees; and (2) the Artist's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless for Claims caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence or concurrent willful misconduct of the indemnifying party and the indemnified party shall apply only to the extent of the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, agents, or employees. C. Each party will bear full responsibility for any and all of each party's respective tax liabilities owed that may arise in relation to this Agreement, and each party will indemnify and hold the other party, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any tax liability owed by the other party arising from or related to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any taxes, penalties, fines, and/or interest that are assessed by any tax authority against the indemnifying party and further including all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in response to any claims or assessments by any tax authority against the indemnifying party, its officers, agents and employees. D. The obligations in this Section shall survive termination or completion of this Agreement as to any claim, loss or liability arising from events occurring prior to such termination or completion. SECTION 8. INSURANCE A. During the term of this Agreement, the Artist and/or its sub -contractors shall maintain at the Artist's expense and/or the expense of its sub -contractors, the insurance coverage described in this Section, unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the City. All insurance should be issued by companies admitted to do business in the State of Washington, having a rating of A-, Class VI or better in the most recently published edition of Best's Reports. The Artist shall maintain all required insurance continuously from the time originally specified, throughout the term of this Agreement. B. Required Insurance. 1) Workers Compensation, in statutory amounts with Employers' Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury or illness. The Artist shall obtain such insurance prior to execution of this Agreement. If the Artist has no employees, then the Artist need not provide to the City with proof of Workers Compensation insurance. 2) Professional Liability Insurance for all licensed design professionals (such as architects or engineers), who provide Artist or Artist's sub -contractors with services and documentation as part of the Artist's obligation to meet the terms of this Agreement. Such insurance shall have limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors and omissions. If the policy contains a general aggregate limit, it shall be at least two (2) times the required claim limit. Any design professional required to obtain professional liability insurance shall maintain such insurance, and proof thereof, for the term of this Agreement. If professional liability insurance is written on a "claims made" basis, the policy shall provide full coverage for prior acts, or include a retroactive date that precedes the effective date of the Agreement. Artist is required to maintain coverage as specified herein for a period of thirty-six (36) months after Packet Pg. 183 7.5.b completion of the Agreement. This requirement may be satisfied by either the continuous purchase of professional liability insurance or by an extended reporting period. 3) Commercial General Liability Insurance, with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence, Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, and Advertising Injury, Products and Completed Operations and shall contain separation of insureds (cross -liability) condition. If such CGL insurance contains aggregate limits, the "general aggregate" limit shall be at least twice the "each occurrence" limit. CGL insurance shall have a "products completed operations" aggregate limit of at least two times the "each occurrence" limit. 4) Business Auto Policy. The Artist shall maintain business auto liability and, if necessary, commercial umbrella liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Such insurance shall cover liability arising out of "any auto". Business auto coverage shall be written on ISO form CA 00 01, or substitute liability form providing equivalent coverage. C. Additional Insured Coverage. 1) Commercial General Liability Insurance (CGL): The Artist shall name the City, including its appointed officials, agents and employees, as Additional Insureds with respect to general liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Artist, products and completed operations of the Artist, and premises owned, leased or used by the Artist. The policy of commercial general liability insurance shall waive subrogation against the City. 2) All policies shall provide thirty days' advance written notice to the City of reduction or nonrenewal of coverages or cancellation of coverages for any reason. 3) Except as prohibited by law, the Artist waives all rights of subrogation against the City for recovery of damages to the extent they are recovered by workers' compensation, employers' liability, commercial general liability or commercial umbrella liability insurance. D. All insurance policies required under this Agreement shall be issued by insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the City. The Artist shall: 1) furnish to the City certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements, and 2) furnish complete copies of policies promptly upon the City request. All of the policies required by the Artist shall be primary and any insurance carried by the City shall be excess and non-contributory to the Artist's policy. All insurance provided in compliance with the Agreement shall be primary as to any other insurance or self-insurance programs afforded to or maintained by the City. By requiring insurance herein, the City does not represent that the coverage and limits specified will be adequate to protect the Artist, and such coverage shall not limit the Artist's liability under the indemnities and reimbursements granted to the City under the Agreement. SECTION 9. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, neither the Artist nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Agreement shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of services or any other benefits under this Agreement. B. The Artist shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, executive orders and regulations which prohibit such discrimination. These laws include, but are not limited to, RCW Chapter 49.60 and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Executive Order 11246 issued by the President of the United States. Packet Pg. 184 7.5.b SECTION 10. RECORD KEEPING AND AUDITS A. The Artist, including their subcontractors, shall maintain records in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures and shall maintain evidence of all expenses incurred in the performance of this Agreement. B. The City shall, for the purpose of examination and audit, have access to and be permitted to inspect such records and other evidence of costs and expenses charged to the City and/or incurred for Services related to the Agreement for a period of six (6) years after completion of the Services. SECTION 11. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF REPRODUCTION A. The parties to this Agreement mutually agree that if any patentable or copyrightable material or article should result from the work described herein, all rights accruing from such material or article shall be the property of the Artist, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. B. None of the Artist's Services provided herein will be deemed "works for hire" for purposes of copyright law and the copyright will belong solely to the Artist subject to the terms of this Agreement. C. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Artist expressly reserves every right available to it at common law or under the Federal Copyright Act to control the making and dissemination of copies or reproductions of any items that are conceived, made, discovered, written or created by the Artist pursuant to this Agreement. D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Artist authorizes the City and its assigns, to digitally and graphically reproduce by any and all means and media now or hereafter known, the Artist's designs, Artwork proposals and completed Artwork without prior consent of the Artist for purposes of advertising and promotion of the Project and for non-commercial purposes; provided that the City shall assure that all reproductions contain a credit to the Artist and a copyright notice substantially in the following form: "Title of the Artwork, © Artist's name, Date," provided further that such credit is not required in media, pictures, or other reproductions where the Artwork is an incidental element. E. The City is not responsible for any third -party infringement of the Artist's copyright and is not responsible for protecting the intellectual property rights of the Artist. It is understood that the Artist's proposal and other materials that may be created by the Artist as a result of this Agreement, as well as the completed Artwork, may be photographed by the public. F. This Section 11 is intended to be an express grant of limited rights of reproduction as set forth above. Any additional uses beyond the limited rights conferred pursuant to this Section 11 shall be subject to a separate written agreement between the City and Artist, specifically in the terms of use and appropriate royalty to Artist. SECTION 12. WARRANTIES A. The Artist warrants that the Artwork is the original product of its own creative efforts. B. The Artist warrants that the Artwork shall not infringe on any third party's intellectual property rights. C. The Artist warrants that the Artwork is limited to an edition of one (1). Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City, the Artist warrants that neither the Artist nor the Artist's agents will execute or authorize another to execute another work of the same image(s) or design(s) Packet Pg. 185 7.5.b comprising the Artwork. This warranty shall continue in effect for a period coextensive with the term of copyright protection for the Artwork under U.S. law, and shall be binding on the Artist and the Artist's heirs, successors and assigns. D. The Artist warrants that the Artwork shall be free from defects and faulty workmanship and be of good quality and workmanship suitable for its intended use. The Artist shall be responsible for a period of two (2) years from the date of installation of the Artwork for this warranty and the Services, including fabrication techniques of the Artwork and the installation. This warranty is subject to the following conditions and exceptions: 1) The Artist agrees to repair or replace at its expense by mutual agreement with the City, any Artist supplied item, part or accessory of the Artwork which in normal use has proven to be defective in workmanship or material, provided that the Artist is notified in writing by the City within twenty-four (24) months of the date of installation and provides the Artist with a reasonable opportunity to verify the alleged defect by inspection. Items supplied to the Artist by other vendors engaged by the City for use in, or on, the Artist supplied items are expressly not covered herein. 2) The Artist shall not be responsible for any claimed defect which has resulted from misuse, abuse, and improper repairs not performed by the Artist, alterations or failure to reasonably maintain the Artwork. Under no circumstances shall the Artist be liable for damages resulting from defects in structural supports or installation not performed or approved by the Artist or its subcontractors. 3) This warranty is the Artist's sole warranty with respect to defective materials and workmanship and sets forth the City's exclusive remedy with respect to defective materials and workmanship. SECTION 13. ARTIST'S RIGHT TO CREATE SIMILAR WORKS The City recognizes and acknowledges that the Artwork may be one of several artworks created by the Artist embodying unique artistic characteristics and expression comprising the Artist's personal and distinctive style and agrees that, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary and subject to the warranty provided herein, the Artist shall have the nontransferable, perpetual right and license to create new artworks which may be considered "derivative works" of the Artwork, as those terms are defined under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.), but not replicas copies of the Artwork. SECTION 14. TITLE AND OWNERSHIP Subject to the rights outlined in this Agreement, all rights and interest in, title to and ownership of the Artwork shall be deemed transferred to the City upon final acceptance of the Artwork by the City and full compensation as outlined in Section 3 and Scope of Compensation Exhibit B paid to the Artist. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Artist fails to cure any defect or disputed portion of the Artwork to the City's satisfaction, the rights and interest in, title to and ownership of the Artwork shall be deemed transferred to the City upon payment by the City to the Artist of the Compensation minus the disputed amount. SECTION 15. MAINTENANCE The City or its assigns shall reasonably ensure that the Artwork is reasonably maintained taking into account the recommendations of the Artist as stated in the maintenance criteria provided by the Artist. SECTION 16. ALTERATIONS, RESTORATION AND/OR REPAIRS A. The Artist agrees to waive its rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act to the extent provided below: Packet Pg. 186 7.5.b 1) The Artwork is specifically created for the Civic Park entry area; therefore, the City will not alter, modify, relocate or change the Artwork, other than maintenance and repair, without consultation with the Artist regarding the proposed change, alteration, relocation or modification as provided below. 2) The Artist understands that the park will be periodically updated, remodeled, and changed to remain competitive and relevant for its intended use and that the Artwork may need to be altered, modified, relocated or changed to accommodate such remodeling and changes subject to subparagraph 4 below. 3) The City in consultation with representation from its then art advisors will use good faith efforts to reach agreement with the Artist on all alterations, modifications, relocations or changes to the Artwork, other than maintenance and repair, which are made during the lifetime of the Artist. 4) If the City and the Artist cannot agree regarding alterations, modifications, relocations or changes to the Artwork, the City may make such alterations, modifications, relocations or changes as it deems necessary and its decision shall be final. In that event, the City agrees to no longer represent the work as that of the Artist, upon receipt of a written request to that effect from the Artist, which shall be the Artist's sole remedy. 5) The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. B. The Artist must notify the City in writing of changes in its address or email address. Failure by the Artist to notify the City, which results in the City's inability to contact the Artist via street address or email address, shall be considered a waiver of the notification of the Artist by the City as stated in this Section 16 and Section 17 of this Agreement. SECTION 17. TRANSFER OF THE ARTWORK TO ANOTHER OWNER If the City transfers title to the Artwork to any third party, the City agrees to notify the Artist and agrees to require any transferee to agree in writing, for the benefit of the Artist, to be bound by the requirements contained in Sections 11-16 of this Agreement. SECTION 18. TERMINATION A. This Agreement may be terminated by the City without cause, in whole or in part, at any time, by the City providing the Artist at least thirty (30) days prior written notice before the specified termination date. B. The City may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, upon seven (7) business days advance written notice in the event: (1) the Artist materially breaches this Agreement, or (2) the duties, obligations, or Services required herein become impossible, illegal, or not feasible. Upon any termination: 1) If the termination results from acts or omissions of the Artist in breach of this Agreement, including but not limited to misappropriation, nonperformance of the Services or fiscal mismanagement, the Artist shall return to the City immediately any funds misappropriated or unexpended which have been paid to the Artist by the City and may be responsible for any actual damages suffered by the City. 2) If the Agreement is terminated by the City as provided in this Subsection A above: (1) the City will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for services performed prior to the effective date of termination; and (2) the Artist shall be released from any obligation to provide any further services pursuant to this Agreement as are affected by the termination, upon written notification by the City to the Artist. C. The Artist may terminate this Agreement upon seven (7) business days advance written notice, in the event the City materially breaches this Agreement and the City fails to cure Packet Pg. 187 7.5.b such breach within the seven (7) business day period. If termination results due to material breach by the City, then the City may be responsible for any actual damages suffered by the Artist. D. Such termination shall not limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement or law that either party may have in the event that the obligations, terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. SECTION 19. FORCE MAJEURE In the event the Artist despite its best efforts, is prevented from performing any of its obligations or undertakings under this Agreement due to an act of God, including earthquake; act of terrorism; epidemics; unusually severe weather; actions by a public agency; any strike, lockout, or other labor or industrial disturbance; inability to secure customary materials, supplies or labor through ordinary sources by reason of regulation or order of any government or regulatory body; or occurrences that are beyond the control of the Artist, the Artist shall be excused from any further performance for the period of time after the occurrence necessary to remedy the effects of that occurrence. The Artist shall notify the City in writing within twenty-four (24) hours after any occurrence described in this section that may prevent performance. If the delay or interruption has resulted in a material change in the time or conditions for the Artist's performance under this Agreement which would impair completion or use of the Project, the City and the Artist shall confer regarding an amended schedule for the Artwork but if they cannot agree, then the City may terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 18(A). SECTION 20. PERFORMANCE MADE IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO THE DEATH OR INCAPACITY OF THE ARTIST A. In the event of death or incapacity of the Artist, this Agreement may be terminated by either party as a termination for convenience under Section 18 effective the date of death or incapacity. Under these circumstances, the City shall not look to the Artist's heirs for reimbursement of fees paid to the Artist prior to the Artist's death or incapacity except for fees paid for portions of the work not performed. The Artist or the Artist's heirs shall retain rights under Section 11 of this Agreement. B. In the event of incapacity or death, the Artist's executor shall deliver to the City all finished and unfinished drawings, sketches, photographs, models and work in whatever form or degree of completion it may be in at the time. Title to these materials shall then transfer to the City upon payment for work completed up to the date of death in accordance with the Scope of Compensation, Exhibit B. However, the Artwork shall not be represented to be the completed work of the Artist unless the City is otherwise directed by the Artist's heirs. C. In the event of incapacity or death at such a time as the final design of the Artwork has been completed and approved, the Artist designates as a successor to this Agreement to complete the work. If the City approves this designation by the Artist, the Agreement shall continue in force and the Artwork shall be considered authored by the Artist. If the City does not approve, the Agreement shall terminate effective the date of notice to the City of such incapacity or death as a termination for convenience as per Section 18. SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Artist covenants that no officer, employee, or agent of the City, or the Art Consultant who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and implementation of the Project shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The Artist shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance with this provision. Violation of this Packet Pg. 188 7.5.b Section 21 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, in which case, the City may terminate the Agreement and pursue any other right or remedy provided in this Agreement or under law. SECTION 22. CHANGES Either party may request changes to this Agreement. Proposed changes that are mutually agreed upon by the parties shall be incorporated only by written amendments to this Agreement approved by the City and Artist. SECTION 23. LAW; ARBITRATION This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any claim or dispute between the parties under this Agreement or related to this Agreement shall be determined by arbitration in Seattle, Washington, under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Commercial Arbitration Rules with Expedited Procedures in effect on the date hereof, as modified by this Agreement, but the arbitration shall not be administered by the AAA. There shall be one neutral arbitrator, who shall be a neutral retired Federal or State judge (e.g., JAMS) selected by the parties as follows: each party shall submit a list of three (3) proposed neutral arbitrators within ten (10) days of the arbitration demand, and if the parties do not agree to an arbitrator within five (5) days thereafter, then within three (3) days the responding party shall select the arbitrator from the list previously provided by the demanding party. If a party fails to act timely in good faith with the selection process, any party may petition the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court to appoint the arbitrator. Any issue about whether a claim is covered by this Agreement or regarding the validity of the arbitrator's selection shall be determined by the arbitrator. At the request of either party made not later than thirty (30) days after the arbitration demand, the parties agree to submit the dispute to nonbinding mediation which shall not delay the arbitration date. There shall be no substantive motions or discovery, except the arbitrator shall authorize such discovery and enter such prehearing orders as may be appropriate to ensure a fair private hearing which shall be held within sixty (60) days of the demand, and concluded within two (2) days. These time limits are not jurisdictional. The arbitrator shall apply substantive law and may award injunctive relief or any other remedy available from a judge and shall award attorneys' fees and costs to the substantially prevailing party, but shall not have the power to award punitive damages. SECTION 24. MISCELLANEOUS The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete and final expression of the terms hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Both parties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement. Waiver of any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of the Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the Agreement unless stated to be such through written approval by the City, which shall be attached to the original Agreement. The validity, interpretation and construction of the Agreement, and all other matters related to this Agreement, shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington without giving effect to conflicts of law principles. The following provisions will survive termination or expiration of this Agreement: Sections 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 22. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of other provisions. SECTION 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or other communications given under this Agreement shall be in writing and given by: (i) certified mail, return receipt requested, (ii) nationally recognized Packet Pg. 189 7.5.b overnight courier service, or (iii) electronic mail to the addresses set forth below or as may subsequently in writing be requested; provided that a copy of any notice sent via electronic mail shall also be sent via clause (i) or (ii): To City of Edmonds: [Name, Title] [Address] [City, State, Zip] [Email address] To Artist: [Name, Title] [Address] [City, State, Zip] [Email address] Either party may change its address for notices by giving written notice of the new address as provided above. SECTION 26. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in counterparts with all those counterparts together constituting one original of this Agreement. PDF and electronic signatures (including without limitation, signatures provided via DocuSign) shall constitute originals for purposes of this Agreement. CITY OF EDMONDS: ARTIST: Michael Nelson, Mayor Clark Wiegman Date ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Date Packet Pg. 190 7.5.b EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK FABRICATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSIONED ARTWORK This Scope of Work (the "Scope of Work") is an exhibit to the Fabrication Agreement for Commissioned Artwork dated March 15, 2022 (collectively, the "Agreement") between Clark Wiegman d/b/a Artifacture, Inc. (the "Artist") and the City of Edmonds. The parties agree that the Artist shall perform artistic work and services to fabricate and install the Artwork as part of park entry location (the "Site") as described in this Scope of Work. The Artist has been selected by the City in accordance with established policies and procedures based upon its creative skills and abilities. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Scope of Work shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Fabrication Agreement for Commissioned Artwork. The Artist agrees that an essential element of this Agreement is the skill and creativity of Clark Wiegman, therefore, the Artist shall not assign the creative or artistic portions of the work to another party without the advance written consent of the City. Overview The intent of the Agreement is for the Artist to: (1) fabricate the Artwork according to the conceptual design proposal approved by the City, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C,("Approved Concept") and incorporated herein; (2) transport and install the Artwork at the Site as further detailed in this Agreement; (3) provide information necessary for the General Contractor to perform its work related to the Artwork integration into the Site and Project; and (4) provide required information and documentation to facilitate the City's long-term maintenance of the Artwork and any publicity and public information about the Artist and the Artwork. The budget for Artist -supplied elements, determined at the time of approval of the Artist concept is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D ("Budget") and incorporated herein. The Services described below, broken out into separate phases, and their accompanying deadlines are based on information available at the time of the signing of this Agreement. The milestones and deadlines may shift as the Project schedule changes as determined by the City. The Artist will be expected to coordinate the fabrication and installation process with the City of Edmonds Arts & Culture Manager and Art Consultant. Project Background The design of the park aims to create enhanced connections with the surrounding community and promote a unique experience that embodies the essence of Edmonds. The City has commissioned the Artist to create site -specific artwork for the primary entry to the park on 6` Ave N. Section 1. Description This site -specific artwork shall consist of the Artwork. The Artwork concept was developed under a separate Agreement for Artistic Services and approved by the City. The City Council approved the final design in March 2022. The approved final design package is attached as Exhibit C. Section 2. Implementation and Fabrication 1. For those elements fabricated by the Artist, the Artist shall provide all labor, materials and Packet Pg. 191 7.5.b supervision necessary to produce and complete finished elements of the Artwork and delivery of the Artwork to the Site. 2. For art elements that are fabricated or installed by the Project Contractor for the Project, the Artist shall provide any necessary information or on -site coordination and shall be responsible for delivery of elements installed by the Project Contractor. 3. The elements of the Artwork fabricated, delivered and installed by the Artist shall include: Cascadia sculpture including life boat and sea wall graphic. 4. The elements of the Artwork purchased, delivered and installed by the Project Contractor shall include: the shade structure and concrete foundation support, base plate anchor embeds and bolts. All Project -area landscaping, guard and handrails, lighting, fagade treatments and walking surfaces are also part of the General Contractor's scope of work. Section 3. Delivery and Installation 1. The Artist and/or the Artist's agents and sub -contractors will provide the services required for the installation of the Artwork at the Site, with the exception of the Project Contractor -supplied and installed items in Section 2 paragraph 4. 2. Upon delivery of any and all elements of the Artwork to the Project, the City shall provide a secured site and safe and insured storage space for the Artwork. This safe storage space shall remain in effect through the final installation of the Artwork by the Artist or its agents and sub- contractors. a) The intention of this provision is to provide secure storage for the Artist during the on -site installation process. Extended storage will not be available and the Artist and the City shall work together to deliver elements as closely to the installation process as possible. 3. The Artist and its agents and sub -contractors must comply with all reasonable provisions provided by the City and the General Contractor for working within the Project areas. 4. The Artist and the City acknowledge that a COVID-19 and financing related delay has the potential to impact the cost, scope and schedule of the Artist -supplied delivery and installation of the Artwork. Prior to initiating the delivery and installation of the Artwork, the Artist shall work with its sub -consultants to confirm cost, schedule and scope of the installation. Exhibits C and D attached to this Agreement document the cost and scope at the time of approval by the the City and shall form the basis of documented changes, if any, to cost, schedule and scope. 5. Based on the information submitted by the Artist, the City, and the Art Consultant shall work together in good faith to identify a reasonable plan, schedule and budget to deliver and install the Artwork as per the approved proposal, or if changes to that proposal must be made. 6. The Artist shall be paid an additional fee to complete this task and that fee shall be negotiated and included in this Agreement by written amendment prior to the commencement of the work. Section 4. Schedule 1. The work schedule is: Start March 2022 and finish no later than March 31, 2023. This schedule is subject to change as the Project evolves and may be amended by mutual agreement of the Artist and the City or as reasonably specified by the City after consultation with the Artist to accommodate the City's Project Schedule. Deadline for delivery of the Artist -supplied attachments template: TBD Packet Pg. 192 7.5.b On -site installation of Contractor -supplied foundations: TBD Substantial completion of the park: December 2022 Installation of the Artwork: By March 31, 2023 2. The Artist shall be responsible for completion of fabrication, delivery and installation oversight of the Artwork in accordance with the agreed upon schedule. The Artist will seek out regular updates from the City and the Art Consultant regarding the schedule for completion, and on -site installation and coordination of the Artwork. 3. The Artist shall coordinate the schedule for implementation and completion of all studio fabrication with the City and the Art Consultant. 4. It is the responsibility of the City Project Manager to inform the Artist in writing of all construction scheduling information as it becomes available and deadlines relevant to the Artist's Services; and all provisions set forth for working within the Project areas. Section 5. Changes During Implementation 1. In the event that the Artist must make substantive changes to the Artwork design during fabrication, the Artist shall present any changes in the scope, design, character or materials of the Artwork to the City for approval. Aesthetic changes must be approved by the City prior to the Artist fabricating any aspects of the changed Artwork. 2. In the event that the City must make changes during construction of the Project, the Artist will be notified immediately of the proposed changes. The City will work with the Artist to find means of mitigating any negative impacts to the Artwork. Any changes required of the Artist shall require a written change order. Section 6. Final Submittals 1. Upon completion of the Artwork and prior to final payment, the Artist shall submit the following to the City: a) Completed care information/maintenance manual that details the materials used in and the care required for the Artwork; b) An Artist's statement concerning the Artwork purchased under this Agreement; c) The Artist's professional resume; and d) Confirmation that all subcontractors have been paid in full or will be paid in full upon final payment. Packet Pg. 193 7.5.b EXHIBIT B SCOPE OF COMPENSATION CONTRACT FOR ARTISTIC SERVICES Section 1. Compensation 1. The Artist shall be paid aggregate Compensation of $72,000 for completion of all work and services described in this Agreement. This amount includes payment of any applicable taxes, including Washington State Sales/Use Tax. Invoices from the Artist must include an itemized breakdown of the activities included in the billing, including payment of subcontractors 2. Payment schedule for the Scope of Compensation shall be as follows: Payment #1 — $11,000 Payment will be made to Artist upon activation of this Agreement for partial payment of artist fee. Payment #2 — $20,000 Payment will be made to Artist upon receipt of invoice and completion of 50% studio fabrication of the Artwork. Payment #3 — $15,000 Payment will be made to Artist upon receipt of invoice and completion of 100% studio fabrication of the Artwork. Payment #4 — $4,000 Payment will be made to Artist upon receipt of invoice and completion of revised costing of the delivery and installation phase of the Artist's work for partial payment and mobilization of on -site installation sub -consultant. Payment #5 — $3,000 Payment will be made to Artist upon completion of on -site installation. Payment #6 — $1,000 Payment will be made to Artist upon acceptance of the Artwork and receipt of materials described in Section 6 Final Submittals. Contingency — $9,000 Payments will be made as invoiced and approved by the Arts & Culture Manager and the Parks Director. Washington State Sales/Use Tax — $9,000 3. All invoices for completed Services must be clearly submitted "To: City of Edmonds." Invoices must first be approved for payment by the Arts and Culture Manager. Email completed invoices to: The Arts & Culture Manager, eac@edmondswa.gov. Turn around timing on invoice payments is dependent on the City's standardized schedule and may take up to three (3) weeks. 4. The Artist will submit the final invoice and other documents as are required by the Agreement within thirty (30) days after completion of the Scope of Work. Unless waived by the City in writing, failure by the Artist to submit the final invoice and required documents will relieve the City from any and all liability for payment to the Artist for the amount set forth in such invoice or in any subsequent invoice. Packet Pg. 194 7.5.c edmonds ARTS COMMISSION MINUTES - Meeting via Zoom 4:45 pm March 7, 2022 The Edmonds Arts Commission: dedicated to the arts, an integral part of community life. City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department PRESENT: Rhonda Soikowski Lesly Kaplan STAFF AUDIENCE Ashley Song Lisa Palmatier Frances Chapin Kate McKenzie, Chris Cossu, Harry Kirchner Tanya Sharp Laurie Rose Clark Wiegman Georgia Livesey EXCUSED: Richard Chung The meeting was called to order at 4:45 PM by Rhonda Soikowski. Soikowski read the land acknowledgement. "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 ADDITIONS/CHANGES TO THE AGENDA — MINUTES —Approval of Feb 7, 2022 minutes, Kirchner Moved to approve, Kaplan Seconded, Approved PUBLIC COMMENT/INTRODUCTIONS — Welcome to audience. Kate McKenzie on behalf of Snohomish County Arts Commission, invited Commissioners to attend meeting about recovery funds. REPORTS - A. Creative Programs Civic Park Art Concept — Chapin summarized the process, stating that at this stage the Arts Commission is being asked for a recommendation regarding the design concept the artist will present. He presented information in February for comment from Commissioners and since then has also presented the concept at a Community Meeting held Feb. 24 via Zoom. Ten people attended the meeting, a good turnout given the global events that day. Kirchner attended the meeting and noted that although small scale the participation was very active and everyone seems excited about the concept. Chapin added that one of the comments about the graphics was enthusiastic support from Rick Steves for the use of the Salish Sea topography image as an underlying form. Various questions addressed use of color, materials, lighting, and schedule for moving ahead. Comments reflected general agreement that color should be an attention grabber, and appreciation for the connection to local environment and activities to engage the community in suggesting local flora and fauna design elements for the graphics. Weigman described his activities over the past four months to arrive at the proposed design which he calls cascadia. He noted the deep sense of environmental stewardship in Edmonds and his goal is to create a multisensory piece with iconic universality plus locational uniqueness that instills a sense of caring for others and our environment. The iconic suspended Lifeboat is a cross- cultural universal symbol of human powered water transport. The Seawall component is the iconic wayfinder, a gathering place for friends and family and a reference Packet Pg. 195 7.5.c Edmonds Arts Commission Draft Minutes — 3/07/2022 2 to the greater environment. Weigman discussed the use of materials including vinyl wraps, which although durable are replaceable which is important in a public park setting. In response to a question about lighting he responded that he is interested in working with the lighting to create the safest possible setting and also be aware of dark sky concerns. He noted that the final design specifications developed as part of the fabrication contract will include finalizing colors, planting suggestions to coordinate with artwork colors, and community call and response to finalize graphic elements. Commissioners asked follow-up questions, discussing various aspects about the name of the piece; materials and vinyl finishes; lighting and the need to prioritize safety; the audio elements and ability to turn it off; and colors. Comments included the importance of the rich descriptions provided by Wiegman, the appealing accessibility aspect of multisensory art, interest created by the many layers of meaning, and appreciation for drawing on community input which may involve the artist creating a blog to record progress and receive ideas from community members. Sharp Moved and Kirchner Seconded that EAC recommend approval by City Council of the design concept cascadia by Clark Wiegman and approval of the fabrication contract to create final design specifications, fabricate, and install the artwork at Civic Park, Approved. The next step is for a public hearing at City Council with a presentation by the artist. Create Grants — Chapin reported that the $13,500 remaining from the 2021 Create Grants has been carried forward for use in 2022. Chapin briefly reviewed some of the guidelines for the 2021 grants. The priority of this grant program was to fund art projects that expand perspectives and build positive relationships that contribute to an equitable and welcoming culture and community. New, or untested projects— especially those with potential for expanding or strengthening Edmonds' cultural base —are eligible. The project can be a component of a larger undertaking. EAC is committed to supporting all forms of arts in our community, including but not limited to visual, literary and performing, folk/traditional, and media arts. A wide range of projects and initiatives with an arts or cultural focus will be considered, such as (but not limited to) the following: Performances (dance, music, readings, plays), Exhibits, Educational opportunities (presentations/lectures, workshops including school classroom sessions, walking tours, storytelling, training, translations etc.), Video, Virtual and online projects/podcasts of the above or other project, Community cultural events or events with a cultural focus, and other projects to expand capacity for access to arts and clear intent to reach Edmonds residents. For any of these, innovation to bring new modes of delivery, newly envisioned artwork, and reimagined programs is encouraged. With this as a general approach Chapin and Rose reviewed the program and suggested some changes in implementation to make the process streamlined and more accessible. Discussion followed. Commissioner discussed maximum for grant award and reached consensus that grant applications from $200 up to $2,000 would be accepted. Simplicity in the application process and final reporting is a priority. Eligible applicants include artists and arts related not for profit organizations and applicants from the previous year are eligible. Staff will summarize the final reports from 2021 and send out with a draft of the proposed process for 2022 grants for commissioners to review prior to the April meeting. Poet's Perspective Project — Kaplan thanked the judges, Soikowski, Kirchner, Pat O'neill and Amanda Laughtland. They reviewed poems by 37 adult poets and 6 youth poets and selected six poems for the awards. They selected the poems without information on the authors and were impressed after the selection process to see the broad range of poets represented in the submissions. Soikowski, Kirchner and Kaplan read the six poems and gave a brief bio on each of the writers, five adult poets (Alison Leigh Lilly, Sean Patrick Taylor, Carolyne Wright, RW Mayer and Bethany Reid) and one youth poet (Ricardo Gurango). Poems will be posted in two locations and online in April for National Poetry month. Palmatier Moved and Song Seconded that the selection of the six poems (Chicadees in an Old Birch, Evening Haiku, 1 Remember, Stones, The Tree, and Miles Away) be approved for exhibit in the 2022 Poet's Perspective program, Approved. Staff was asked to explore the possibility of having readings of the poems on the website. Packet Pg. 196 7.5.c Edmonds Arts Commission Draft Minutes — 3/07/2022 3 4. WOTS — Kaplan and Kirchner reported that there have been a large number of submissions for review at the next WOTS steering committee meeting. The conference is being planned as an online conference which does enable some presenters from further away to more easily participate. Kaplan expressed appreciation for Rose's ability to put all the pieces together in organizing the conference. C. Funding & Administration STAFF REPORT— Chapin reported that City buildings are scheduled to reopen on March 16. Covid protocol will follow that of Snohomish County. Commissioners will notice some changes in the building, including a classroom on the lower level that is now the new Human Services office. City Council goes to hybrid format on March 22. Commissions and boards do not have the capacity to hold hybrid meetings so have been asked to discuss format of either Zoom or in person for future meetings. Chapin asked Commissioners to let her know directly their preferences regarding meetings, and it will be discussed at the April Zoom meeting. Concert selection is underway, thank you to those who reviewed. There will be 12 at Hazel Miller Plaza and Hazel Miller Foundation has provided funding. There will be some changes in the City Park concerts, with one early on June 26, and 4 more later in the summer, every other week. So far we do not have sponsorship for the City Park concerts. Chapin noted that a new monitor will be installed in the City Hall lobby and EAC will be able to use it to display children's artwork starting with the Best Book Posters. Rose asked Commissioners to reach out to their networks and remind folks about Best Book submissions. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS — Adjourned: 6:39 pm Packet Pg. 197 7.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Public Safety Complex Public Art Project Staff Lead: Frances Chapin Department: Arts Commission Preparer: Laurie Rose Background/History The Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) was established by City Council in 1975 (Ordinance 1765). The overall mission of the Arts Commission is to ensure that the arts are integral to our community's quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity. In 1975 the Percent for Art Ordinance 1802 was also adopted, providing a funding source for future public art. The Arts Commission is charged with advising and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council with regards to public art. The City Gift and Deaccessioning policy (2007) outlines the process for donations of public art, including review by the Edmonds Arts Commission and a Public Hearing at City Council for gifts valued at over $5,000. In considering a proposed donation the EAC takes into account the following factors among others: Aesthetic Quality and Artistic Merit Site and Context Relationship to the Collection as a Whole Representation Community Process Technical Specifications Adjacent/surrounding site conditions if applicable Dimensions Materials Colors Power, lighting, plumbing or other utility requirements Construction/installation method Durability and Life Span Vandalism and Safety Maintenance and Preservation The Floretum Garden Club has a long and rich history of working with the City to create floral beauty in Edmonds. In 2021 the Floretum Garden Club approached the City about the possibility of creating an artwork to be donated to the City in commemoration of the Club's 100t" anniversary. Floretum Garden Club signed a MOU with the City in September 2021 regarding creation of an artwork on the Public Safety Complex site, and the MOU was redone in December 2021 to establish the final site for the artwork. Floretum representatives met with the City Arts Commission to discuss the process, sent out a call to artists, and conducted an artist selection process for a mosaic artwork. The selected artist, Jennifer Kuhns, was presented to the Arts Commission and she worked with the City Arts & Culture Manager and the City Parks Manager to finalize her concepts for the selected site at the corner of Bell Packet Pg. 198 7.6 and 6th Ave N on the Public Safety Complex site. On March 8, 2022, the City Council Parks and Public Works Committee approved forwarding the proposed donation to the full Council with a Public Hearing on March 15, 2022. A Public Hearing was held at City Council on March 15, 2022. Staff Recommendation Recommendation for approval of donation of artwork by Jennifer Kuhns for the Public Safety Complex site and transfer of ownership from Floretum Garden Club to the City of Edmonds Public Art Collection following installation. Narrative The Floretum Garden Club has been working with the City Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department for the past 8 months on a proposal for a donation of public art to commemorate the Club's 100th anniversary. On February 7, 2022, the Arts Commission recommended that City Council proceed with a Public Hearing and approve the proposed donation by the Floretum Garden Club of artwork by Jennifer Kuhns. The EAC appreciated the donation of a significant artwork for a prominent site on the Public Safety Complex and noted that this will be the first sculptural mosaic piece in the City's public art collection. The artist will fabricate and install the piece once the donation has been accepted by City Council. The actual transfer of the ownership of the artwork to the City will be finalized after completion and installation of the artwork in summer 2022. On March 15, 2022, the artist Jennifer Kuhns gave a presentation of her design for a mosaic sculpture for the Public Hearing at City Council. Attachments: Agreement of Transfer of Work of Art 2_8_22 Draft Min Feb _7_22 Floretum Garden Club COE Landscape Bed MOU signed 12.17.21 Jennifer Kuhns proposal CC agenda Packet Pg. 199 7.6.a City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF ARTWORK THIS AGREEMENT (hereafter "Agreement,") is made and entered into as of the last date set forth below between the Floretum Garden Club, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization (hereafter the "Owner"), and the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (hereafter the "City"), to document the transfer of ownership and possession of certain artwork to be donated and installed on public property (hereafter the "Artwork"). RECITALS A. On September 15, 2021, the Owner and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to document the parties' intent for the Owner to obtain and donate the Artwork, for the City to accept the Artwork for installation on public property, and to document the parties' respective rights and obligations with respect to the Artwork. The MOU is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. B. The Owner's donation of the Artwork, and the City's acceptance of this donation, require a separate agreement for the transfer of ownership and possession of the Artwork to document the rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect thereto. A depiction of the Artwork is attached hereto as Exhibit B. C. The Owner warrants that it has the authority to transfer its rights, title to and possession of the Artwork to the City. A copy of the instrument transferring title from the artist who created the Artwork (hereafter the "Artist") to the Owner is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Now, therefore, the Owner and the City, for the consideration hereinafter named, agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Transfer of Rights, Title and Possession. Immediately upon full execution of this Agreement, the Owner hereby transfers all rights that it possesses, and title to and possession of the Artwork to the City, and the City accepts all such rights, and title to and possession of the artwork. 2. Transfer of Guarantees. The Owner hereby transfers any and all guarantees provided by the Artist relating to the Artwork, including but not limited to those relating to defects in the Artwork and the right to graphically reproduce the Artwork for non-commercial purposes. The Owner reserves the right to use images of the Artwork for non-commercial purposes, as agreed with the Artist, after the transfer of title to the City. 3. Identification. Identification of the Artwork and the Artist is incorporated in the plaque provided by Floretum, with City approval, that accompanies the artwork and is installed in the landscaping. Kates_ 2_3_22 Packet Pg. 200 7.6.a 4. Changes and Relocation. Although the intent is for the Artwork to remain installed at the original site, the City may relocate, loan, store or sell the artwork in its sole discretion with written notification to the Artist and to Floretum Garden Club. The City shall make no alterations to the Artwork. If any material change occurs to the Artwork after it has been installed (whether such change is intentional or accidental, and whether it is done by the City or others), including any change in the interrelationship or relative locations of the parts of the Artwork, the Artwork will no longer be represented as the work of the Artist without the Artist's consent. The City agrees that it will not intentionally destroy, damage, alter, modify or change the Artwork in any way whatsoever. 5. Damage. If the Artwork is damaged, the City of Edmonds shall contact the Artist before undertaking conservation, restoration, or repairs. Where possible, the Artist shall be consulted as to recommendations with regard to all repairs and restorations that are made during the lifetime of the Artist. To the extent practicable and in accord with accepted principles of professional conservation, the Artist may be given the opportunity to accomplish said repairs and restorations at a written, mutually agreed upon fee. 6. Defects. The City shall give written notice, with reasonable promptness, to the Artist regarding observed defects in materials or workmanship in the Artwork. The Artist has guaranteed to repair or replace any defects of material or workmanship in the Artwork within thirty (30) days after notice is sent by the City for a period of one (1) year after the date of this Agreement. The Artist's liability shall be limited to the cost of repairs. The Artist shall guarantee and maintain the installation of the Artwork from defects or damages that arise from improper installation for a period of one (1) year after the date of this Agreement. 7. Graphic Reproduction. As agreed between the Artist and the Owner, the Owner and the City shall have the right to graphically reproduce the Artwork for non- commercial purposes, including but not limited to reproductions used in brochures, newsletters, advertising or other media, and the Artist shall not unreasonably refuse the Owner or the City permission to graphically reproduce the Artwork. The Artist reserves all rights under any copyright laws to which the Artwork may be subject that have not been transferred to the Owner. FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB THE CITY OF EDMONDS Title Date I: Title Date Kates_ 2_3_22 Packet Pg. 201 7.6.b edmonds ARTS COMMISSION MINUTES - Meeting via Zoom 4:45 pm February 7, 2022 The Edmonds Arts Commission: dedicated to the arts, an integral part of community life. City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department PRESENT: Rhonda Soikowski Lesly Kaplan STAFF AUDIENCE Ashley Song Lisa Palmatier Frances Chapin Kelley McHenry, Inae Piercy, Harry Kirchner Tanya Sharp Laurie Rose Jennifer Kuhn, Chris Cossu, Joe Richard Chung Doug Merriman Mclalwain, Nora Carlson, Julaine EXCUSED: Georgia Livesey Fleetwood, Clark Wiegman The meeting was called to order at 4:45 PM by Rhonda Soikowski. Soikowski read the land acknowledgement. "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 ADDITIONS/CHANGES TO THE AGENDA — Comments will be taken via Chat for the two presentations, with Audience Comment at the end if there are other comments. MINUTES —Approval of Jan 3, 2022 minutes, Kaplan Moved to approve, Palmatier Seconded, Approved PUBLIC COMMENT/INTRODUCTIONS— Welcome to audience, and welcome to new Commissioner Kirchner REPORTS - A. Creative Programs Floretum Garden Club Art Proposal — Kelley McHenry introduced the artist Jennifer Kuhn, giving a little background on the project to place a mosaic artwork at 61" & Bell St on the SE corner of the Public Safety Complex site. The Floretum Garden Club is the oldest garden club in the state, founded in 1922, and over the years has made many contributions to the City. Floretum means place of flowers and to celebrate the 1001" anniversary the club wanted to create a permanent artwork that expressed "garden". Jennifer was selected through a competitive process. Working with a metal artist Abe Singer, she has developed a design with three sculptural components, flowers sitting in the bed. The metal framework supports glass mosaic panels that form the petals, celebrating nature and the reciprocity of gardens with colorful and joyful patterns. The maximum height allowable for the space per City code is 36" and the three elements will be slightly different sizes and heights. The base is set into the ground with metal support and concrete. Commissioners responded enthusiastically, also asking about maintenance. Kuhn noted that maintenance is minimal, she uses materials that will easily withstand the frost/warming cycle for the long term, and can be easily cleaned of most things from general grime to painted vandalism, and the pieces are repairable if needed. They are close to the sidewalk and benches and Commissioners liked the way they add interest and color to the site, and are close to the new Civic Park. The spatial arrangement of the three elements will be finalized by the artist once the pieces are fabricated. Sharp Moved and Kirchner Seconded that the proposed mosaic artwork be recommended for acceptance to the City Public Art Collection by the City Council, Approved. Packet Pg. 202 Edmonds Arts Commission Draft Minutes — 2/07/2022 2 7.6.b Civic Park Art Concept— Chapin introduced Wiegman who was selected for the Civic Park public art project last fall. Wiegman has met with a number of community groups, and presented at both the Diversity Commission and Youth Commission as well as at a community meeting. He noted that easy going in person dialogue with the community is more difficult during Covid, but presentations seemed well -received and he has had some good conversations online and in person. His written narrative about the concept he calls cascadia, outlines the background of the project and his evolving ideas about the relationship or dialogue between a 2D work and a 3D suspended artwork. Wiegman has multiple secondary ideas about ways to enliven the space and knit together the concepts that could be pursued in the future, but the secondary ideas are not part of the current budget. One piece related to community engagement that could be implemented is a website or blog that tracks the project and invites the community to engage with their input about what in the natural environment makes this a special place. Wiegman described his work as environmentally focused, looking at the land and water transitions. He sees this project as a celebration of the park as a crown jewel of the many green spaces and waterways in Edmonds. His goal is to create a sense of scale, both larger and small, with an installation that is bold, high impact; colorfully vibrant; warm and inviting; hearthlike; reflects mapping and patterning; day and night presence; and honors the natural environment. The art installation site, identified by the landscape architects in the master plan, is a large shelter adjacent to the restrooms with the wall of the restrooms at the east end. The cascadia concept Wiegman has created is a 3D lifeboat suspension in dialogue with a 2D seawall. He sees the suspended artwork as a metaphoric vessel, not literally a specific boat, but an iconic archetypal form. What is on the surface of the form is primary, is what draws people in. Wiegman sees seawall as a reference to the regional biome and the special relationship Edmonds has with the surrounding environment, and lifeboat as a beacon which represents our situation as humans related to local environment, with oars which capture the feeling of how it moves through space, the geometry of rowing and flight. The seawall graphics focus on the topography of place with much to be discovered in the patterning. The specifics of what is included in the imagery will evolve from the call and response with the community about the web of life. The project is still in the conceptual phase with more design development to be completed for the final design (with exact public -input lifeboat patterning and seawall mapping finalized as part of the fabrication phase). Discussion followed. Commissioner comments included enthusiasm about the interest in the "mash up" of the idea, the sense of motion conveyed, the multi -sensory appeal, celebration of teamwork and way it calls up many different images; liking the vibrant use of color; and the sense of discovery in the graphics with multiple layers of imagery giving people many things to think about which includes the community of all ages. Commissioners asked questions about construction, boat structure, vandalism, materials, sound components (birds, water...), and how the community would be involved. Wiegman discussed materials (use of vinyl graphics, fiberglass, aluminum, stainless steel, RGB LED lighting and industrial mp3 players) and the importance of base project site and spot -lighting which will enhance artwork visibility and contribute to the experience of the suspension as a safe and welcoming place day and night. He acknowledged concerns about durability, maintenance and potential vandalism are on his radar screen, have been successfully navigated in numerous previous projects and will be fully addressed during design development and CDs/engineering review phases. Commissioners suggested that Wiegman look closely at traditional indigenous boat designs to be sure that the life boat form while called generic is not accidentally using an image very close to a specific indigenous design. To that end it was noted that the Suquamish Museum has a large indigenous canoe suspended on exhibit (other suspended boats include rowing shells at UW). Wiegman expressed awareness of the potential issue of cultural appropriation, stressing that the form is generic and universal, representing an archetypal human -powered vessel, and that this boat form serves as a canvas for graphic flora/fauna elements. Commissioners want to make sure there is a plaque that tells the story in part and refers to more information on the website. The budget for the artwork is for lifeboat and seawall elements, including internal boat lighting (spotlights are part of the base project budget) and possibly sound, but Wiegman is willing to be a resource to help get secondary projects (ceramic tiles on benches, petanque grove poetry, plantings etc.) off the ground if Packet Pg. 203 7.6.b Edmonds Arts Commission Draft Minutes — 2/07/2022 3 possible. Commissioners expressed appreciation for a project scope of work charged with ambitious civic goals within an acknowledged modest budget. The next step is a Zoom public meeting in which Wiegman will present his concept for community comment. 3. On the Fence Recommendation — Palmatier reported that the review committee under the new process included herself, Song and Kaplan. Exhibits are for 6 months. Priority was given to artists whose proposals used the fence as a canvas. The Commission had already agreed that Floretum Garden Club could use the fence March — August and Chapin will contact them about the proposal by Mona Smiley -Fairbanks. Three additional artists were selected to complete the schedule. Palmatier showed the proposals by Tsovinar Muradyan, Christina Caravaglio, and Sophia Fang. Soikowski Moved recommendations for OTF be approved, Song Seconded, Approved. Staff will review and finalize locations before contacting the artists. Commissioners inquired about the possibility of additional fences in the future and staff will explore. 4. Literary Arts/Poetry Project — Kaplan welcomed new Commissioner Kirchner and thanked him for jumping right in to participate on the WOTS steering committee. The potential keynote is not able to participate this year so they are back to the drawing board for a keynote. She thanked Soikowski for suggesting the adopted name, Poets Perspective, and said the judging will take place after the Feb 24 deadline with 3 commissioners and up to two outside judges. Poems will be posted in April for National Poetry month. Rose mentioned that the Best Book Poster Exhibit is underway with a few posters submitted already. C. Funding & Administration STAFF REPORT —Chapin reported that City buildings are scheduled to reopen on March 15. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS — Adjourned: 6:41 pm Packet Pg. 204 7.6.c MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS EDMONDS FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated December 17th_, 2021, is between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation, ("the City"), and the Edmonds Floretutn Garden Club, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, ("the Floretum Garden Club"). Upon approval by all parties of the enclosed terms in this MOU, the City authorizes the Floretum Garden Club to access the Landscape Bed (`Bed") located on the southeast corner of the Public Safety Complex facing Bell Street (refer to Attachment A: Landscape Bed Location) and to begin the activities authorized herein. In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, to be kept, performed and fulfilled by the respective parties hereto, and other good consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: A. PURPOSE. 1. Enhance the Bed area with a donated art piece to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Edmonds Floreturn Garden Club. 2. Modify the Bed plantings at the discretion of Parks Maintenance. B. PUBLIC ART PROCESS. 1. The Floretum Garden Club will develop concept(s) for a piece of public art to be incorporated into the Bed. The concept(s) will include: a. Proposed art piece location, size not to exceed 3' maximum height, and type of base as approved by the City. b. Proposed location for a plaque that provides information on the Floretum Garden Club's 100th anniversary. The plaque will be located within the Bed and will face the sidewalk. c. Lighting of the art piece is not included in this project. d. Consideration of the existing locations of benches, building lights, underground utilities, and irrigation lines, and ensure that the art piece meets the minimum clearance requirements from underground utilities, setbacks, and does not block visibility or pedestrian access to the sidewalk. 2. The Floretum Garden Club will present the donation concept to the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) to initiate the donation process. 3. The Floretum Garden Club will develop the Call for Artists and lead the selection process, provide full funding for all expenses related to the creation and installation of the art piece per City requirements, and ensure that maintenance of the artwork will be minimal for at least 20 years. 4. After an artist has been contracted to develop site specific concepts which meet City standards for public art, the Floretum Garden Club will present the concept(s) for review at a regular EAC meeting for preliminary comment/recommendation and final design specifications and a rendering of the proposed project in the site will be prepared by the artist. Packet Pg. 205 7.6.c 5. The Parks Department will inform the City Council Parks and Public Works Committee about the proposed project. 6. A final recommendation regarding acceptance of the donation will be made by EAC to City Council once final design and specifications are completed by the artist with a visual rendering of the artwork in the specified site. The recommendation goes to City Council with a public hearing for acceptance by the City of the art piece as designed for the specified site. 7. Formal transfer of ownership will take place once the artwork is completed and installed. 8. The Floretum Garden Club will develop the design for the plaque and the City will review and approve the design prior to fabrication. C. RESPONSIBILI"PIES. 1. The City will: a. Work with the Floretum Garden Club and the selected artist to communicate requirements for the artwork and installation, including review by the Arts Commission and Parks staff. b. Provide modification of existing plantings after installation of the artwork. c. Maintain the sidewalk adjacent to the Bed. d. Evaluate implementation of this MOOT on a regular basis to determine how effectively the purposes of the MOU are being met. e. Schedule meetings with the Floretum Garden Club if needed, which may take place at the Bed location. 2. The Floretum Garden Club will: a. Provide the art piece design/layout for City review and approval in accordance with the Public Art Process noted above and work with the artist to respond to any concerns expressed by the Arts Commission or Parks staff in preliminary review. b. Provide the design and layout of the commemorative plaque for City review and approval, meeting requirements for accessibility and not to exceed approximately 16" x 24" in size. c. Arrange for, and have approved by the City, the delivery and installation of the base for the art piece, the art piece, and the commemorative plaque. d. Ensure that all volunteer events are pre -approved by the City prior to scheduling, to avoid conflicts with other activities at the site. D. FUNDING. 1. The Floretum Garden Club will fund the following items: a. Materials and installation for the City approved base for the art piece. b. Installation of the art piece, including any permits required. c. Artist design and fabrication fees. d. Fabrication, materials, and installation for the commemorative plaque. 2. The City will fund the following items: a. Purchase and installation of any additional plantings. b. Any modifications to the irrigation system needed. 3. This MOU is neither a fiscal not a funds -obligation document. Nothing in this MOU shall obligate either party to obligate or transfer any funds. Specific work projects or activities that involve the transfer of funds, services, or property among the various 2 Packet Pg. 206 7.6.c agencies and offices of the City and the Floretum Garden Club will require execution of separate agreements. 4. The City and the Floretum Garden Club will handle their own activities and utilize their own resources, including the expenditure of their own funds, in pursuing these objectives. Each party is permitted to carry out its separate activities in a coordinated and mutually beneficial manner. E. MODIFICATION. This MOU is at -will and may be modified only by written mutual consent of authorized officials from the City and the Floretum Garden Club. This MOU shall become effective upon signature by the authorized officials from the City and the Floretutn Garden Club and will remain in effect until modified or terminated by any one of the partners by mutual consent. E TERM / EXPIRATION/ RENEWAL Access to the site may commence on the date of this MOU. The effective date of this MOU shall be the date of the last signature hereto and will remain in effect for a term of five (5) years. The City may choose in its sole discretion to extend the MOU on the same terms and conditions by delivering a written notice to the Floretum Garden Club at least one hundred eighty (180) calendar days prior to the end of the term. G. TERMINATION. This MOU may be terminated by either party at any time by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event this MOU is terminated: a. The public art piece, base and plaque will remain the property of the City. H. CONTACT INFORMATION. The principal contacts for this instrument are: City Representative: Angie Feser, Director Title: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Street Address/PO Box: 700 Main Street City, State & Zip: Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: (425) 771-0230 Email: Angie. feser a@edmondswa.gov FIoretum Garden Club Representative: Inae Piercy Title: I President Street Address/PO Box: 733 Melody Lane Packet Pg. 207 7.6.c City, State & Zip: Edmonds WA 98020 Telephone: 425-220-1277 Email: Inae.piercy@gmail.corn L ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all other agreements, written or oral, including the previous MOU dated September 9, 2021, which was fully executed on September 15, 2021, and which the parties hereby mutually rescind. THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this instrument. 12/17/2021 ANGIE FESER Date Director of Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services City of Edmonds /fie— 2J I '7 l Zo 24 INAE PIERCY Date President Edmonds Floretum Garden Club ATTACHMENT; a. Attachment A: Landscape Bed Location & Utilities Packet Pg. 208 r� ■ city 1 Is of Edmonds Attachment A: Location L 1: 189 0 15.79 31.6 Feet 282 23.5 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accura WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliat © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIC _,„w,, X r. d 0 � �� •�� � MDunilak ++ N Legend 2 ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN d — <all other values> .. 1 N ti 2 N 5; 4 9;71;7;8 � C T OC C m N Q fC V N C J LLI O U U C LL E Notes crs Q I Packet Pg. 209 I 7.6.c I " City of Edmonds Attachment A: Utilities �0 0 15.79 31.6 Feet 282 23.5 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION �itriw[it X ^ rL u 7�lii� d O 0 N Legend 2 Storm Catch Basins a ❑ Edmonds .. ❑ Private N ti ■ Infiltration N Storm Manholes p Edmonds C O Private a1 Infiltration • Detention Facilities Culvert • <all other values> m • Yes Q fC o Facility Feature N = Creeks C R Storm Line J — <all other values> LU 0 No, BNSF; No, COUNTY; No, LY V MOUNTLAKE TERRACE; No, PC Q SHORELINE; No, STATE; No, W 3 — Yes, EDMONDS; Yes, PRIVATE; V C Facility Lines L — Storm Ditch Hydrants E 4K Edmonds d a Other L 0 PRV LL C Notes c� Q Packet Pg. 210 1 7.6.d Edmonds Floretum Garden Club Proposal Artist: Jennifer Kuhns Contact: ienniferaikmosaic.com / 360-482-8024 h. / 360-870-0356 c. ARTWORK OVERVIEW: This proposal is for a sculptural artwork suggesting a set of three flowers emerging from landscaping to celebrate the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club centennial. The artwork will be joyous and textural, made of highly reflective, luminous stained glass on metal substrates. The work will be a collaboration with metal sculptor Abe Singer, Abe's Iron Art LLC. DESIGN: Three sculptures represent stylized flower buds. There will be one bud with the tops of the petals curling out that will be the maximum 36" height. The other two flowers will be 31" with the petal tips curving slightly, as if they are in an earlier stage of blooming. The shapes will be simple and similar for balance and continuity. By working in collaboration, the metal framework can be fabricated at the same time that the mosaic is being made onto flat substrates, then the mosaic surface can be attached to the metal lath (rather than gluing the mosaic directly to a substrate, which would take much longer.) These sculptures will be 3 dimensional, but made of flat sections that radiate out from a center point with a graceful negative space in the middle. This way, the artwork will be visually interesting and also easier to complete within a very short time frame of three months. The metal sculpture base also allows for a much easier installation, as it doesn't require the pouring of a concrete plinth. Flower buds emerging from the ground symbolize awakening, renewal and potential. These sculptures will invoke a feeling of springtime; the shift from darkness and dormancy to regeneration and new energy. Meanwhile, there will be individual elements incorporated into the mosaic (pollinators, mushrooms, birds, ferns etc.) to represent abundance. This artwork will serve as a celebration of the joy and satisfaction we experience when we plant and tend a garden, then see how it attracts and sustains other life forms, becoming more than the sum of its parts, giving back to us in profound ways. Please see attached technical drawings.The renderings of the sculptures in situ feature designs that are being re -worked and streamlined to be more elegant, with stained glass mosaic that follows the contours of the petals, with depictions of other garden elements here and there. MATERIALS: Exterior -friendly tile board such as Durock or Go -board, stained glass, glass tile, Laticrete Titanium 257 thinset, Laticrete Spectralock 1 epoxy grout, 304 stainless steel and/or A606 (Corten) weathering steel for edges and footings. MAINTENANCE: The mosaic will be created with stained glass, which is impervious to weather. It will be adhered to the tile board with Laticrete thinset, which is a very strong mortar that holds stained glass securely, and contains polymers that help it contract and expand with temperature fluctuation. The mosaic will be grouted using epoxy grout, which cures to a nearly indestructible hardness. Packet Pg. 211 7.6.d Mosaic, installed correctly, is extremely durable. It withstands freeze -thaw cycles, is touchable and washable. It should stay relatively clean on its own, but can be cleaned with vinegar or glass cleaner and a lint -free rag, or can be shined with superfine steel wool when dry. My public mosaic has been the victim of tagging, and has cleaned up easily. In only one instance, hard impact with a blunt object caused damage to the glass and I was hired to replace those sections. If something like this were to occur, I reserve the right of first refusal for the repair. If I were unavailable for some unforeseen reason, another mosaic artist with strong glass cutting skills could do the repair, preferably using Laticrete materials, as specified in a maintenance plan that I will provide at the conclusion of the project. Similarly, 304 stainless steel and/or A606 (Corten) weathering steel are virtually maintenance free. Periodic cleaning can be done with mild soap and water. Graffiti can be easily removed with standard graffiti removal products. ADDITIONAL NOTES: I have a WA State business license, am a specialty contractor, and I am licensed and bonded Abe Singer is an AWS certified welder. ADDENDUMS: • Budget • Three technical drawings • One animation • Mosaic design concept sketch • Digital rendering of sculptural shapes in situ • Mosaic Examples: A sampling of some of my previous work in keeping with the theme of this project. • Mosaic petal sample Packet Pg. 212 2' 8 1/2 5/8" 304 stainless rods curved to radius and 304 stainless expanded metal lath 1 1/4" x 1/4" stainless flat ba 1/4" reenfo 14"concrete for 5/8" 304 stair 1 2' 11 9/16" t 14" concrete form tube all joints welded with E 308 FCAW electrodes m O L. a Q s a x m a E O U r d O Cn V a d CM M U U O Q O L Q w Y m d E s Q Packet Pg. 213 FA 'OP 40 pw Z-7 I— - . Id. 4% -. �� ,W-1 ��� A t f r -ww`4% t JL f f Ir A j01 0 . F 4W # qk 44 + 4op }j i • T ~ -- *'aid. * # - jo Ar Ll 6 z VP F r id _ - JWd Ma. { Aar r %0 i V7 34 Ap I Y.- .11.1- 1! im -W In * i Oft e - - T U co IP a 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser This agenda item is the continuation of the March 15, 2022 Public Hearing for the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan. Due to the significant volume of attached materials and related impact to the agenda packet, the duplicative narrative and related materials, including the draft PROS Plan, Planning Board Deliberations, Public Comment via email, a summary of the proposed revisions and the PowerPoint presentation can be found on the City's website March 15th meeting link. The one attachment is the emailed public comments submitted to the City and Council since the March 10th Meeting. Staff Recommendation Staff requests the City Council continue to conduct the Public Hearing for the consideration of approval of the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan at a future Council meeting. Narrative The City of Edmonds has been working to update its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The PROS Plan is a six -year plan that anticipates the programming and capital infrastructure investments necessary to meet the community's need for parks, recreation, open space, trails, and arts and culture. The Plan serves as a blueprint for the management, enhancement and growth of the City of Edmonds parks and recreation system. It assists in guiding decisions related to planning, developing and maintaining parks, open space and recreational facilities. This Plan also identifies priorities for recreation programs, special events and arts and culture activities. The PROS Plan process included a substantial community engagement program, with the intent to hear from a broad range of community voices and to focus on diversity and inclusion through engagement in Chinese, Korean and Spanish. Thus far, the formulation of the PROS plan has included the following community engagement opportunities: 1. Community Survey, which received 1,958 responses (available in Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish) 2. Two Virtual Public Meetings - with simultaneous translation in Chinese, Korean and Spanish 3. Stakeholder group discussions & one-on-one interviews 4. Tabling and outreach at community events 5. Presentations and deliberations at eight Planning Board meetings 6. Ongoing social media and email feedback Packet Pg. 216 8.1 The PROS Plan contains a community profile, a parks and recreation facilities inventory, a needs assessment, a capital projects plan, and considerations for financing and implementation. An updated PROS Plan will allow Edmonds to retain eligibility for state grants through the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), which administers various grant programs for outdoor recreation and conservation efforts. The key recommendations from the 2022 PROS Plan include - 1. Acquisition to Fill Park System Gaps - Secure additional parkland in south and southeast Edmonds 2. Open Space & Conservation Acquisitions - Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas (e.g., wetlands, forests, stream corridors) 3. Park Development & Enhancements Complete renovation of Civic Center Playfield; playground replacements at Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park and Yost Memorial Park; and add amenities to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park & Pine Street Park 4. Yost Pool Replacement - Refine options for the replacement of Yost Pool 5. Trail Connections - Acquire easements and rights -of -way for trail connections; and coordinate with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan regarding bicycle and pedestrian system improvements 6. ADA & Other Accessibility Enhancements -Remove barriers and improve universal access to and within parks, natural areas and trails 7. User Convenience Improvements Upgrade or replace restrooms and improve signage and wayfinding 8. Municipal Code Update - Review and update City's code in relation to parks and facility usage Attachments: PROS Plan Public Emails from 03-10 to 03-17-2022 Packet Pg. 217 8.1.a From: Jane 0"Dell To: Council; Feser, Angie Subject: Comments on the PROS plan Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 4:13:41 PM Honorable Members of the City Council and Parks Director Angie Feser: As a resident and a citizen who volunteers time and effort to maintain and improve the existing parks, I ask that you rethink the proposed PROS plan to reflect a more comprehensive approach that incorporates baseline principles for environmental planning and stewardship. When I received the survey sent to collect citizen input for the PROS plan I was pleased to have the opportunity to participate. That wore off quickly. Questions were phrased in ways that suggested environmental concerns were one possibility, and recreational development was another. That "either/or" option ignored what should be a key objective for all City work, especially that of Parks: environmental protection and restoration as a priority. Edmonds is a city of people who love the out of doors and place a high value on natural areas; many devote personal time and physical labor to augment the work of the Parks Department. Some of us are more active than others but the numbers who do the work are far smaller than the numbers of citizens who support it. I have spoken to a wide number of people of various ages and interests while manning informational tables at the market, or by the Marsh. They want to see the Marsh, Perrinville, Yost, and other wetlands and natural areas preserved and restored, just as they supported protection of Brackett's Landing and the underwater park a couple of years ago. These citizens rely on the City to do the right things without being reminded all the time what those are. They also count on the people who pull the weeds (and to whom they call thanks as they pass by) to carry the message. Many probably did not complete the survey, or if they did they encountered the same biases in questioning that I noted. Historic approaches to development have damaged the environment and the resulting pollution, flooding, slides, and all the ramifications of climate change threaten our health and way of life. If the City of Edmonds is not committed to preserving clean air, clean water, healthy (native) vegetation, and the fish and wildlife populations consistent with a healthy environment, the proposed investment in parks begins to look more like political expedience than like a sincere effort to provide the conditions in which all Edmonds citizens, and visitors, can enjoy and benefit from activity in the out of doors. It is time to break that cycle. Yes to parks, including development along the Highway 99 corridor, but let's not forget what makes a healthy park, and a healthy community. Please incorporate environmental standards into the PROS plan. Sincerely, Jane O'Dell Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 218 8.1.a From: Christine White To: Council Cc: Feser. Annie Subject: Draft PROS Plan Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:43:59 AM Attachments: Announcement.eml.msa Involved Edmonds Entities, How to resolve an environmental question and enhance the City of Edmonds? The Edmonds Marsh -Estuary is our only wildlife reserve. We need to have it officially recognized as such, and as one of the few pocket estuaries in Puget Sound. To do that, it needs to be referenced importantly in the CFP table (page 117), because there is a strong possibility that land adjacent to the Marsh can be purchased from Unocal by the City. The CFP should also include $8 million for purchase of the Unocal land and $15 million for salmon passage. The 50-plus acre addition to the south end of the Marsh would establish and improve protection of existing wildlife and provide other positive activities for the public. There are chances for nature trails, pedestrian bridges and boardwalks for recreation and education. Currently, there is limited attention to the natural areas in our parks and open spaces. The Draft doesn't mention maintenance of the Marsh and this needs to be included in the PROS Plan. Please seriously consider these comments in the light of concerned interest in the revision of the draft plan. The City can exemplify environmental responsibility and stewardship of its lands. Respectfully, Christine C. White Packet Pg. 219 8.1.a From: Haslam, Carrie To: Feser, Angie Subject: FW: Draft PROS Plan Feedback Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:23:59 AM Attachments: PROS Plan CC Hearing Comments.docx Sorry this came in yesterday afternoon but just now seeing it was maybe related to last night's CC meeting. Thanks, Carrie From: Ron Eber <ronaldeber@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 4:01 PM To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Draft PROS Plan Feedback Here are my comments for the City Council Hearing tonight. Thank you. Ron Eber Sent from Mail for Windows Packet Pg. 220 8.1.a March 15, 2022 To: Edmonds City Council From: Ronald Eber Re: Draft PROS Plan Comments It is clear there is intense interest in and support for Edmonds Parks, Beaches and Open Spaces. Planning Board Chair, Alicia Crank observed that the draft plan received the most comments about this than she had ever seen come before the Board. This alone demonstrates the importance of the subject and broad interest by Edmond's citizens. However, many questions remain despite all the effort and hard work the Parks Department and Planning Board have put into the update and review. Now is not the time to rush and complete the review but to take the extra time needed to carefully review all the comments and concerns expressed and determine the best path forward. The first thing needed is an explanation of the specific changes that have been made to the 2016 plan as part of the "update" and why these changes were included. A quick comparison of the Goals and Objectives in both plans shows that some have been kept and some edited or deleted. All the Action Plan items keyed to the Goals and Objectives in the 2016 Plan have been removed and a smaller inadequate list has been included in the Park Assessments in Appendix A. Just how much direction these provide the city in implementing the PROS Plan is not clearly explained. Another deficiency is the lack of explanation for the statement that "community values" in Edmonds have changed. There is no explanation about what values have changed or why the Goals and Objectives need changing as a result of this. Thus, it is hard to evaluate whether the proposed update and changes are appropriate. Clearly new voices have been heard during the review and update and new priorities identified but an analysis and explanation of how community values have changed is needed to justify the proposed changes. However, the major difficulty hindering the review of the PROS document is the lack of analysis and response to the large number of public comments submitted (240 + pages as of 3/9 found in the packet at pp. 744 to 984). All email comments are included in chronological order so it is almost impossible to keep track of what has been recommended for the various subjects included in the PROS document. At a minimum, the comments need to be sorted by their primary topic; i.e., environmental stewardship, equity, Marsh, SW county park, beach/waterfront and underwater dive park with a summary of their main points and responses (pro or con) to what citizens took personal time to prepare and submit. Only in this way can we understand how our comments and recommendations were actually considered. Instead, there is only a short 3-page memo (p. 454-456) to explain what is included in the packet. While it refers to the various "attachments," these are not labeled as such in the packet nor are page numbers provided to help find them. Thus, the agenda packet does not inform citizens or help the Council with their review of the PROS plan. Finally, there is the issue of "equity" and the need to distribute neighborhood parks, playfields and playgrounds for all areas of the City. However, "equity" can only go so far. While many parks and facilities can be provided in various areas of the city, others like the waterfront beaches, underwater Packet Pg. 221 8.1.a dive park and the Marsh -Estuary cannot be relocated or their landscapes and values provided elsewhere. In particular, the Marsh -Estuary is unique and is all that remains of a much larger landscape that was here in the Puget Sound region at the time of settlement. Its values and opportunities for wildlife viewing are not available in other locations. All the identified priorities for more parks and conservation and open space lands, trails, wildlife viewing, environmental programs and improving existing parks are supportive of and consistent with the protection and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. Equity for all residents means protecting these resources where they are. Protection and restoration are a responsibility and not choice. The Planning Board was told that preparing a plan for the combined Marsh -Estuary, Marina Beach Park and UNOCAL land was not appropriate until the clean-up and disposition of the UNOCAL land was resolved. However, this is the antithesis of good planning. The city did not hesitate to establish such a policy and plan provisions for the Edmonds Crossing even though the ownership of the land was not yet resolved and it should not hesitate now. What is needed is a proactive overarching policy statement by the city for the establishment of a regional wildlife sanctuary for the Marsh -Estuary lands. This will establish the city's intent and vision for this area that can increase public support and attract funding. This can be done in several ways and I and others in earlier testimony have recommended specific Goal and Objectives for this. These are again included here for your consideration. These amendments will provide clear statements about the City's policy to protect and restore the Edmonds Marsh- Estuary and intent to acquire the additional land known as the Unocal property. These policy statements will be the City's vision for this regionally significant tidal wetland and wildlife area and are clearly supported by the public as this hearing record demonstrates. Failure of the draft PROS Plan to clearly recognize the importance and support for the Marsh is a significant flaw in the document and needs correction before any final action is taken. Proposed Goal and Objective Statements Option One: Goal and Objectives Goal: Establish a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area in public ownership on the southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront that includes the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary, the old Unocal property, and Marina Beach Park. Objectives: 1. Connect the Sanctuary Area with a tidal channel from Puget Sound to the Edmonds Marsh, nature trails, pedestrian bridges, and boardwalks throughout all three areas for outdoor recreation, bird -watching and nature viewing (including migrating salmon). 2. Restore the Marsh -Estuary to an ecologically functional tidal wetland; Packet Pg. 222 8.1.a 3. Manage the regional wildlife sanctuary for aquatic and avian wildlife protection and enhancement, outdoor recreation and environmental education programs, and other activities consistent with and as secondary uses to wildlife conservation. Option Two: Objective Only Add the following Objective for Goal 5: NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT CONSERVATION • 5.7 Develop a plan to restore the Marsh -Estuary to an ecologically functional tidal wetland including the acquisition and use of the adjacent UNOCAL land and their combined manaaement as a wildlife sanctuary and recreation area: Further the proposed amendments to the Capital Improvement & Planning Objectives in Appendix A (page 143 of PROS and page 603 of the Agenda Packet) should be amended as follows: Develop a parks master plan for the [to inelude] restoration of the Marsh Estuary to an ecologically functional tidal wetland [estuaFy f� �neti^n ^f cenn^etin^ and daylighting ` ille •4 Creek and ch llbarger Creek t PL g t S R Rd thre gh the E=,_.,,^n,_S Marsh.] that includes an open channel connection between the Marsh and Puget Sound, with maximal wildlife buffer area and freshwater connections with Willow and Shellbarger Creeks, improved wildlife and fish habitat in the estuary and adjacent wetlands with optimal conditions for salmon spawning migration, development of nature trails, elevated boardwalks, and pedestrian bridges to connect Marina Beach Park and enhance environmental education, outdoor recreation. bird -watching. viewing migrating salmon and the natural areas of the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary and nearshore environment. The new language added to the text on page 85 should also be amended as follows: [Te-e] Expand the Edmonds Marsh by acquisition of additional acres known as the Unocal property, be censi Bred] when it is available. When [If] ownership of Unocal property is secured by the City, the parks master [a] plan shall be amended to provide for their combined management as a wildlife sanctuary and recreation area; [to restere est ,-Arian f„nct;^ns ^f the !'ree.ks to the Puget Sound.] Packet Pg. 223 8.1.a From: Haslam, Carrie To: Feser, Anaie Subject: FW: Environmental Protection and the PROS plan Date: Thursday, March 10, 2022 3:30:05 PM Angie for review. Thanks, Carrie From: Nancy Johnson <najohnso@fastmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 3:25 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Nancy.Johnson@washington.sierraclub.org Subject: Environmental Protection and the PROS plan Dear Mayor Nelson and City Councilmembers, The Sno-Isle Sierra Club group, with over 2400 members, requests that environmental protections be emphasized in the Edmonds Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan. In doing so we join with the 200 member League of Women Voters Snohomish County, the 480 member Everett 350 group, the more than 100 members of Save Our Marsh, the Interfaith Climate action group with 25 members, the Climate Alliance of Snohomish County which represents 15 environmental groups, and the Kitsap Audubon group with over 1000 members, plus members of Pilchuck Audubon. We request that the plan be revised with increased emphasis and detail on planning for climate change, protecting our watersheds, enhancing tree canopy, and restoring the Edmonds Marsh/estuary. Protecting the environment is important for quality of life for all our citizens; our underserved populations are the most vulnerable to the impact of climate change and polluted air and water. Sincerely, Nancy Johnson Chair, Sno-Isle Sierra Club Group 206-371-5499 Sno-Isle Sierra Club website Packet Pg. 224 8.1.a From: Martin, Michelle To: Lien. Kernen; Feser, Angie Subject: FW: Planning for the Future Date: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:11:44 PM Attachments: Planning the Future.docx FYI — Comment forward From: berniebusch@gmail.com <berniebusch@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:08 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens- planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Planning for the Future Dear Council and Citizens Planning Committee Members. Please look at the attachment that accompanies my email to all of you. Could we create something similar in 4 to 6 years? As a recent member of the Edmonds community, I am encouraged by the extensive dialogue and community involvement in the plans for the conservation and restoration of the amazing resources this community possesses. The discussion of tree canopy and watershed management tells me that many of you "get it" regarding future growth and the need for careful planning before, not when, we need it. The Edmonds bowl is unique in that conservation issues are magnified due to the multiple watersheds that converge and run headlong into town on their way to Puget Sound. Climate change and population growth cannot be stopped. It can be carefully planned for. It will take some years before Edmonds can restore the marsh/estuary area. That is, in fact, the good news. We have the time to be well prepared for restoration and growth. We must not waste this time or put off planning. Planning to fund restoration and development is essential. We cannot convince the state, federal government, and private industry to invest significant funds in unformed or ill -formed concepts. It takes scientists, politically astute lobbyists and yes, even politicians to put a convincing package together. Most importantly it requires lots of time. Act now. Vote to put plans in place now in our long-term PROS Plan that will start development of our own Edmonds Beach Park Estuary Restoration. Form project development work groups and utilize the skills of our residents. It is the right thing to do for the communities' recreational interests, the salmon populations survival, a variety of wildlife needs, and it will help save Puget Sound from the ravages of wastewater and surface run-off. Thanks for reading my remarks. Bernie Busch, Edmonds Resident Packet Pg. 225 8.1.a Bernie Busch 425-359-3221 (cell) "We don't inherit this land from our ancestors, We borrow it from our children" Cree Native American Proverb Packet Pg. 226 8.1.a From: Haslam, Carrie To: Feser, Angie Subject: FW: some pro -plans suggestions (one is a typo, one is date/year typo) Date: Friday, March 11, 2022 8:46:33 AM Angie for review. From: Olson, Dean (Diversity Commission) <Dean.Olson@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 8:27 AM To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov> Subject: some pro -plans suggestions (one is a typo, one is date/year typo) Hi Parks, the pro -parks -plan has some minor errors. I am acting as a private citizen here, not acting on behalf of anyone but me. Comments copied below. Thank you ❑C Dean Olson (he him his) 1. MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOTOR 2. It's 1991, some 31.5 years ago. Under president George Herbert Walker Bush, the ADA became law in 1991. It was revised in 2010 under Obama administration. The pro - parks quote needs help: Further, portions of the City's parks, trails and open space system were developed before the 1999 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was implemented. 3. Since at least the mid-1990s and after two revisions, the city parks violate the ADA's rule and regulations. Several exceptions (many spurious, including one stating 'unsanitary' conditions) are cited to prevent accessible parks. Many sad, sob stories are used to justify reasons why Edmonds cannot achieve accessibility inclusion. Someone said Edmonds has "Planning Paralysis" and this should be included in the pro -park document (pro -parks going on since 2016). ADA requests are not being implemented in the name of the pro -parks planning. Even today, in ADA discussions, at least two city councilors have told me to wait for pro -parks. If ADA requests were made in 2018 (and some were), do these folks wait another five years? 4. The disability statistics cited in the pro -plans report appears to be an undercount. The statistics are more like 15% (not 11%) in Edmonds. 5. The ADA Transition plan was done in 2018 and it if it omitted parks, that was an expensive error: The City does not have an ADA Transition Plan for park facilities, and one should be completed. 6. Accessibility inclusion is not a "should" but a "must" today. Today, Edmonds presents an exclusion approach and people in wheelchairs note this. Packet Pg. 227 8.1.a c a a O a a� Q. c as a O 08 c 0 :r m L V N� LPL L a. N N O N N N O N ti r M O O r O r M O E O L E W 2 a. a. U) NO LPL a c m E z u 2 r Q Packet Pg. 228 8.1.a From: dmm98020(ocomcast.net To: Nelson, Michael; Council; Feser, Angie Subject: Our Edmonds Marsh deserving priority status in the PROS plan Date: Sunday, March 13, 2022 10:50:19 AM Mayor and City Council, Director Feser, What comes to mind with that phrase, an Edmonds Kind of Day, is the snow-capped mountains, the blue waters and beaches of Puget Sound, our Edmonds Marsh, the landscape of nature that we have been given. This is the land that Native Americans tended with care for centuries, now, the Edmonds Marsh is a habitat for birds and wildlife, an ecological sanctuary that protects us as our climate warms, population grows. To those gifts of nature, so close at hand, we express honor through "Our Indigenous Land Acknowledgment," recited before governmental meetings -- our gratitude to Native Americans, our promise to protect this land for future generations. Our Edmonds Marsh has benefited from marine scientists of merit, those experienced with governmental process, volunteering untold time to understanding and application of best practices. Many additional volunteers have shown their commitment to the Marsh by testing water quality for toxins, working to remove structures that hinder free flow of the creeks, removing invasive plant species, informing the public of the science relating to estuaries, streams, fish, governmental process. That major commitment to the Edmonds Marsh, freely given by many to our Marsh, needs to be supported in the Parks and Recreation PROS Plan. This is our gem and it needs our stewardship now. Future generations will thank you for your recognition and resource allocations to the benefit of all. Dianna Maish Edmonds Packet Pg. 229 8.1.a From: Bill Phioos To: Council; Feser. Anaie; Nelson, Michael Subject: PROS Plan Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 8:17:36 PM Greetings Council, Mayor, Parks Director; I would like to see the Parks Department put a higher priority on acquiring new parklands and open spaces. I believe the Edmonds' land area that is park land is 5 %.. I believe that cities this size should have 8 to 10 percentage of its land area as parkland. We should be acquiring more undeveloped land and saving that land as parks.. The City should acquire the Perrinville Woods and save those 200 trees on 5 acres as a forest preserve. The City should reach out to the State for salmon recovery grants . And reach out to the Fonterra Group for low interest loans. And reach out to the Snohomish County Urban Forest Management group who are funding forest acquisitions in Snohomish county. The City should be seeking cooperation and help. Including from businesses and individual citizens. The City should be leading a joint effort on saving those crucial headwaters of the Perrrinville Creek. It is our responsibility to take care of that creek, we are but the caretakers. As we watch Edmonds quickly be totally developed around us, we realize that the few open spaces and forested lots left will soon be a thing of the past.. Now is the time to acquire as much of that undeveloped land as we can. And forever save that land for the recreational and environmental enjoyment of generations to come. For once it slips away it will never be gotten back. Thank you for your time; Bill Phipps Packet Pg. 230 8.1.a From: Sharon Sneddon To: Council; Feser, Angie Subject: PROS Plan Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:09:26 PM Dear Council Members and Angie Feser, The Washington State Legislature just passed HB 2078, "Outdoor School for All" which will support outdoor education experiences for all fifth and sixth graders In our state. Now is the time to take action on restoring and enhancing the Edmonds Marsh Estuary to make it a crown jewel for our city and a shining example of a fully -functioning marsh estuary, drawing students from around the region. I hope City officials will rewrite the PROS Plan to include more emphasis on restoration and enhancement of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary as well as action plans to plant more trees in our parks and open spaces. Addressing the impacts of climate change such as sea level rise, must be a priority in the PROS Plan, not just an afterthought below improving playgrounds. Sharon Sneddon Edmonds Resident Packet Pg. 231 8.1.a From: Joan Bloom To: nil; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Feser. Angie; Nelson, Michael Subject: Public hearing, Draft PROS plan Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 10:51:52 AM Council, Please take your time in reviewing the draft PROS plan. One public hearing is not sufficient to address the complexity of this document, and to include input from the many residents and stakeholders who have engaged with the Parks department, the Planning Board and Council, for over a year, regarding this plan. The Planning Board had eight meetings from January 2021 to February 2022 to discuss and deliberate this draft plan. Council should allot sufficient time to finalize this critically important document. In the year that this work has been going on, many issues have been brought to light, as reflected in the public comments in the packet, and comments received by Council. The work done by Director Feser and by our Planning Board is greatly appreciated. Deliberations by the Planning Board were thoughtful and inclusive of points expressed in the surveys, meetings, and public comments. The Planning Board was able to discuss these issues, over a long period of time. Your packet includes 569 pages, 240 pages of which were public comments to the Planning Board (Jan 7-22 through March-10-22). Council has received many more emails regarding the draft PROS plan than are represented in the packet. It takes several hours to review the materials. Fully understanding and deciding upon its adoption will take much longer because of the breadth and complexity of the PROS plan. Concerns brought by the public should be discussed. For example: • Pilchuck Audubon members. • Underwater Park users. • Requests that Edmonds take over management of SW County Park. • Poor condition of Edmonds' part of the Interurban Trail and of its access to Lake Ballinger Park. • Improvements and access to Mathay-Bal linger Park • Detailed recommendations by Save Our Marsh members. • Development of a park on the Edmonds side of Lake Ballinger Park. • The planned addition of a play area to the (open space) Pine Ridge Park, currently used extensively by bird watchers. • Degradation of our environmental assets and wildlife habitat in our parks, including Packet Pg. 232 8.1.a forests, streams, wetlands, steep slopes and our Marsh -estuary. • A planning board member's comment about acquisition of Perrinville Woods property, recognizing residents who for years have opposed its development. • Creation of an action plan regarding global warming throughout the entire PROS plan that would reflect the city of Edmonds' commitments to reduce our carbon footprint. • Restoration of Edmonds' watersheds, specifically those in our parks. • Clarity about the city's plan to acquire the Unocal property to expand and support the Edmonds Marsh estuary. • Restoration of the Marsh estuary, and of salmon bearing creeks and streams flowing through our parks to Puget Sound through Edmonds. It would also be prudent for Council to carefully assess whether allocating over 8 million dollars in the Capitol Facilities Program (p.579 of packet) for the acquisition, master plan, and development of three new parks (two in SE Edmonds, one on 99) is realistic to implement within six years. There's still a lot of work to be done on this draft PROS plan. Since grant applications for this year were due on March 1, 2022, Council now has the time to properly vet this document. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds city council member Packet Pg. 233 8.1.a From: Lisa Summers To: Feser, Anaie Cc: Haslam, Carrie Subject: RE: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Revised Draft anclCouncil Review Date: Thursday, March 17, 2022 10:59:37 AM I am referring to her January 31, 2022 memo to the Edmonds City Council: Most importantly, diverting funds for development in the Bowl to the South Edmonds and SR 99 areas for the development of open spaces/parks, stormwater improvements at Mathay Ballinger park; make service levels equitable for all areas of Edmonds. I have lived at 24103 77th Pl. W., Edmonds for over 26 years. This area and others around me do not receive the level of service as the Bowl. This area continues to grow and deserves more attention all around. Thank you. Lisa Sent from Mail for Windows From: Feser. Angie Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 10:45 AM To: Lisa Summers Cc: Haslam, Carrie Subject: RE: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Revised Draft anclCouncil Review Lisa, If you could share or make a clearer reference to "Natalie Seitz's proposal", that would be helpful. Natalie has made many public comments and sent numerous email comments, so identifying either a specific one of those or referencing the content you wish to support for clarity is important. I can share your comments with City Council before the next meeting on the PROS Plan next Tuesday. Thank you for your understanding. Angie Feser I Director I She/Her Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020 425.771.0230 (office) 1425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell) Website I Facebook I Instagram The Frances Anderson Center and Meadowdale Clubhouse are closed to the Public until further notice due to the ongoing pandemic. Packet Pg. 234 8.1.a EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION 8 CULTURAL SERVICES From: Lisa Summers <Imsummers63@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 10:42 AM To: Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlan@edmondswa.gov>; Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Revised Draft and Council Review Greetings: I would like to pledge my support for Natalie Seitz's proposal. Is there another platform where I should share this comment? Thank you. Lisa Summers On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:51 PM Haslam, Carrie <PROSPlanl@edmondswa.gov> wrote: The latest revised version of the City of Edmonds 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan is available for review and can be found on the City's website HERE. Also available on the website is a table summarizing the incorporated revisions to the previous January 7th version of the Plan. The City Council is scheduled to consider approval of the Plan in two steps including a Public Hearing on March 15th and Plan approval on March 22nd. Public comment is available at both meetings and please note for your comments to be part of the Public Hearing record, they need to be spoken during the Public Hearing agenda item on the 15th and not during general Audience Comments. For more details about the upcoming Council meeting, you can click HERE to find related materials as they come available. Council meeting packets are typically available on that website the Friday before the meeting. Thank you for your interest in the 2022 PROS Plan. Angie Feser I Director I She/Her Frances Anderson Center 1 700 Main Street I Edmonds WA 98020 425.771.0230 (office) 425.771.0256 (direct) 1425.361.5697 (cell) Website I Facebook Instagram The Frances Anderson Center remains closed to the public due to COVID-19. All parks, trails, beaches and open spaces in Edmonds are open at this time, please recreate responsibly. Packet Pg. 235 8.1.a 4EDMONDSPARKS. RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES c a U) O a a� Q. U) c as a O Ca c 0 :r m L V N� lie LPL L a. N N O N N N O N ti r M O O r O r M O E O L E W 2 a. r- m a. U) NO LPL a c m E z u 2 r Q Packet Pg. 236 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Public Hearing Regarding Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Code Amendment Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History This code amendment was initiated to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by supporting the growing demand for electric vehicle (EV) usage. The Planning Board reviewed the EV charging infrastructure code amendment (AMD2021-0002) at the June 9, June 23, July 14, and August 25, 2021 meetings. They held a public hearing and recommended City Council consider approval of this item at the September 8, 2021 Planning Board meeting. A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on the proposed amendments was issued on September 17, 2021. The City Council heard an introduction the EV charging code on February 15, 2022. Staff Recommendation Adopt the proposed EV charging infrastructure standards with ordinance provided in Exhibit 5. Narrative The City of Edmonds is proposing a new Chapter to Title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) related to EV charging infrastructure. These standards cover a variety of topics important to regulating this infrastructure for new and significantly updated development. As electric vehicles continue to increase in number and market share, it is important to plan for future growth of this technology. Electric Vehicle usage has tripled in Edmonds over the last five years and this growth is expected to increase as more automobile companies are either increasing or switching entirely to EV production. This amendment directly supports specific city, state, and national goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and become carbon neutral by 2050. From a user level, these regulations are important to promote EVs and help reduce the added cost of retrofitting to accommodate this technology. Installing these EV components at the time of new construction can be about five times cheaper than adding them during a retrofit. Furthermore, one of the main concerns listed for people with switching to EVs, is the concern about finding places to charge their EVs (Deloitte Insights, Global Auto Consumer Study, 2020). The key elements of this amendment are: 1) differentiating between the three EV charging staging types and, 2) the percentages of parking spaces that must accommodate each of these types. Requiring a Packet Pg. 237 8.2 variety of these stages for parking allows a development to accommodate existing EV charging needs and be prepared for future usage levels. The three staging types are listed below. EV Capable- Contains electrical panel capacity and conduit for future EV usage. EV Ready - Contains EV Capable elements plus circuits to allow plug-in EV charging. EV Installed- Contains EV Ready elements plus specialized equipment for efficient EV charging. These standards would apply to all new and significantly altered development. When these thresholds for improvements occur, Table 17.115.040 would determine the percentage of parking spaces that would require EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed charging infrastructure by the development use type. Research for the draft recommendations come from review of other municipality regulations (local and national), best practices from industry and non-profit organizations, and review of state regulations. Many components of the draft, such as definitions and installation requirements, come from industry standards and are similar to many codes and best practices observed across the country. However, the regulations are tailored specifically to Edmonds. The specific standards have been developed over several meetings with the Planning Board and in discussions with the public and development professionals. The entire draft code amendment is included as Exhibit 1. The meeting minutes from the Planning Board discussions are included as Exhibit 2. The SEPA Determination and Checklist are included as Exhibit 3. Council minute's excerpt form the February 15, 2022 is provided in Exhibit 4. A draft ordinance for included in Attachment 5. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Planning Board Recommended EV Code Language Exhibit 2: Planning Board Except Minutes Exhibit 3: SEPA Determination and Checklist Exhibit 4: February 15, 2022 City Council Minute Excerpt Exhibit 5: DRAFT EV charging ordinance Packet Pg. 238 8.2.a Chapter 17.115 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE 17.115.010 Intent and purpose. 17.115.020 Definitions. 17.115.030 Permitted locations. 17.115.040 Required facilities. 17.115.050 General station requirements. 17.115.060 Signage. 17.115.010 Intent and purpose. It is the intent of these development regulations to encourage the use and viability of electric vehicles as they have been identified as a solution to energy independence, cleaner air, and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the effective installation of electric vehicle charging stations and to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle charging infrastructure that such a transition necessitates 17.115.020 Definitions. A. Battery charging station- means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries within electric vehicles, which meet or exceed any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.28 RCW and RCW 19.27.540. B. Battery exchange station- means a facility that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable battery to enter a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged battery, which meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.27 RCW and RCW 19.27.540. C. Charging level- means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle's battery is recharged. Levels I, II, and III are defined by the electrical output, per the following specifications: 1. Level I- considered slow charging and operates on a fifteen to twenty amp breaker on a one hundred twenty volt AC circuit. 2. Level II- considered medium charging and operates on a forty to one hundred amp breaker on a two hundred eight or two hundred forty volt AC circuit. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 239 8.2.a 3. Level III- considered fast or rapid charging and operates on a sixty amp or higher breaker on a four hundred eighty volt or higher three phase circuit with special grounding equipment. D. Designated accessible parking space- means an accessible parking space required by WAC 51-50- 005 and designated for the exclusive use of parking vehicles with a State Disabled Parking Permit. E. Electric vehicle or "EV"- means any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off -board source, that is stored on board for motive purpose. F. Electric vehicle capable or "EV capable"- means a parking space that has listed an install panel capacity and conduit (raceway) and electrical capacity (breaker space) allocated to accommodate the future build -out of an electric vehicle charging station with Level II or Level III charging circuits G. Electric vehicle charging station- means a public or private parking space that is served by EV ready or EV installed forms of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. H. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure- means structures, machinery, and equipment necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including but not limited to battery charging stations, rapid charging stations, and battery exchange stations. I. Electric vehicle installed or "EV installed"- means a fully installed electric vehicle charging station for Level II or Level III charging levels. J. Electric vehicle parking space- means any marked parking space that identifies the use to be exclusively for the parking of an electric vehicle. K. Electric vehicle ready or "EV ready"- means a parking space that is designed and constructed to include a fully -wired circuit with a Level II or Level III electric vehicle charging receptacle outlet or termination point, including conduit and wiring and the electrical service capacity necessary to serve the receptable, that allows for future installation of an electrical vehicle charging station. L. Electric vehicle supply equipment or "EVSE"- see electric vehicle charging station. M. Non-residential use- for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, a non-residential use means any primary use that is not a residential use such as, but not limited to, business uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, or public facility uses. N. Rapid charging station- means a Level III electric vehicle charging station that allows for faster recharging of electric vehicle batteries through higher power levels. O. Substantial damage — for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 240 8.2.a before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the structure before the damage occurred. P. Substantial improvement- for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a primary structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the primary structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. 17.115.030 Permitted locations. Electric vehicle charging stations and battery exchange stations are permitted as listed below: A. Level I, Level II, and Level III electric vehicle charging stations. An electric vehicle charging station equipped with Level I, Level II, or Level III charging equipment is allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts. B. Battery exchange stations. Battery exchange stations are considered a primary or accessory use as part of an automobile service station as defined in ECDC 21.90.12 and an accessory use to an automotive sales use. Battery exchange stations are allowed in all zoning districts where automotive sales and automobile service stations are permitted and according to the regulations for those uses set forth in the specific zoning district. 17.115.040 Required facilities. A. Applicability. Development for each of the land uses identified in Table 17.115.040 shall be required to provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure when one of the following occurs. 1. A new development or new off-street parking facility; 2. Substantial damage or substantial improvements to an existing development is made within a one-year period as determined by the Building Official; or 3. The parking capacity of an existing development or parking facility is increased by 50 percent or more of the total parking spaces provided. B. Standards. Table 17.115.040 lists the minimum number or percentage of electric vehicle charging infrastructure required by type of use. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 241 8.2.a Table 17.115.040: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Requirements Type of Use Number of EV Capable Parking Spaces Number of EV Ready Parking Spaces Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Single family dwelling units' N/A 1 per dwelling unit N/A Multiple dwelling units' 40% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Non-residential uses 40% of parking spaces 0% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: For the purposes of this section, those multiple dwelling units with individual garages will follow the requirements for single family dwelling units. C. Calculations. 1. Fractions. For the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, calculations will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2. Inclusion in Parking Calculations. All EV installed, EV ready, and EV capable spaces are to be included in the calculation for the number of parking spaces, as provided by the applicable chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 3. Uses Not Specified. Any use not listed in Table 17.115.040 must meet the requirements of the most similar listed use, as determined by the Development Services Director. 4. Different Uses on the Same Development Site. The requirement for different uses on the same development site is calculated as the sum of all requirements for the individual uses. For cases where a building on a larger development site requires EV charging infrastructure per this Chapter 17.115 ECDC but the remainder of the development site does not, only the parking for that specific building or improved area will require compliance with this Chapter 17.115 ECDC. 5. For the purposes of Table 17.115.040, a portion or all of a lesser requirement for EV charging infrastructure can be substituted with one of a higher requirement (e.g. EV capable replaced with EV ready, EV ready replaced with EV installed, or EV capable replaced with EV installed) so long at the total minimum number of EV parking spaces required in Table 17.115.040 remains the same. For example, a non-residential use could increase the amount of EV ready parking spaces from 20% to 30%, reduce the amount of EV capable parking spaces from 20% to 10%, and keep the same amount of EV installed spaces (10%). This example would be permitted because a portion of the lower requirement (EV capable) was substituted for a higher requirement (EV ready), and the overall minimum number of EV parking spaces (50%) would remain the same. D. Load Management. Electric -vehicle load management system technology is permitted to be used to support EV charging infrastructure. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 242 8.2.a E. Reductions. The Director may reduce the requirements of Table 17.115.040 when there is substantial evidence that the added electrical load, that results from meeting these requirements, will significantly alter the local utility infrastructure design requirement. However, in no case shall the overall number of EV parking spaces required in Table 17.115.040 be reduced. In reducing the requirements, the Director may: 1. Reduce the type of EV charging infrastructure required (EV ready or EV installed to EV capable); or 2. Reduce the EV charging level required (Level II or Level III to Level 1). 17.115.050 General station requirements. A. Size. A standard size parking space or reduced width, "compact," parking space as permitted in Chapter 18.95 ECDC will be used for an electric vehicle charging station where such a station is required or planned, except for required accessible electric vehicle parking spaces as listed in ECDC 17.115.60. Installation and Equipment. The charging station installation and equipment will be consistent with rules and regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 19.27.540 and electric vehicle charging infrastructure requirements, and with applicable regulations under the City's building code and fire code, Title 19. C. Location, Design, and Maintenance. Where provided, parking for electric vehicle charging purposes will meet the following standards: 1. Clearance. Charging station equipment mounted on pedestals, light posts, bollards or other devices shall be a minimum of 24 inches clear from the face of curb. 2. Charging Station Equipment. Charging station outlets and connector devices will be no less than 36 inches or no higher than 48 inches from the top of surface where mounted, and will contain a retraction device or a place to hang permanent cords and connectors sufficiently above the ground or paved surface. 3. Charging Station Equipment Protection. When the electric vehicle charging station space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face and charging equipment, adequate equipment protection such as wheel stops or bollards can be used. 4. Maintenance. Charging station equipment will be maintained, including the functioning of the charging equipment. A phone number or other contact information will be provided on the charging station equipment for reporting when the equipment is not functioning, or other problems are encountered. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 243 8.2.a D. Data to be available. To allow for maintenance and notification, the owners of any private new electric vehicle infrastructure station that will be publicly available shall provide information on the station's geographic location, date of installation, equipment type and model, and owner contact information. E. Time limits. Time limits maybe placed on the number of hours that an electric vehicle is allowed to charge, prohibiting indefinite charging or parking. If applicable, warnings will be posted to alert charging station users about hours of use and possible actions affecting electric vehicle charging stations that are not being used according to posted rules. F. Location. Placement of a single electric vehicle charging station is preferred at the beginning or end parking space on a row of parking. 1 G. Reserved EV Parking Spaces. Electric vehicle charging stations, where provided for public use, are reserved for parking and charging of electric vehicles only, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. 17.115.060 Signage. Signage for each EV installed charging station space will comply th the following: A. Electric vehicle signage must be posted in a clear and conspicuous manner, pursuant to RCW 46.08.185; and B. Signage must be posted that indic a space is *onlyo#eused for electric vehicle charging purposes. Days and hours of operatio t be included if time limits or tow -away provisions are to be enforced. 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design. (CG Zoning District) 5. Electric vehicle charging stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. One OF ^'^rU*"ar %•^hiele chaFgang statiens m st "^ pFevided f9F all Rew development that includdes heusing. RequiFed charging stations shall hp te serve at least 10 pereeRt of the FequiFed Fesidential parking stalls. IR additiOR, either ad-ditie-pal statiORS er shall be provided. ForthiS Subsect.*A_R, "planned capacity" means site design -a.np-I P_A_.nStr1_1r_-tien that 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 244 8.2.a 16.110.020 Site development standards. (Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District) F. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parkine standards relatine to electric vehicle (EV) ch 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parkine standards relatiniz to electric vehicle (EV) ch 11 '7 rn n-If Parking space requirements. D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. infrastructure. infrastructure See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. -111 nn n1l11 Service Station, Automobiles. An automobile station means a business that provides for any or all of the following: A. The sale of gasoline, diesel or other fuels used for the propulsion of motor vehicles, when such products are delivered directly into the fuel tanks of automobiles. Battery exchange stations that enable electric vehicles to swap batteries as defined in ECDC 17.115.020 are also considered an automobile service station. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 245 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom September 8, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Roger Pence Todd Cloutier Matt Cheung STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (Excused) Mike Rosen: Calls the Planning Board meeting to order. Asks Judi to read the land Judi Gladstone: acknowledgement. Reads the Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to do the roll call. Eric Engmann: Does roll call. Mike Rosen: Nathan Monroe is an excused absence today. Announces the agenda. Packet Pg. 246 therefore do not persist in the urban environment and in the City of Edmonds are fundamentally inequitable placing the cost and penalties for trees on communities outside the bowl. And when the city yields to the concerns to not cite growth in the bowl and keep Edmonds, Edmonds, all you will be doing is quite literally harvesting wealth from communities that are already underserved by the city. I continue to ask the city to seek partnership with tree property owners. It is only through that partnership, not penalties, that the private urban forest will thrive. Do not throw away "right tree, right place" guiding principle of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Use a normal planning process, i.e., the planning board, and undertake the public engagement necessary to determine if a changing course is supported. The city should, at a minimum, strive to do no harm. So, don't do this in secret. The city can absolutely harm the existing and regeneration of the private urban forest by undertaking further emergency actions much more so than doing nothing. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Asks if there is anyone else in attendance. (no one el Opens the Public hearing. Mike Rosen: Goes over the pubic hearing agenda: review the reasons for the amendment, the Eric Engmann: proposed code amendment itself, finalize the remaining standards, and then decide if it's ready for transmittal to city council. Reiterates the feedbackfrom several different organizations, developers, builders, people in the industry, people that are working with EV charging itself. Reviews the reasons for the amendment and how it ties into the city's major sustainability goals. Especially the city's goal to be climate neutral by 2050. Talks about the greenhouse gas emissions, and how the transportation sector is the largest sector contributor. Shows the current and future goals for the number of EVs in the City. Mentions how manufacturers are switching to EV production. Also discusses the major reluctance for people to switch to EVs: the fear of not having places to charge their vehicles. Then discusses the main components of the code: • the staging types: capable ready, installed. • the different charging levels: I, II, or III? • appropriate ratios for single family, multi -family, and non-residential. Mentions the prior topics of discussions: • pros and cons of each staging type • cost estimates • definitions • applicability (50% rule) • proposed standards for multifamily and non-residential Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 247 8.2.b Discusses the two remaining issues. The first one is about the accessible EV standardsThis is one that's been really tough because we want everyone to have access to these chargers regardless of your ability. Discusses the three options. The first one is having a standard space based on the number of EV spaces. The second one would be to have a percentage of all ADA spaces be EV. The third one is kind of a two -fold one. It's either requiring a minimum of one orjust not specifying it at all. The first option would be based on a set standard. It's proportionate of the EV ready and EV installed spaces. The second one is just a simple percentage. So, we could pick what percentage that could be, but it's also easier to understand. The third one, there's two ways of doing this. The first one is that we would require a minimum of one EV ready or EV installed space. Just set the bottom standard for it so that it can go up above that and allow really other codes to dictate how much of that goes into place. But having at least one would ensure that at least one space would be EV ready or EV installed. The other option is to not put it in the code at all. It allows our state building code council to take the lead on this topic. There are things that have to do with national standards, building code standards. It's almost something that's above what our code typically handles. So, if we don't put it in there, it would still be covered because the state requires a certain percentage of them to be EV charging. This topic isn't covered in all zoning codes. Then shows the City's table for required ADA spaces for regular (non-EV) parking spaces. Then provides a large and small development example for multifamily and non-residential development. Shows how many EV accessible spaces would be required, for each option, in these scenarios. After going back and forth, staff is leaning towards that third option. There's so many national codes and national standards that it's difficult for us to put our extra standards on top of that. The next item is for utility upgrades. Last time we talked about it, there were concerns raised by Snohomish County PUD, our utility district. They talked about how utility upgrades can be very expensive, and it depends on the power level available in that area. And they mention that Highway 99 is an area of concern. So, they suggested an exception to reduce the requirements when cost upgrades would be prohibitive. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 248 8.2.b Shows and explains graph of how power gets from power station to individual properties. Mentions, if there would be a problem, it would be at the point of the distribution substation or the transformers. Another scenario for an issue is a house at the end of a cul-de-sac. Let's say the power source serves 10 of those homes on that cul-de-sac and it's right about near its limit. Potentially, when someone is doing renovations and needing that extra power for their EV ready station, it could potentially make them have to upgrade that transformer. So, a lot of it is hypothetical, but it could be an issue. And it could be something in the end that could be very expensive. Mentions the options: • No exception in code, • An exception with some minimum thresholds in place, • Or have an exception in there with no thresholds in place. If we decide to not put this exception in, we would ensure that our adopted standards are met in all cases. We would ensure that there is maximum potential to reduce greenhouse gases. It's consistent standards across the board, so it's equitable. The con of that is it doesn't account for all real -world scenarios that we talked about. It could lead to a development project being abandoned including affordable housing. Another option is an exception with minimum thresholds. We can have an exception, where the director could reduce the requirements when certain circumstances are in place and there is evidence of an added electrical load. So, they'd have to prove to us the electrical loading issue and it can be attributed to meeting the EV requirements. And it significantly alters local infrastructure design. For minimums, they could reduce the type of EV charging infrastructure, EV ready or EV installed down to EV capable. They could also reduce that charging level, Level II or III down to a Level I. But we would say that they cannot reduce the overall number of EV spaces. Provides an example in the presentation. The other option would be to not have minimum thresholds. They'd still have to prove to us that it's an issue, but we would let them change the EV station type, the EV charging level, or the overall number of spaces. Staff prefers option 2, where we would have those minimum thresholds in place Ends by highlighting the four decisions needed by the Board. • Accessible EV Recommendatinos • Exceptions for Electrical Loading • Reviewing the overall code amendment • Possible transmittal to City Council Mike Rosen: Opens the public hearing for anybody who wishes to address us. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 249 8.2.b Eric Engmann: States Natalie Seitz wishes to speak. Natalie Seitz: I'm basing my comments based on what I've been hearing at times on the planning board. I haven't had the opportunity to read the code as proposed, but there were some points that I wanted to make. So, first, we recently personally undertook some electrical work on our house. And as part of that work, we changed out an existing 220 plug for one that could accommodate an EV. I learned that there are about six different types of 220 plugs. I bring this up say that I hope that the regulations have an exception for properties that have an existing 220 plug for me to do a separate upgrade for EV since changing out a plug would be relatively cheap. It's less than $500. And it could preclude an existing use. And the change to EV could be undertaken at a later date when an EV car is purchased. Switches apparently are now getting so that they can accommodate multiple uses. So, it maybe a little bit later that would be available. So, I wanna make that point. I was unable to stay for the discussion about SR-99 and the limitations of the electric system last meeting. I hope that instead of creating exceptions so that businesses don't have to pay for upgrades to the electric system, the city considers partnerships to help alleviate the costs so that the fundamental electric system upgrades do occur. The city has long helped downtown businesses pay for things like hanging baskets and other events to boost those businesses. The city can use this as a way to pay for rather retroactively for the lack of city investment in the SR-99 businesses for the past 60 years since this area was incorporated. I think that the future will certainly include subscription electric car and bike services, especially for low-income residents, ensuring that the SR-99 corridor commercial areas and commercial areas throughout the city have the capabilities to meet this need is vital and should be prioritized by the city. With regard to what was presented tonight, just in listening to it with option one and the potential for it to be prohibitive to low-income housing, I think my gut reaction to that is that I'd really appreciate the city and planning board to imagine siting low-income in someplace other than the SR-99 corridor. I've commented about park resources and investment in this area, and they keep siting more and more people here. And I'm happy for it if it comes with the city investment, but itjust doesn't seem to. So, I really think that the investment needs to start happening from the city. Because I feel that vehicle subscription services are going to be part of our future, I do not think that every single low square footage residents would have to be low square footage. Retrofit needs to be EV capable. The question is not whether people will have an old classic car. It's whether people will have a car. Low square footage dwelling units that Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 250 8.2.b do not provide parking or car accessible garages or driveways should be consider for an exception or a lower requirement. Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie. Asks if there is anyone else. Eric Engmann: States there are none. Mike Rosen: Closes the public hearing. Asks to address the request in the order they were presented. So, taking the accessible question first. And, again, we were provided three options. And staff is recommending option three. Anybody wish to jump in? Todd Cloutier: I'd just like to say that I concur with the staff that option three seems to make the most sense. And we do the same thing with a lot of our options to try to make sure we're consistent with the communities around us. Judi Gladstone: Actually, I think that option three does make sense to me. But I do have two questions for you, Eric. 1.) Is there a state code that covers EV charging in general? And then my second question — I think you said it, but I need clarification — are the ADA requirements a subset of the overall or in addition to? Eric Engmann: So, for the first part of that, yes. A couple years ago, the state put in regulations for basic EV charging requirements. They put it into the building code. So, they've been updating it since then, but there are minimum standards in the building code itself for EV charging. Judi Gladstone: So, did you send those to us? And I'm not remembering it? Eric Engmann: We did talk about it early on, one of the first meetings. It talked about that it's 10 percent of the overall spaces, but it's a very broad, not a well-defined term in my opinion. So, we're going above and beyond that standard. And it doesn't cover single family. For the second part of that with the ADA, it would normally be a space above. When people do parking standards for these, it's typically a separate standard for ADA spaces. Mike Rosen: So, we have a couple people suggesting that they concur with staff with option No. 3 Does anybody wanna push back on that? Eric Engmann: Mentions option three is almost like an A or a B. It's either a minimum of one or just taking an out altogether. Alicia Crank: If I have to weigh in on one, I would say do not specify. And I'm leaning on that because I think my overall thought about this whole thing is that I would like this to be somewhat of a living document that can be updated and upgraded because it's such kind of a newish area. And I wouldn't want us to put ourselves in a position to have something super hardcoded in that we couldn't make that adjustment and almost to the point that you made about the different areas when you might run into something unforeseen that might require some type of adjustment if it's hardcoded in. So, that's really my mindset Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 251 8.2.b around option three and do not specify. It will probably inform any other opinions on the other three as well. Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Judi, it looked like you might've been ready to say something. Judi Gladstone: Well, I was actually going to go and look at something in the packet. So, I'll come back to you after I look it up. Mike Rosen: Does anybody want to push back on using the do not specify? Richard Kuehn: I didn't hear until Alicia finished up her comment. Not to ask for an update but just a quick maybe Cliff Notes version would be great. Mike Rosen: So, there was consensus around going with option three, which was also staff's recommendation. But it's a two-part question. One option is to not specify, which would default to state regulations. But, also, as Alicia was sort of saying, provides sort of future maneuvering opportunities for us as the real -world sort of informs us as opposed to the other option being just set a minimum of No. 1. So, we have consensus around option three. Now, we're deciding, do we set the minimum or do not specify. Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, I think the question I have is — does the international building code — it applies within the City of Edmonds, right? Eric Engmann: Yes, that is what the city uses for their building code. Judi Gladstone: So, does it have a minimum number? Does it speak to that? Or is it silent as well? Eric Engmann: It is in the State Building Code Council. So, it's at least the state language. Judi Gladstone: So, it would apply regardless of whatever we put in here. Eric Engmann: Right. Judi Gladstone: All right. So, then I would go with do not specify. Mike Rosen: Just to then validate again, is there anybody who does not agree with do not specify on option three? Richard Kuehn: The only question that I have and I think I mentioned this before and was trying to look for it, as long as the EV capable ADA space doesn't take away from what the current Washington State or whatever the regulations are for current regular ADA spaces, then I'm all for it. I think that's great. Chair Rosen: And, Eric, can you validate that that's the case? Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 252 8.2.b Eric Engmann: I didn't see anything about that. I didn't see any other codes that had a standard that mentioned this one way or the other. So, I would assume in that case, it would be okay. Mike Rosen: Are you good, Richard? Richard Kuehn: Yes, I think so. CHair Rosen: So, Eric, we do have consensus on option three with do not specify. Eric Engmann: Then, I would be removing that section from the draft. Chair Rosen: That's how you would execute it, right? So, now we're moving to the exception for utility upgrades —three options. And, again, as a reminder, staff was recommending option No. 2. Anybody want to jump in? Todd Cloutier: I've got a question for Eric. This might be hard to answer because it's not your agency. But as Natalie brought up, if 99's the problem, are there plans already to increase capacity on 99? Eric Engmann: So, it's not just 99. It's an area that they've listed as an example. So, it could be lots of different ones. The way it typically works, it's improvements as the user needs it. It's really up to that increased usage and that increased demand that would then have to pay for that upgrade. They do upgrade sometimes, but I don't think that they have one specifically picked for Highway 99, not last time I saw. Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, could you go back to the slide where you had the diagram? I don't know power particularly well. So, in the water and wastewater world, the general philosophy is growth pays for growth. So, what that would mean, the equivalent of is these transformers would be what growth would pay for. But the utility might have a connection charge that might incorporate some of these facilities but not necessarily all of them. I think the equivalent on water and wastewater, there would be a connection charge that would be calculated based on some of this. But some of it would be attributed to the existing as well. I want to say that it concerns me that Highway 99 is the area where if you look at the planning, it seems like there's a desire to put a lot of multi -family there. And if that's the case, then where's the multi -family going to go if it's in these places where they haven't upgraded? And I think that if they've got an issue with these big towers or all the way to the plant, I think there probably needs to be some partnership. And I would necessarily want to see that be standing in the way of the EV chargers. I would be concerned, the extent to which, that they would load up those costs onto the developers. Todd Cloutier: Judi and I were getting to the same point. If the PUD doesn't have a plan to proactively push changes from their own coffers, then the cost would be unbearable for the lower - level people to pay for it all per project. And we're going to end up with projects not Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 253 8.2.b getting done, multi -family housing not getting constructed because they can meet parking requirements with EVs. And that doesn't seem to make any sense. So, I think it makes sense to let the infrastructure come of its own accord. As the demand rises, the infrastructure will come, and more spaces will get built. And like Alicia said, we can revisit that as things change, and there's great capacity and that's not considered a limit anymore. Judi Gladstone: Let me also add that I know there are some jurisdictions where they contribute to the connection charges, as that can be the form of the partnership that can occur. So, if the City's really vested in trying to meet these goals for EV, they may need to put some money in that pot. Mike Rosen: So, does somebody want to offer up their specific recommendation? Judi Gladstone: So, I have to say, despite what I've said here, I'm torn between no exceptions and with exceptions with a high bar. Could you go to the slide that lists what the exceptions would be? I think it's going to be really easy for them to have evidence of added electrical load. So, they can come up with that information pretty easily and parse it in such a way frankly that it looks like it's the cause of the problem. But if you keep going to those thresholds — go to the one with the table. If they were required to keep the 18 spaces, I think the question is — what kind of flexibility could be allowed as long as they had the 18 spaces? And I would be concerned on some level, as I've read more about Level I, do we end up with a second tier of service if you've got multi- family at level I and single family at Level 11. And do you start getting inequities of service? So, I'm still wrestling with it to be honest with you. Todd Cloutier: I'm agreeing with Judi because that's exactly the concern I had. And I know we just used Highway 99 as an example. So, as Eric said, it's not necessarily that Highway 99 is the vulnerable area. It was just an example brought up. But that's the one that's going to stick in my head. I just couldn't go with removing all minimums. So, I think that having at least option two reserves the spaces that can be upgraded later where option three throws it all out or gives the option to throw it all out. And option one makes it so that it could be cost prohibitive. And it could eliminate the building of the number of units we want in the first place. So, it seems to be that option two gives us some director's discretion to try to keep those spaces reserved at the very least and push for the amount of infrastructure that makes sense at that time for that project, which I think seems to be the most flexible position for us to be in. So, I vote for option two. Mike Rosen: Anybody want to argue for something other than two? So, can you go back to then what those thresholds might be? So, the question I have is as we've been talking about it and Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 254 8.2.b I've been hearing people express what they don't want, it seems to me that hardship is one of them. And different structures and people's abilities will be at different levels. So, this does not reflect any cause of hardship on the individual. Some people are going to be in a much better position to write that check than others. And it seems to me that somebody could benefit on the high end. So, we're giving them an exception where the entire development is a very high -ticket item and money isn't a problem, and we just gave them an out whereas what we're trying to do is protect the people where hardship is an issue. So, if that's our concern, I don't think this addresses it. And notice I didn't offer an alternative. Alicia Crank: I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I also think that, again, if we approach this with a sense of, again, as this kind of living breathing document that we can go back and tweak as we get more information that comes in that we could revisit that piece? So, I don't know if we'll be able to address all of the concerns in this sitting. Mike Rosen: It could be too loose. But I'm wondering if it was an option where in addition to these things it created financial hardship, and it was sort of the burden of the applicant to sort of argue what that means and allow the city some discretion in that? I'm not a big fan of vagueness, but I do wonder if it opens the door. Eric Engmann: From the practicality of enforcing the hardship, that would be hard to enforce or even get to what that would entail. It would be so hard to weigh what that would be for a hardship without opening their books and looking at those things. Mike Rosen: I'm convinced. But in the three minutes that you've had to think about it, do you have any thoughts on how we might address hardship? Eric Engmann: I guess it would depend on if we're talking about affordable housing or not. That's the only one I can think of, that we would make that a separate standard. We could say two different standards. We could make it only for affordable housing. I think with the way that we had it on the left side that it makes it a little bit easier to kind of try to find that. They'd have to prove to us that it's the EV that's causing this. They can't just say that it's everything else. But I don't know how we go past that, other than just putting in something about affordable housing. Mike Rosen: That addresses the price tag. I'll stop there. All of our concerns were about impact, and I don't believe we've addressed it. But I'm cool with option two. Judi Gladstone: So, affordable housing to me is challenging in itself because what is affordable housing? How is it defined? Who does it apply to? I think it's always a question. But here's a question that comes from my lack of knowledge around code and policy connection. Can there be policy guidance for the director that isn't necessarily put in code that allows for that flexibility but sets out some standards for those considerations that are not Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 255 8.2.b necessarily code because I get the sense code is much more rigid in its application and much more black and white. Policy — you can have goals; you can have guidance. It's mushier. And I don't know if that's something that can somehow intersect with the code? It might be out of our purview to do, but that's just a thought that came to my mind that might be able to start to address the differences in the type of development that we're talking about here that have the potential to be impacted differently. Eric Engmann: A lot of times, when something's not codified like a procedure, we can make a rule on it. And they can list out what's included in that rule to making those decisions. Usually, it's for a process that's not in the code itself. Because what a developer would say is that, no, the code tells you what you can and can't do. We have this list of these three criteria. It's in the code right now. That's how we would handle it. But, yes, there are plenty of cases when it's something that's not codified but it's a policy that we can put it into a rule form. But it's usually something that's not codified. Mike Rosen: So, at this point, I see us having consensus on option two. Anybody? Going, going, going. All right, Eric, there is our second decision. So, our third question to us is — okay, back to the balcony. Is there anything else overall? Right, Eric, is that the question? Eric Engmann: That's it. Alicia Crank: I have a situational question. And I apologize as it comes off as silly. So, when we put together this code amendment and it happens, are the spaces that would be EV — are they open to anyone? Or is it for the multi -family properties? Is it restricted to whoever lives there? And the nature of my question comes from someone who asked me this today, and I didn't have an answer. What if they currently live in a condo? Condo doesn't have an EV space. That's currently their situation right now. Where would they with this in place be permitted to be able to charge their vehicle? Would it have to be at a public place? If there's one next door in a multi -family unit that has them available, would they be permitted to be able to utilize that? Or is it just restricted to who lives there? Eric Engmann: That's a great question. So, it would really depend on the situation, just like with other parking spots. If the parking garage is restricted, those are private spaces. If it's available for public use, that would be considered a public use, and there are state laws about public usage for a a public use space. So, anything on the nonresidential, outside of a grocery store, or one that's just available for regular public use, that's considered public use. And there are some state laws that do give some benefits to people using those, not just in the development itself. But if it is a private development and it is only accessible to the residents, then it doesn't have those same points. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 256 8.2.b Alicia Crank: It makes sense. I guess maybe the foundation of that question was — if we as a city are creating a code around this, does the city have any type of responsibility to identify that within all this that other residents should be able to use particular ones if a resident lives in a multi -family unit or even a single family unit to be able to utilize it? Or is that even a thing? If the city creates a code around something, does the city have a responsibility to identify its use? Eric Engmann: The state takes care of that for the public use side. They have their standards. We can maybe come up with a guide, or we can take people on our webpage to where the state laws talk about it. Something so the public can know about it. But the state has started to get a good grasp. And, again, this is one of those codes that keeps changing. Alicia Crank: Got it. Thank you. Chair Rosen: It's an observation that I just wanted to sort of put out there. And it goes way back. Part of this is to help get us to the 50,000 goal — 50,000 electric vehicles. And the last data I saw about total number of vehicles in Edmonds currently is just shy of 17,000. So, understandably, there will be growth, but there will also potentially be other vehicles. And as Natalie pointed out, the hope and the trend currently has been fewer vehicles per household. And some of those vehicles are going to be other kinds. Or some people aren't going to give up because of collections and those kinds of things. So, I guess I am questioning sort of the reality of that number as a goal to aim for given all those things that I just said. So, no action or response. I just sort of wanted to say that out loud. Because I know you didn't create, nor did we create that goal. Judi Gladstone: Can I jump in because I have something that I want to go back to if that's okay, Mike? Chair Rosen: Absolutely, this is the time. Judi Gladstone: I know we reached consensus on the utility upgrades. But I was feeling some reluctance, and I think I figured out why. And I want to ask you a question about the language in the code, Eric. Because I think what was troubling me is the language says, "When there is substantial evidence that the added electrical load that can be attributed to meeting these requirements will significantly alter the local utility infrastructure design requirement." I think that's really good it says local utility infrastructure because I think that should narrow it to not include necessarily all the really big infrastructure. But I'm wondering if that bar can be a little bit tighter? Instead of saying "that can be attributed to," it says "that results from." And they have to prove that it results from it rather than attributed. Eric Engmann: We can change that. That was our point, to make sure. So, what are you recommending? Judi Gladstone: That results from meeting these requirements. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 257 8.2.b Mike Rosen: Anybody have any other overall code amendments before we move to our next question? All right. So, the next question before us — are we ready with the decisions we just made and the one change recommended by Judi to transmit it to City Council for their review? Anybody have any concerns about that? Nope? All right. Eric, please send it on with our recommendation. Roger Pence: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think it might be helpful at this point to take a formal vote to recommend transmitting these amendments to this code section to City Council for their consideration. Mike Rosen: Understood. And I agree with the purpose. All in favor of transmitting the code amendment as revised this evening, please signify by saying "aye" or raising your hand. (All say aye) Is there anybody opposed? Is there anybody abstaining? It is passed unanimously Thank you, Eric, again for all of the work and how you walked us through it. Discusses the extended agenda. I will share with you that I did receive outreach from a local media source asking about —on September 22nd, item No. 2, discussion of veterans' memorial sculpture donation. And they did receive a response from staff indicating that there is another donation of a sculpture being — the opportunity presented to the city. And because it would go into the veterans' area — that is a park, and we serve in a park capacity. So, that's why it's coming to us. And that's a little bit of the headline behind it, so if you were wondering why are we talking about sculptures. Eric Engmann: I just wanted to talk about the buildable lands report. I believe Steve Toy is going to be available for October 13th. He can never do it on the second one of the month. So, I think we're going to put that back for the first meeting in October. Roger Pence: Just so we get there eventually. Mike Rosen: As you can see, as Alicia had predicted at the last meeting, trees will be coming to us shortly. So, any other comments related to the extended agenda? We will now go to comments for the good of the order. Asks the Board members for anything for the good of the order. Roger Pence: Well, I took a keen interest in the article in My Edmonds News about the decision by the railroad to finally tell us about their plans to double track the section through the City of Edmonds. And this may not be a thing that affects our code amendment responsibilities, Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 258 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom August 25, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (Excused) Todd Cloutier (Excused) Matt Cheung (Excused) STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and asks Roger Pence to read Land Roger Pence: Acknowledgement. Reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to call roll. Eric Engmann: Calls roll. Packet Pg. 259 8.2.b Mike Rosen: Opens the Unfinished Business portion of the meeting to discuss Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Mentions there is a Public Hearing scheduled for the September 8t" Planning Board meeting. States that this meeting with be to discussion a few more issues before the public hearing. There are five things to talk about or think about with this. The first two are probably the ones we talked about the most. It's finalizing the multi -family and non- residential standards that we have going forward. The next three are things that've either come up in discussions or we've marginally talked about. The first one is about the accessible parking standards. The next one are some options for load management. Then the last one is something that came about in discussions with our public utility board about reductions when electrical load capacity becomes an issue. Mentions those that staff has spoken with. My summary of it is basically for the most part, we didn't get any negative comments on what we're proposing. Reiterates some of the prior issues staff has discussed with the board about the differences between EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed. Mike Rosen: Mentions Judi Gladstone has her hand up. Judi Gladstone: Asks about how Charging level 1 and level 2 play in terms of the definitions. Eric Engmann: Mentions Level 1 and 2 have to do with the power supply; how powerful it is. So, really theoretically, each one of these could be a different level of supply. You could have a Level 2 power as capable, ready or installed. That's how that fits into that case. Talks about the pros and cons foe each stage type. For EV capable, the pro is that the initial wiring is complete, and the panel room is sized correctly. The cons, there is skilled work required. You still have a physically go into the wall, pull it out, have the panel put in at the end. So, there is still some work left to do for that. And at that point, you can't actually charge EV. The next one is EV ready. At that point they can plug into the wall and get a charge. One of the cons when we talked about it was lack of the charging awareness. So, if someone isn't familiar with that plug being ready for an electric vehicle, they may not know to use that. Then when you get to the last stage, to EV install, that's the one that most people think about. It's easier to control and monitor that usage. And it provides clear indication at that point, that this space is for EV charging. The cons are at that point, it's the most expensive to install. And since it's reserved specifically for EVs, you can't use that space for anything else. Talks about the cost projections made by staff and shown on the slide. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 260 8.2.b Discusses the standards table for multifamily development. Mentions it is a pretty progressive standard; • 70 percent of the overall spaces would have some level of EV capacity. • Twenty percent EV capable, • 40 percent EV ready and • 10 percent EV installed. These are some of the most progressive standards in the county. Staff felt that 100 percent capacity may be too much for those who don't choose to use the technology. But notes there are some cities that have done 100 percent. In non-residential, staff made 40 percent EV capable. So, that means 40 percent would be ready to go at some point when they will need this technology, and 10 percent EV installed. The reason why staff took out EV ready was because it doesn't seem to work well for commercial spaces, to just have a random EV plug available. Having the plug without the EV installed doesn't seem to make sense for non-residential. It would either be one or the other. Discusses the differences between staffs proposal and Planning Board's suggestions from the July 281h meeting. For multifamily, the Board has two suggestions: • Lower the EV installed from 10 percent to five percent. Realizing development might not be ready for 10 percent. • Increase to 100 percent overall capacity. Thinking it's better to put it in now and need it later For non-residential, it needed more interpretation on the suggestions. For anything with those asterisks, there was not specific standards suggested. But this is where it was leading to. One was to a tiered system based off the number of parking spaces. What I heard was basically, a large shopping center or an Ace Hardware, might have different needs than a smaller development there. And so, it could be a higher percentage for those smaller spaces, the smaller parking lot, for the first 20 spaces. Then the percentage would reduce as the number of parking spaces increases. Asks Judi Gladstone if she has a question? Judi Gladstone: Asks if the Planning Board's discussion were included in discussions with the stakeholders. Eric Engmann: States he mentioned it to them. Not the specific standards — because we didn't have a specific planning board recommendation. But talked to them about the 100 percent. None of them thought 100 percent would be necessary. Obviously, the builders didn't think that 100 percent was necessary. The other municipalities that we spoke with, King County and Issaquah, theirs were lower than 100 percent. Then SWEEP, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, their code guidance was lower than 100 percent too. Judi Gladstone: It does. It would be great, and I don't know if this is the right time for it or not, to hear what their thinking was around that. Because I think not being necessary and costing too Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 261 8.2.b much, for what period are they planning for, for the next five years, the next 10 years or the next 15 years, is what's going through my mind. Eric Engmann: Mentions he set up the discussion so that the Board can talk about it at the end and go through each one of these issues, one by one. The next issue was about accessible EV standards. Looking at different codes, there's not a set standard. None that are prevalent across the board. A lot of them have an overall percentage, say five percent overall. But my problem with that, is that it doesn't really pencil out well. For instance, if you have five spaces and five percent of those are required to be EV accessible. That would end up being one accessible space. It just doesn't work well for smaller developments with just the overall percentage. So, what I took a look at what other codes have done. I modeled it after what is required for Washington State for overall EV. Explains his system based on the number of overall EV spaces. I thought that works a little bit better. I think it fits real world scenarios better and it would be easier for my staff and for the developer to understand. And like I said, it's simplified from the model that Denver had. Theirs was even larger. Theirs was five to 50 as the first one and then 50 to 100 was the second one. I thought it should be a little bit tighter than that, especially since we see less parking spaces. The next one is about load management technology. And this is something that's starting to become more and more interesting, and more and more people are talking about it in this field with it. I'm not an expert on this, but basically, the way you can see it is on the left and the right. So, without load management, the power for each outlet is equal. Each outlet is dedicated for each individual plug, with the same amount of power. What load management does, is it allows that to be a smart distribution system for it. So, it splits it out amongst the outlets for the power. The way that I like to think it is if you go to a gas station, each one has a separate nozzle to fill up your tank, but it's shared amongst all of them. So, it's more efficient. It allows for electricity to flow between them as needed and on a smart timing. But it draws less energy at that peak time. That's what the cons are with it would be that it would reduce peak charging performance. So, if everyone is charging at the same time, it'll take a little bit longer. And then what happens too is that there could be some possible upgrade costs, some extra smart technology that goes into that. But the way that we have in our code, the way that you'll see it in that draft is now, it would be an option. The last one came about after a discussion I had with the Snohomish Power and Utility District. They raised some concerns about how this could affect the power supply. So, right now, let's say there's a project on Highway 99, and they are asking for their utilities to come in. Right now, power, the supply in that area, the amount of power that's available in can be running low. When that happens, when there's not enough to supply a development, the development must make the improvement themselves. This has a large associated cost. So, what the Snohomish Power Utility District suggested having a code section to reduce some of those requirements when these would be prohibited. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 262 8.2.b What they said is, sometimes these could be a seven -figure improvement that is needed for improvement. I see there's three real options that we could choose from this, and we could discuss it. Option 1 would be to continue our code with no exceptions. Basically, just say that's something that they have to figure out when they go through it. Load management could possibly help with that. Option 2 would be an exception, but without any threshold. Just allowing for an exception. And then Option 3 would be to allow an exception but have a minimum threshold in place. That could at least have EV capable, rather than EV installed or EV ready. So, for instance, if we're talking about multi -family, we have 70 percent overall EV capability. Discusses some of the possible options. Judi Gladstone: Asks if the concern differs as to whether or not the requirement would be Level 1 or Level 2. Eric Engmann: That is something we could do. We could also lower it down to be a Level 1 option. Just remember though, with Level 1, it takes a lot longer to charge but that could be an option for minimum thresholds. Finishes the presentation and shows the board the five decisions staff is hoping the Board can make. Selecting the multi -family EV charging standards. Selecting the non-residential EV standards. If you are comfortable or have other suggestions for the accessible EV recommendations, whether we wanna allow for load management technology. And how we feel about those utility upgrades. Whether we should have an exception or not. And with that, turnover for discussion. Mike Rosen: Asks to take the decision points one at a time. Starts with multifamily standards Eric Engmann: Sure. So again, on the left is what staffs proposing. This is what we felt was a very progressive standard looking nationally, talking with others. But we thought that's one we're comfortable with and we think that we could get this approved and get the development committee behind for the most part. Unfortunately, the two people that made the recommendations for A and B aren't here, but everyone else can help them with that. But these were specific recommendations from them. For Component A, 10 percent down to five percent for EV installed. And then Component B, raising the overall capacity up to 100 percent. They were less specific about how it could break down, but up to 100 percent is what they prefer. Mike Rosen: Correct. And part of the logic I believe for multi -family and non-residential was the argument of, 1.) The cost and putting conduit in the wall doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used but that is the time to do it and putting conduit in the floor actually, even in both those categories. So, that's why I think the group felt comfortable about 100 percent at the time. So, what're people thinking in terms of these two and either staff's proposal, our previous consensus and/or an alternative? Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 263 8.2.b Roger Pence: I have a brief questions about the difference between EV capable and EV ready. The cost difference, it jumps from $300.00 to $1,300.00 and I'm trying to get a grasp of what is involved in that because, based on my very limited understanding, EV capable, the conduit and the wire are in the wall or in the floor and to go from EV capable to EV ready means pulling that wire out and attaching a dryer socket onto the end of it and mounting that dryer socket on the place where it's accessible to EVs. Doesn't seem like a jump from 300 to 1,300. Doesn't seem like $1,000.00 worth of work to do that task. Eric Engmann: That's a great point. These are Denver's calculation numbers and if I were to guess what it was for was, that the wires aren't' necessarily going to run directly behind the space itself. Those rooms, especially for larger buildings, could be pretty far away from where the spaces end up, so it could be the wiring to get from Point A to Point B. Roger Pence: So, EV capable just means there's a conduit from a panel to somewhere in the parking garage? Eric Engmann: Basically. There's wiring somewhere behind the walls. Roger Pence: Okay. But not necessarily to each space. Eric Engmann: Right. Roger Pence: Thank you for that clarification. Mike Rosen: Recognizes Alicia Crank has question or a comment. Alicia Crank: I have a cost related question as well. I'm presuming that an EV capable could be upgraded to EV ready if somebody wanted to do that. So, would you happen to know if there's a certain cost associated with that upgrade. Do we have any idea what that would look like from a cost perspective? Eric Engmann: I don't. Generally the discussion goes from that's going from nothing to EV ready. I haven't seen good numbers on that. Alicia Crank: When I think about the breakdown best case scenario, people start moving to more EVs and we're trying to get rid of the traditional cars. So, if the situation was oh, my god. We need more of these, or we need to upgrade certain ones, what would that look like from a planning and cost perspective and trying to plot out for future, what those costs would potentially be. Eric Engmann: Agrees to take a look at the issue. Talks about the equity of having EV ready spaces so people won't have to rely on a property or apartment owner to decide to upgrade from EV capable to EV ready. Alicia Crank: And that's where I'm thinking too. But I was curious to know if you offhand had any idea. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 264 8.2.b Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Recognizes Judi Gladstone. Judi Gladstone: I like the idea of there being 100 percent EV capable. And that's why when I asked about the stakeholders, I was wondering when they say they don't think they need it. Well, in what time period? And what's the life span of the buildings and given that we don't know how it's going to grow, I think that it would be better. But I still have in my mind here, does the capable make a difference if it's Level 1 or Level 2 or is capable just to cross the word? So, it's like you could have a certain percentage of whatever EV capable at 45 percent, could be Level 1. 1 don't know, I just don't know what those combinations could be. But I would lean more towards, have as much ready as possible for the future because we need to be planning here for well beyond 10 years. Mike Rosen: Suggests as a process, that the Board takes each of these columns one at a time. So, staff's proposal for EV ready, looking at the middle first. For EV ready in our discussion, we saw eye to eye. So, does anyone wanna push back on 40 percent for EV ready? Okay, so I think we've got closure on that one. Let's go to EV installed. The staff is actually more aggressive than us. So, does anybody wanna push back on that? Alicia Crank: I prefer staff's recommendation. Mike Rosen: Anybody wanna push back? Richard Kuehn: Agrees. Judi Gladstone: What's the difference in the overall cost between the 10 percent and five percent if you increase the EV capable? If you're doing 10 percent of the EV installed and 20 percent capable, you obviously have more of the EVs installed, which costs more. Drop that EV installed to five percent, and you increase the EV capable, then what happens to your total cost? Eric Engmann: Great question. So, we did the analysis based on staffs proposals, versus the overall proposal for the planning board's recommendation and discuss it in the supplemental narrative. But to begin with, if you start doing smaller developments, it ends up being that the staff proposal is cheaper. When you start talking about larger developments, 200 or 300 units, planning board's recommendation is cheaper. Planning Board's suggestion becomes cheaper because those EV installed are so much more expensive. Mike Rosen: So, Judi it looks like there was starting to build some consensus towards the 10 percent. Do you wanna push back on that at all? Judi Gladstone: Well, so only in that, how does that affect the EV capable and the 100 percent? So, looking at it separately is fine, but I need to understand it in terms of the overall picture. Because yeah, it would be great to have more EV installed. But the balance of trying to get more capability within a building, if you need to give somewhere in order to keep the cost manageable, where does that come from. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 265 8.2.b Mike Rosen: So, let's reserve our right to go back and revisit it after we talk about EV capable and then see if we have unintended consequence, how's that? So, now let's go to EV capable. Let's have the conversation in the context of the overall, because I think that forces that capable number. So, philosophically we say, we're gonna give you the ratios but we want it to add up to 100 percent, which means you can make it up at the capable, but you have to have it at 100 percent or are we more comfortable at the 70 percent? Richard Kuehn: I just personally think 70 is a little low. If we're looking at trying to plan out for like Judi said, whether it's 10 years out, right? To Eric's point, in smaller instances, in smaller projects, the staff's proposal of keeping the 10 percent EV installed versus five percent EV installed is gonna be cheaper. I'm much happier with that versus the 70 percent. Mike Rosen: So, thank you Richard. That impact and I should have said, I guess that is a third alternative is, we were at 100 percent in consensus at the last meeting. Eric, before we continue this conversation, I'd personally like to hear from you, what is your one, if not top three, biggest concerns with going to 100 percent? So, why is that a fatal flaw for you? Eric Engmann: I wouldn't wanna say that it's a fatal flaw. There are other codes that are 100 percent. I think there's probably three or four in the country, so it is not uncharted to go to 100 percent for multi -family. I think my main thing is thinking about logically, is there going to be a point where everyone goes EV? Or is there always going to be with an old classic muscle car or something that they just won't get rid of. Is it really worth it to make it 100 percent? Mike Rosen: Thanks for that. I guess in my simple mind, by saying capable, we aren't saying that all cars have to be electric. What we're saying is, any car in that space or that the building owner or manager could then convert it, but he doesn't have to convert it if there's no market need. If we're reserving the biggest hunk for only when it's needed. We're just saying you can if you need to. But that would be my counter to that. Richard Kuehn: I was going to make the exact same point that you just made. I think that having those capable at a higher percentage and getting us to the 100 or whatever that number is doesn't mean that just because it's capable doesn't mean that it's installed, right? If somebody has a diesel pickup that they're still utilizing because they can't get what they need in an EV vehicle at that time, whether it's four years down the road, seven years down the road, as for that unit, they can still utilize either that muscle car or that diesel pickup, whatever it might be. Mike Rosen: We now have the option of staff's recommendation, the 100 percent option, or something in the middle. So, after hearing Eric's concerns and sharing of what others in the country are doing, would somebody like to throw out a number and use that as our starting place? Judi Gladstone: I would throw out maybe 85 or 90 percent overall. And either reduce the overall capable or allow for some or all of it to be a lower level. Because I think that, and I don't know if you can mix and match, Eric. So, I may be totally out of line here. so, this is my lack of Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 266 8.2.b knowledge showing through. But while yes, it takes longer to charge on the Level 1, at least one of the articles you provided I thought was very informative, in terms of how there is the potential use. That people tend to not drive far, top off. So, they may not need that much power. And if there are some EV installed places or, yeah. EV places installed that are higher power, then if they needed to, they could use those. I just think there's an overall picture here of use that's important to keep in mind. Mike Rosen: So, to try to understand that. So, are you suggesting that if they have X of Level 1 or X of Level 2, that that buys them a reduction in one of the other areas? Judi Gladstone: Or that it helps to meet the EV capable, if that saves money. Aren't they gonna need to know if the EV ready is supposed to be at Level 1 or Level 2? Eric Engmann: They will, the draft code requires it to be a Level 2 or Level 3 to count for these percentages. That's what most codes require. Richard Kuehn: I like the idea of being progressive in this whole idea. I understand what Eric said before. Is there gonna be fluid option in 10 years or X or whatever we're looking to plan for, right? I think we should always look out further than we think, right? And just because we're looking at again, overall, 100 percent doesn't mean that all the spaces are going to be installed at 100 percent. But I like having that number at least at 90 for me. That's my minimum, personally. Mike Rosen: At some point we won't need wires for electricity. Alicia, what number are you? Alicia Crank: I'm in line with Richard. Mike Rosen: You like the 100? Alicia Crank: Yeah. Mike Rosen: Roger? Roger Pence: Well, I think Judi said 85 to 90, that was taking words right out of my mouth. Mike Rosen: Well, I'm liking 90. Alicia Crank: Okay, we can just split the baby and say 90. Mike Rosen: All right. So, let's take a vote. So, all in favor of using 90 as our recommendation? (all raise hands) Anybody opposed? (none) So, we have a recommendation. So, how do I feel about that installed number, does that change my opinion. So, if we were gonna do 40 and 10, that gets us to 50 which would make capable 40. So, we good with that mix? So, it would be 40, 40, 10. Richard. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 267 8.2.b Richard Kuehn: That's exactly what I was thinking when we were looking gat numbers. I mean, I think that's pretty clean. Mike Rosen: And not seeing any shaking heads from the members of the board. Eric, are you gonna lose sleep? Eric Engmann: No. Mike Rosen: All right. Let's move to No. 2 of 5. Eric Engmann: This is one where staff is a little bit stronger feelings about keeping the percentages closer to our recommendation. The highest standards in the country for non-residential are 50 percent overall capacity. So, if we think about where the country is now, the highest standards now are at 50 percent. We could go higher, but where do we draw that line? I think that's where we felt more comfortable with it, at that number. If we think about all the different uses that're non-residential, there's many, many different uses, like shopping centers or restaurants. Those will be top off fueling locations. There are some codes that have tiered standards, usually the smaller properties have lower standards versus larger properties. It's usually giving breaks to smaller properties, not make them have higher percentages, as Planning Board suggested. But then, on larger properties, does 100 percent make sense? We don't feel like it would. Mike Rosen: Thanks, Eric. Roger, it looks like you've got a comment or a question. Roger Pence: Yeah. I guess in my mind, I would make a distinction between office parks and similar places where people come and park all day. They are far more likely to plug in and charge up than somebody stopping at Ace Hardware for a package of LED bulbs, like I did the other day. I was in and out in 12,14 minutes. Had I been driving an electric vehicle; I would not have bothered plugging in for such a short time. And fast-food restaurants. What's the likelihood of plugging in for the time it takes to go in and buy your Big Mac and eat it on the bench? I don't know. If I'm missing something here, let me know. I don't drive an electric vehicle. I look forward to living long enough to do that. But I always assumed that I would be looking for the longer charge up points, i.e., home and parking for a long visit at Overlook Mall or a movie theater and not for the incidental stops that people make at many, if not most of our retail establishments. Mike Rosen: I had a comment and a question, then Judi. My comment on that Roger is, I think one of the concerns that Eric expressed in terms of doing it by tenant is, that tenants change. So, what might be an office building, might become a retail building, might become another use and you can't always count on what the building use is. Foreseeing a case on what it was may not necessarily apply to the future. The other argument I might make to the thought process and it's more just a test of the concept is, you have employees who are there for a long period of time. So, the client base might turn over, but the net number of people actually using the chargers might be the same based on that. So, I'm not sure if — Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 268 8.2.b Roger Pence: Good point, good point. Mike Rosen: Judi? Judi Gladstone: Yeah. So, I support staff's proposal because I think especially with the recommendation for the multi -family to be at 90 percent and that, from what I've read, really is the primary place where people tend to charge. It just seems as though there should be emphasis on the dwelling units and not so much on the business units. So, I would support staff's proposal. Mike Rosen: So, using that as our starting place, let me as one question first before we go to that, and it would be the idea of splitting based on number of spaces. Asks for additional feedback. (Board agrees to the non-residential standard) Eric Engmann: Mentions non-residential businesses will be a good place for people to charge their EVs when there are no chargers where they live. Mike Rosen: I did hear of a study not too long ago that in retail establishments that did install chargers, that people in fact, as a result of that, specifically stayed and spent mor money. So, the retailers were in fact using it as a revenue generator. And because of the cost of EV cars, it was a very desirable market segment. Roger Pence: I was talking with the owner of a Tesla Model 3, and he lives here in Edmonds in a place with no charging at home. But his employer provides free electricity for charging at work. So, he's not paid a dime for power to run his car. So, yeah. I would think that a lot of employers may be offering things like that as an incentive or a benefit for their employees. Judi Gladstone: Yeah, to follow on that, it seems to be, or we don't know yet how the private sector is gonna jump into this market and that could really be a game changer. Eric Engmann: (Briefly highlights the accessible standards proposed) Mike Rosen: A question that popped into my head and there should be any math involved. But in terms of ADA requirements, spaces to total spaces. It would seem to me that a similar ratio would make sense. Whatever those numbers are. So, I like your thought about making a number and not a percentage. Suggests that our standards reflect a similar commitment, if that makes sense. Eric Engmann: It does make sense. Richard Kuehn: If you have X number of parking spots and Y number of parking spots needs to be ADA accessible. And then we're saying okay, well five to 25, you need to have one of those be EV accessible. That EV accessible does not take away from having an actual regular ADA accessible unit, correct? Eric Engmann: Correct, that's absolutely right. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 269 8.2.b Mike Rosen: So, we aren't saying, of your 88 spaces, this is how many have to be electrified. You're saying you have to add spaces? Eric Engmann: No, let's say for instance it's 100 parking spaces. Under the Washington rules, let's just say it's about four ADA spaces, a certain percentage of those that were required to be accessible spaces, have power to them for this. Mike Rosen: So, that's different than what Richard just described because he was describing that we would require an additional space that would then have power. And what you're saying is, one of those spaces must have power. Richard Kuehn: That's what I'm saying is, we're taking away, with my understanding of what you just said, Eric is, we're taking away from one of those ADA spaces because ADA non-EV vehicle, we have a Toyota Sienna minivan, right? It's not a plug in EV vehicle, so we couldn't park in one of those EV ADA accessible spaces. That's why I was asking that question. So, the last thing I wanna do is take away a regular ADA space, because a lot of EV vehicles are not gonna be necessarily ADA ready. Or available. I mean, that's not always gonna be true. Eric Engmann: We will want to keep those spaces available. I would think we would keep those spaces available for ADA, whether they're charging or not. So, that it wouldn't be just restricted to ADA spaces that are charging. Mike Rosen: Does that have to be explicit? Because there isn't current protocols, right? So, cars that take less to charge don't get to cut in line for cars that take longer. There is no protocol like that. So, as long as it's protocol or kindness would say, use that space last. Judi Gladstone: Right. Eric Engmann: These ratios, this topic, is not something that's covered well in most codes. So, that topic you just brought up, Richard, is not something that's generally talked about. It's generally just percentage of spaces that need to be set aside for this. Judi Gladstone: So, I think part of my questions were answered, that these are in addition to, I'm not sure we know for sure, but they're in addition to the already ADA. But I wanted to go back to the proportion of ADA. So, if you have four EV installed requirements for ADA, how many other — what's the ratio that's required just for regular ADA for that same number of parking spaces? Eric Engmann: I'm pretty sure it's similar to the table above. For the next meeting, I'll have a little bit more topic on this. I'm hearing we need a little more information on this. Judi Gladstone: I think that would be helpful. Mike Rosen: So, Eric, the public hearing will be in front of us or council? Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 270 8.2.b Eric Engmann: Here, in front of you all. Mike Rosen: So, another option that we would have as well is, because we're gonna then get another shot at this after the public hearing. So, what we could do is say, let's put it in like this for the purposes of the public hearing with an asterisk that we wanna revisit, reserve the right to change our minds afterwards based on Eric's study, as opposed to necessarily continuing to push this back. Would that be acceptable? Judi, would you be okay with that? I know you were looking for more clarity. Judi Gladstone: Yeah, being I don't really know how that process works. So, as long as it's really clear that we're still unsettled on it and looking for input on it, I think I would be comfortable with that. Mike Rosen: All right. So, I guess the request is that you do that research so we're comfortable with the ratios and the impact. Also, as your conversation with Richard was going, with one potential alternative to clarifying how that space can be used if it's not an electric, so we aren't taking away. Okay. Eric Engmann: The benefit is, we might be setting the tone for a lot of other cities on this issue Mike Rosen: And again, thank you very much for being bold and helping Edmonds go where everybody else who's done this should have gone before us. All right. So, now No. 4 of 5. Eric Engmann: This would allow the option of load management technology. It allows a builder to work with it, to see what works best for them, what works best for the power supply. And possibly finding efficiencies for this. Up to this current draft, it was silent on it. Whereas, what we've talked about is just having a simple statement saying it's a possibility to look at. And that's our current proposal Mike Rosen: Thanks. Does anybody have any pushback to his recommendation? (no comments) Sounds like you convinced us. So, we'll go with your recommendation. Eric Engmann: This results from a talk with people on the technical side from Snohomish County Power Utility District. What they're saying is that there could be some situations where the extra power draw could lead to a bigger power box on the property, essentially. And that could cost a lot of money. They're asking for an exception for us to look at each one of those cases and, if it looks like it's going to cost a lot of money for that extra increase in power on the property, that we could then lower some of the standards. I'm not a power person, so I don't quite get it 100 percent, as far as the technology behind it. But I know how we could craft it in the code. I always like to think about are scenarios. Let's say there's a new 100-unit project proposed on Highway 99. They've asked for a certain amount of power, they're ready to follow our recommendation s for our EV charging requirements. They go to Snohomish PUD, and they say oh, there's not enough power available to you on this property. Here's how much it's gonna cost you to upgrade and have enough power to your property. It Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 271 8.2.b could be a seven -figure number. That's where they would like to have some exception that says, in those instances, when that happens, that we could reduce some of our thresholds that we just created to lower that impact. Mike Rosen: Let's talk about it conceptually first. Roger. Roger Pence: That seven figure cost that you mentioned, is that paid for by the developer or is that paid for by PUD? Eric Engmann: It's paid for by the developer. They have to pay for those upgrades. Roger Pence: Because I don't know power either, even though I grew up in a public power home. But it seems to me that PUD is in the business to supplying electric power to the customers who need it. And it's going to grow in that corridor over time anyway, regardless of how we tweak the code for EVs in the future. We're coming down, we're beginning to come down as a society on natural gas as a heating source. That means more electric power over time. It just grates on my sensibilities I guess to hear suggestions that PUD wants to dial back on the coming supply of power in a corridor where they ought to know, it's going to grow. Mike Rosen: I would echo Roger's concerns. I have a hard time, I have never heard a situation where they came to us and said yeah, we don't want Edmonds to allow anymore car dealerships because all that lighting is gonna, right? Cost too much to bring in a car dealer, or a bakery or a restaurant. There are lots of industries that suck a lot of power. And I guess, yeah. So, I'm having a real hard time understanding — go ahead. Eric Engmann: I think the difference is the increased impact. So, they have enough supply for what's there, but it's almost a concurrency use. You are now adding another 100 units to the grid that a developer is creating. Like with roads, they have certain capacities and if certain developments go beyond that, then they have to pay for what impacts they have on them. I think that's where it comes from. Judi Gladstone: As a utility person, now I'm not power but water and sewer. It's pretty standard in the utility world that the developers pay for improvements that are required above and beyond what is there, even on waterlines if the line has to be enlarged, it goes to the developer. And it's standard utility practice. I know it sounds really awful, but that being said, it sounds like this has to do with the specific development, not their overall infrastructure coming to that development, am I right? Eric Engmann: Right, it would be the power coming on to their property. Judi Gladstone: Now, I will say that I have heard of jurisdictions, cities, that on water and sewer side, I don't know about on the water side. That have provided some local subsidy where that occurs, as a way to incentivize it. So, that I do believe is probably an option on power, as it has been done with water, that I'm aware of. But it would be really unusual for the — because what you're doing then, is you're spreading the cost to all the other non -users if Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 272 8.2.b you have the public utility district pick up that cost. And they aren't supposed to be there now. Mike Rosen: Richard, Alicia. We haven't heard from either of you. Alicia Crank: I'm interested in the write up that Eric will do on this then give my opinion on it during public hearing. Richard Kuehn: I tend to agree with what Alicia said. I'd like to see a little more info. Mike Rosen: So, what would we put in front of people for the public hearing? Eric Engmann: If you'd like, I can put together one that includes the minimum threshold options. It's easier to put everything and then you can take away portions of it. My last question to them was, how would we know how much of the power is coming from the EV charging itself. Is it two percent, is it five percent? Is this what puts them over that threshold? Mike Rosen: That was a great question because if it was basically dirt to start with. Richard Kuehn: And that was my question too. If they're building a 100-unit, 200-unit place, how do we know that's not getting them over the threshold to where they need? I don't like the idea of a developer being able to skirt something they would have to be paying for anyways. Roger Pence: We need to know the increment for the EVs that puts them over the threshold that requires the more expensive box and that may be a very hard test to actually make in reality. Judi Gladstone: So, I feel like we need more information. Because I have some concerns that we start having an impact on affordable housing. And that's a real concern. So, if you have a potential building on Highway 99 that could produce some good multi -family affordable housing and it puts it into this million dollar change in power, is that enough to put it over the edge so it's oh, never mind. Mike Rosen: So, I guess so that Eric is — I'd like for everybody to have the information they need to make a decision. So, if you could be really specific, that this is an actionable question. Judi Gladstone: I think we need to have information that's more solid about what the potential cost is to the developer, first of all. I realize there could be a range and a range, but it may also have to do with the size of the building that I think is important. Second is, what minimum thresholds could there be and are there ways to mitigate that so that we're allowing other opportunities for similar housing going in. Those are the ones that come to my mind immediately. Alicia Crank: I would just say, I'm looking for if then for each of those options. Just to have more information going into the public hearing, also leaving room for those that might be at the public hearing to then add something additional to that. So, I just wanna make sure Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 273 8.2.b that there's some tangible examples to be able to discuss and look at side to side, to prepare us to make final recommendations to council. Richard Kuehn: There's gonna be a lot of variables. I mean, I'm just thinking about this right now and the variable I'm writing down are the size of the project like we talked about. The effect of the size of the project, versus the effect of the EV part of the project, or what the code is saying. Alicia Crank: I was gonna say, we know we can't plot out every if then, but just ones that can be looked at side to side and give people an idea of what the other one's could potentially look like. Judi Gladstone: One other piece of information, if you can get it Eric from the PUD and that is, what planning are the PUDs doing in the areas where they're likely to have the development. Particular I'm thinking about Highway 99 where they've identified that as a problem. And as a result of redevelopment or are they already planning for the power supply that needs to be there? I personally need a little bit more from them about what it is that would be needed to understand that. Mike Rosen: So, Eric. Do you have any concerns over any of those specific requests? Eric Engmann: I think they all seem reasonable. Some might be a little bit harder to get than others, but I will try my best. Mike Rosen: And just looking for consensus that we are okay making that a part of the presentation for the hearing that we are not asking that to come back to us first. Is everyone good with that? Richard Kuehn: Yes. Mike Rosen: Great. All right, I think you got five out of five. Eric Engmann: I do. Thank you for the thoughts. Mike Rosen: . hanks very much, Eric. Well, done. So, we now move to the other unfinished business, which was furthering our discussion about outreach. So, at the last meeting we had a robust discussion from the first draft that was offered to the crown. And then I sent out through Rob and Eric a redraft which hopefully reflected everybody's comments. We have requested that any comments you have be sent in, that those did not get sent back out. I'm not sure Eric, did we not receive any written comments? Eric Engmann: I don't think I received them. So, I'm not sure about that. Mike Rosen: Did anybody send any in, because then I will apologize. All right. So then based on that, we'll just talk in real time. Hopefully you reviewed the draft, and I will now ask for concerns as to that, that you would like to see. If any. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 274 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom July 14, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) Judi Gladstone (excused) Richard Kuehn (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Asks Rob Chave for roll call. Rob Chave: Does roll call. Mike Rosen: States Judi Gladstone, Richard Kuehn, Alicia Crank, and Todd Cloutier have excused absences. Mike Rosen: Mentions two past meeting minutes to approve. Starts with June 9. Asks for changes or Packet Pg. 275 Eric Engmann: Mentions that was it. Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anything else to add or change. States that he thinks the Board is looking for a motion to send to Council. Nathan Monroe: Confirms that the update includes the electrical outlet distance component and removing the senior living exception. Mike Rosen: Agrees and mentions the two additions by staff. Nathan Moves that this, with those modifications, be sent to Council. Monroe: Matt Seconds. Cheung: Mike Asks for any discussion. Asks for all those in favor say aye. Rosen: Group: Aye. Mike Rosen: Asks if anybody is opposed. States that hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Eric Engmann: Introduces continuation of EV charging infrastructure potential code amendment. States it will be focused on the changes from the last draft which are • The mix of EV charging standards in the table. • The applicability standard. Also mentions that there are a few changes to the draft since the last meeting. They are: • Included Level 3 charging into the definition for EV capable and EV ready- for the sake of flexibility • Updated the 50% rule language- now uses substantial damage and substantial improvement in the definitions • Clarifies parking restrictions will only apply to EV Installed spaces • Minor clarifications and corrections States one of the big topics from the last meeting had to do with the mix of standards that were proposed. Highlights (and reads slides) of the pros and cons for each of the EV staging types (EV Capable, EV Ready, EV Installed. Highlights the specific proposal. Mentions Board seemed comfortable with single family proposal, which also includes multifamily with individual garages. Discusses multiple dwelling unit (Multifamily) proposal. 20% EV capable, 40% EV ready, Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 276 8.2.b and 10% EV installed. Discusses nonresidential proposal. 20% EV capable, 20% EV ready, and 10% EV installed. Mentions, for multifamily, basically, 70% of the spaces would have to have some level of capability and then, for nonresidential, it would be 50%. Mentions that the list of many different standards was shown. Mentions that, at the last meeting, the Board was talking about 100% and if 100% (total requirement) is appropriate. Discusses comparisons between Denver, San Jose and staff's proposals. Mentions that requiring more EV ready would allow a building to transition easier to EV installed at a later date. Highlights that Denver and San Jose have a higher overall standard, 100%, but staffs proposal would require a higher percentage of EV ready and EV installed spaces. Mentions this would have a higher upfront cost but would be cheaper than later retrofits. Mentions staff feels that the multifamily proposal from the last meeting is still appropriate. For non-residential, staff shows the comparisons for the same cities (Denver and San Jose). Mentions that they have much less EV ready requirements. Mentions staff took a look at this again and changed their recommendation from the last meeting. It would now require 40% EV capable and 10% installed. Stated that EV ready may be difficult to accommodate in a nonresidential parking lot. Mentions the updates to the 50% rule that was also discussed in the bike parking public hearing. States that for existing buildings, substantial damage and substantial improvement would apply. Also states that this standard would apply if it occurs within a one-year period and it's determined by the building official. Mentions the 50% requirement would be pretty sizable and gives examples. Also mentions that it would be very difficult for EV upgrades to be made at the time of electrical permits. States that the electrical permits are contracted outside of the city. States that there still might be wall work to run wires through the ceiling or floors. States that this was a great idea but staff is not recommending making that change. States that staff would like to hear more about the Board's thoughts on the multifamily standards, the nonresidential standards, and those applicability standards. Mike Rosen: States that the Board should take these issues one at a time and opens discussion Eric Engmann: Reiterates the proposed multifamily standards but acknowledges that there are different options. Mike Rosen: States that staff mentioned many buildings in Edmonds are smaller but mentions the Apollo Project, which is 251 units. Asks if the proposal means 175 out of the 251 spaces would need some level of EV infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Affirms Mike Rosen: Asks the other Board members about their thoughts. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 277 8.2.b Matt Cheung: Asks to look at the multifamily presentation slide of other cities. States that San Jose has 10% installed but the others are 5% or below. Eric Engmann: States that these are just a few of the cities, but agrees that those are the ones listed on the slide. Matt Cheung: States that EV ready should be sufficient for most people, especially residential when charging overnight. States that it seems like EV installed for residential isn't as important compared to commercial where maybe EV installed is more important. Also says for non- residential, it seems like EVC installed is more important that EV ready. Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issue in order. Asks Matt Cheung Cheung if the would like the board to consider as alternatives to the current proposal. Matt Cheung: States he would probably say EV installed at 5% and then, EV ready, feels 40% is pretty high. Mentions the current proposal has one of the highest EV installed and EV ready percentages. States that if Edmonds wants to stand out, then the EV ready percentages make sense. Mike Rosen: Asks Matt Cheung what numbers is he recommending, 20/40/5. Matt Cheung: States he doesn't have much opinion on EV capable but that number could go up. States that the EV ready numbers proposed are higher than other cities. Summarizes that he would probabably just lean on dropping the 10% to 5% on the EV installed and keep the other ones the same or increasing EV capable. Mike Rosen: Asks for other Board members feelings about changing the EV installed percentages. Nathan Monroe: Asks to confirm multiple development means multifamily. Eric Engmann: Confirms, states this is how it is defined in the code. Nathan Monroe: States that he doesn't see why we should build any parking space that doesn't have at least EV capable. States he is in favor of bringing the EV capable up enough to sum it out to 100% and there is no situation in the future by which electric vehicles don't have a role to play. Mike Rosen: Restates this to mean 55% EV capable, 45% EV ready, and 5% EV installed to get to 100%. Nathan Monroe: States that he'd prefer higher percentages on the higher end, but he'll accept it. Mike Rosen: Asks for Roger Pence's opinion. Roger Pence: Asks about the EV capable pros and cons from the presentation. States he doesn't think EV capable will require invasive work. States that it will only require cutting a hole in the Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 278 8.2.b wall and put a box on it. Asks for clarification. Eric Engmann: States that is his personal summary of it and mentions the raceway wiring could be further away from the wall to get to the outlet. Roger Pence: States that he envisions EV capable meaning that there's wire in the wall that goes to the individual parking spot and then, dead ends in a box on the wall with a blank cover on it. And then, to upgrade that to EV ready, an electrician comes out, unscrews the blank, puts in a socket. States he thinks we should define EV capable as meaning the wire goes to the parking spots and then, blanks off. Eric Engmann: Mentions that he is worried about creating a definition that is unique to Edmonds for this type of technology. States that the definition is set up in state law and international building code. Rob Chave: States that the City would want to use industry standards as much as possible. Nathan Monroe: Asks for clarification about the EV capable definition. Eric Engmann: States that the definitions does not define where the wiring stops but that it does require raceway wiring. Nathan Monroe: States that they're not going to run a 5-foot wire out of the panel and stop. They're going to take to about where they think it should go and it doesn't cost any more money. States that he doesn't think it's invasive to go from EV capable to EV ready. Mike Rosen: Asks if Roger Pence wants to discuss this further. Roger Pence: Sates that he made his point and happy to let it go at that. Mike Rosen: States there are two parts of the discussion, but unsure if they are reliant on the other. Nathan Monroe recommends going to 100% for total percentage. Asks Matt Cheung for his thoughts. Matt Cheung: States that he likes this in principle. Provides a scenarios and states that doesn't know if 100% is realistic. Also asks if the EV installed infrastructure would only work for one space. Eric Engmann: States that there are multiple options available, they also work for two spaces. Matt Cheung: Asks if the max would be two spaces, could there be one serving four spaces. Eric Engmann: States that he hasn't seen one like that, but that technology could change. Matt Cheung: Asks about the cost of EV installed. Eric Engmann: States that staffs analysis showed it would be about $4,300. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 279 8.2.b Matt Cheung: States that he feels having an outlet (EV ready) should suffice. States that he is converned about EV installed in multifamily and likes EV ready. Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issues one at a time. Checks to see if 100% for multifamily is appropriate and states that Matt Cheung Cheung's pushback is that it might not be possible and that an alternative would be to go to a lower number. Nathan Monroe: States that he has built some parking garages and that it is possible. States that you could run conduit anywhere and that it isn't that expensive. Mike Rosen: States that he hears the majority consensus is to change the overall multifamily number to 100%. Asks for the Board to raise their hand to confirm. (Mike Rosen and Nathan Monroe raise their hands). States that they are split. Roger Pence: States that he is split too. Nathan Monroe: Mentions he'll bring it up again at the next meeting and it can be discussed in a bigger group. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to reflect this as an option. Eric Engmann: Confirms. Mike Rosen: Mentions that the second point is the one raised by Matt Cheung. That he would prefer the EV installed percentage reduced to 5%. States that Nathan Monroe would like to see it kept at 10% and asks Roger Pence Pence's opinion. Roger Pence: States that he would like to hear from developers, contractors, and people that build this stuff. States that he would like to invite one or more to the public hearing to have some input from people with real world working knowledge of the subject. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make this 5% EV installed proposal a discussion item. Asks if he could reach out to people in the industry and ask them to participate; if nothing else, report on what they said. Roger Pence: States that he feels he needs more information. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann if there is more information needed. Eric Engmann: Thanks the Board and asks how the Board felt about amending the nonresidential standards to 40% EV capable and 10% EV installed. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 280 8.2.b Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung would like to finish his thought on this subject. Matt Cheung: Discusses it out loud then states the more EV capable makes sense. States that it may allow the spaces to go directly from EV capable to EV installed and thinks that commercial units may not want the exposed outlets in EV ready. Thinks that the EV capable number could be higher. Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Matt Cheung would like the EV capable number to be higher. Matt Cheung: States that if there was one to change, he would probably increase capable. Mike Rosen: Asks if anyone else has a preference. Nathan Monroe: States that he would like it to be 100% and once you build it, you don't unbuild it. States that it would be such a small amount of money to spend now to future proof everything down the road. Doesn't see why you wouldn't at least put the conduit in the ground and pull the wire and get it ready for eventual use. Mike Rosen: Asks about a scenario: if a Home Depot goes up, would we want wire underneath all of the spaces? Nathan Monroe: Reiterates that it is better to have the ability to wire every space without having to tear up the parking lot. Mike Rosen: Asks if the rest of the Board feels the number should add up to 100 percent, mostly from EV capable. Matt Cheung: States he doesn't feel it has to be set at 100% and discusses a hesitancy with requiring every spot to have EV charging infrastructure. Mentions it may be nice to hear from others in the industry. Mike Rosen: Summarizes Matt Cheung's discussion and that he would like to hear from the industry. Asks Eric Engmann to reach out to people in the industry for guidance and encourage people to talk with the Board. Asks Matt Cheung if he would like to pencil in 100 percent for now. Matt Cheung: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for clarification on the term wire or conduit, whether that should be called out. Nathan Monroe: States that builders will put conduit in surface parking lots. Surmises that it would be up to the Building Official. Asks if Eric Engmann has a feeling on this. Eric Engmann: Pulls up the definition in the draft. Mentions the definition is fairly broad. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 281 8.2.b Nathan Monroe: States caution with the comments from developers. Mentions they would probably not want to do it. Asks to be clear what the Board is asking. Would like to ask them about the costs of installing it now verses the later cost. Eric Engmann: Refers back to the EV capacity question, states that it talks about the capacity and conduit, raceway, and breaker space. Reiterates that the language is rather broad. Mike Rosen: States that the Board has a tentative recommendation for staff. Eric Engmann: States that previous discussion also covered separating different nonresidential categories. Mentions staff felt it would be better to keep the category broader and that most other codes also merge non-residential into one category. Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board has any push back to staff's recommendation. Nathan Monroe: Asks if the other cities previously discussed, San Jose and Denver, make a qualification for mega shopping centers. Agrees that it could be difficult for them to meet higher standards. Eric Engmann: States that larger development is why the percentages are lower. States that he doesn't think any non-residential standards exceeded 50% for total EV charging infrastructure. Nathan Monroe: Mentions he was considering office space with 15 or 20 parking spaces. States that a different number for big commercial spaces may be needed. Eric Engmann: Asked if the Board would like to see options for different non-residential sizes. Nathan Monroe: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board would like to have further discussions on this during the hearing meeting. Rob Chave: States that staff usually puts the options out there, advertise, and let people come and give feedback. Mentions that the Board can't insist that people come ahead of time. Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Rob Chave's recommendation would be to move forward, book the hearing, and have the things discussed tonight as options. Rob Chave: Agrees and mentions the hearing won't happen for another month. Mike Rosen: Agrees. Rob Chave: Mentions staff is already reaching outto people in the development community, including the Master Builders, to make them away of what the city is considering. States that if they are concerned, they will show up. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 282 8.2.b Mike Rosen: Eric Asks Eric Engmann if there is anything else he would like the Board to consider. Engmann: Mike Asks if the Board is comfortable with the updates to the applicability 50% rule. Rosen: Eric Checks with the Board and mentions that everyone is good with those standards. Engmann: Thanks the Board and mentions that the next meeting will focus on the standards and what the appropriate numbers should be. Mike Rosen: States that there is no new business and that the Board will discuss the extended c as agenda. Talks about upcoming vacations of the Board members. Asks Rob Chave if he E will miss the July 28th and August 11th meetings. E Rob Chave: Mike States he will be gone for the August 25th meeting. 0 Rosen: Roger Mentions Roger Pence will miss the September 8th meeting. U 0 c Pence: Mike States he could be available by Zoom. U Rosen: Nathan Asks if the Board wants to take one of those meetings off. w Monroe: Rob States he's not sure how good they're going to do without Rob Chave here. Chave: Mike States Eric Engmann will do fine. Rosen: Nathan Asks the Board if there is any feeling about taking a meeting off or keep going. Monroe: States that he thinks the Board has a lot on their plate and doesn't want to lose rhythm. Mentions missed meetings may throw things off but that he could also appreciate a summer break. Mike Rosen: States that he is good moving forward and asks Roger Pence if he is too. Roger Pence: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Matt Asks Matt Cheung his opinion. Cheung: Mike States he can go either way. Rosen: Rob States that, unless Rob Chave has any concerns, that the Board would just keep going Chave: States that there may be a time going forward where staff isn't ready to present and that may be the time to take the meeting off. Mike Rosen: Agrees and discusses the extended agenda. Asks if there are any concerns. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 283 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 23, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (Excused) Nathan Monroe (Unexcused) Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order. STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planning Division Eric Engmann, Planning Division Richard Kuehn: Reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples Rob Chave: Mike Calls roll. (Planning Board responds) Rosen: Mentions Alicia Crank has an excused absence and unless Nathan Monroe joins, it will be an unexcused absence. Packet Pg. 284 Mike Rosen: Suggests removal of those 15% of the sample size. Strongly suggests emphasizing wellbeing of future generations which, from experience, has always tested number one. Asks if staff provided the list of choices for level of support. Kernen Lien: Confirms that the list of choices is made up of those that the city is tracking. Mike Rosen: Supports and talks about the benefits of telecommuting as an option. Also suggests going directly to employers to provide bus passes or transit passes for employees as incentives. Provides examples and talks about providing incentives to make these actions easy and accessible to people. Thinks of (the solutions) through the filters of behavior and equipment and also likelihood. Would add a filter for likelihood. Kernen Lien: Talks about incentives and discusses the increase in solar installation after incentives were announced. Saw this as an example of incentives working well. Mike Rosen: States that incentives are also a good opportunity for public/private partnerships. Mentions electric mowers as an example. States that government incentives and private incentives could be in place to benefit everybody. Asks if there are any other questions. Thanks Kernen Lien for his time. Mike Rosen: Introduces Eric Engmann to talk about EV charging infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Mentions that this code amendment transitions well from the climate action plan topic. Mentions that the articles and studies in the packet are great sources for information about EV charging infrastructure and how to regulate it in City code. Recaps the last presentation • EV charging infrastructure supports sustainability goals • Demand is growing and manufacturers are switching to EV • Cheaper to install in new development instead of costly retrofits • Three staging levels: EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed • Three charging levels: Level I, Level II (typical for residential), and Level III (rapid charging) • Land uses needed: single-family, multifamily, and non-residential Recaps Planning Board comments at last meeting • Discuss cost implications • Equity considerations • Ease in technology usage • Allowing flexible standards • Future technology considerations • Connections to larger environmental impacts Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 285 8.2.b Highlights the components of the proposed amendment. Would entail a new chapter in Title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Discusses definitions and the charging levels allowed under each stage type. States that the charging levels will be allowed in all zoning districts and that, based on PB comments, battery exchange stations will be treated as an automotive service station and allowed where they are permitted. Discusses the applicability standards for EV charging infrastructure. States that it would be required as part of new development, additions to existing buildings over 50% improvement, or 50% increase in parking capacity to a building. Highlights the differences between the proposed 50% rule verses the existing non- conformity standards for existing buildings. States that staff recommends using the 50% rule as a simpler and more effective way to ensure existing buildings meet these standards during major renovations or expansion. Provides examples about the differences between the two standards. Introduces the specific standards and how they work. Indicates that multiple dwelling units (multifamily) with individual garages would follow the single-family standards. The standards for multifamily and non-residential development would be based on a percentage of the overall parking provided. Provides a comparative chart for standards in other cities. Talks about some of the differences. Discusses and notes the differences between the recent State Legislative Requirements enacted in 2019 and 2021. Also discusses the standards for accessible EV spaces and highlights from other sections of the code. Runs through cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact for implementing these proposed amendments based on analysis done for the City of Denver. Shows costs evaluations for different sized multifamily and non-residential development. Mentions the key decisions that will need to be made: • Charging level definitions • Permitted locations • Applicability (non -conforming criteria) • Specific standards for Edmonds • Review of the other components Completes the presentation and asks for Board questions. Mike Rosen: Opens up questions to the Board. Recognizes Roger Pence. Roger Pence: States that there is a difference between employment centers and short-term parking, like a grocery store. States that people might not plug in for short periods of time. Asks for staff's reaction. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 286 8.2.b Eric Engmann: Mentions most cities have one standard for nonresidential uses but not all. Agrees that office uses may need more EV charging but does not want to go too low for other non- residential uses. Refers to the need for top -off locations and that demand may change very soon and increase for other non-residential uses. Mentions Edmonds doesn't have too many large buildings so the proposed requirements would, in many cases, only require a few EV installed spaces. Roger Pence: Also suggests that it may be better to have these standards address employee parking first and others later. Judi Gladstone: Likes Roger Pence's point. Asks if the code requirements could be based on number of workers rather than parking spaces. Eric Engmann: States it will need to be based on something more specific. Provides an example of the difference in the number of employees that two businesses of the same use can have. States that these standards are typically done by square footage or number of parking spaces. Judi Gladstone: Asks to confirm if the standards can differentiate between different non-residential use types, like retail vs. office. Eric Engmann: Confirms this is possible. Rob Chave: States it would be extremely difficult to vary according to retail vs. office. Says there can be different types of non-residential uses moving in and out of a space. Judi Gladstone: Asks about the table provided for the cost analysis. Asks if there is alternative analysis, other than the one being presented. Eric Engmann: States that staff reviewed many other options and standards. Selected standards that staff felt would be appropriate in Edmonds. Mentions it would be difficult to conduct analysis for several different alternatives. Staff relies heavily on analysis conducted in larger cities as part of their adoption process. Mike Rosen: Recognizes Matt Cheung. Matt Cheung: Asks if a non -electric vehicle can park in an EV spot or if it would be ticketed or towed Eric Engmann: States the EV installed spaces would be restricted to EV cars. Matt Cheung: Asks if the code is written so tickets will be issued or if it is a business's choice. Eric Engmann: Provides an example of EV parking in a residential building. The signs will say the spaces are only for EV parking but the enforcement will most likely rely on the building owners. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 287 8.2.b Matt Cheung: Mentions that the city can ticket in an ADA space regardless of whether the business enforces it. Asks if the city code has these restrictions for EV spaces. Eric Engmann: States that the draft EV charging infrastructure code relies on state code for this. It requires specific signage that restricts the EV spaces. Unsure of implications beyond that. Matt Cheung: Asks if parking in an EV space without vehicle charging is a ticketable offense. Eric Engmann: Unsure, but believes this is the case. Mike Rosen: Asks about the term for new buildings on Packet Page 47. States that using the term new building sounds very vague. Eric Engmann: Asks for clarification on the section. States that staff will look at this again. States that simplicity is important in code writing, but it also needs to be understandable. Mike Rosen: States that a shed could be a new building and provides another example. Eric Engmann: Agrees that staff will look at the language. Mike Rosen: Asks about the equity and burden between smaller and larger units. Eric Engmann: Notes that duplexes or others with individual garages would follow the single-family standards so this should account for many small developments. Mentions that there are other codes with multiple tiers for standards, and staff can look at that. Mike Rosen: Asks other Board members if they are struggling with the concept of retrofits. Talks about retrofits, potentially, being driven by market demand and sees them differently. Judi Gladstone: Mentions a recent upgrade to electrical as part of a kitchen remodel. States that it makes sense for EV capable at the same time as the electrical box upgrades. Finds that it is a lot of extra cost if the improvements have nothing to do with the electrical. States the added cost could prevent somebody from retrofitting their house, possibly for someone to age in place or create multigenerational living. Rob Chave: Talks about the high levels of retrofit, 50% or 75%. Mentions they are big projects not simple additions. Richard Kuehn: Mentions these higher retrofit standards are not going to be all encompassing. Is also thinking about scenarios such as aging in place or a younger family. States that the 50% number might be appropriate. Mike Rosen: Concerned with imposing those standards on current homeowners. Wonders if it should be left to market demand. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 288 8.2.b Judi Gladstone: Wonders if the upgrades should be done based on the right opportunity, like a kitchen remodel, and it would be a shame to miss it. Asks if an electrical permit is required to update the electric box. Rob Chave: States that the city contracts out its electrical permitting in the city so it would be difficult to implement. Eric Engmann: Talked with the Building Official about the types of retrofits that would warrant 50% improvements. Mentioned that it would take substantial work to meet this applicability requirement and a major improvement might be a good time to install it. Mentions that since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting will be extremely important. Things like complete renovations or "gutting" of houses would be a good time to require these improvements so they will be available for the next owner. Reminds the Board that a major barrier to EV adoption is charging availability. Roger Pence: Asks if the 50% threshold is necessary if an electrical permit is pulled. States that it could be an add on to a project. Matt Cheung: Agrees that it seems like it should be market driven and not burden the current property owner. But asks if it is safe to assume that anyone reaching 50% is making significant improvements. Asks if the 50% improvements would have to be done at one time to count. Eric Engmann: States that adding a timeframe will be in the next version of the code draft, most likely a one-year period. Provides an example that in a 1 million dollar home, there would need to be $500,000 worth of improvements to qualify as a retrofit. Matt Cheung: Mentions that kitchen improvements won't likely cost 50% of the house value. 50% would need to be several renovation projects or involve flipping a house. Eric Engmann: States there could be many scenarios, but it would probably be more than a kitchen renovation. Matt Cheung: Asks if the permits would all be combined. Eric Engmann: States that permits are typically applied for close together, but it depends on the situation. Judi Gladstone: States that 50% doesn't appear to be that much renovation. Reiterates that with many improvements, older electrical boxes need to be replaced. Wonders how much will be caught with the 50% or 75% current definition. Asks if it would be more effective if tied to electrical permits. Rob Chave: States that staff will need to talk with the Building Official since electrical code is not part of city code, but done through the state. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 289 8.2.b Judi Gladstone: Agrees and states that it seems like the city is relinquishing a really important piece of the construction. Mike Rosen: Recognized Richard Kuehn. Richard Kuehn: Agrees with Judi Gladstone about lost opportunity. Talks about how the key objective of this amendment is to help achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Talks about different scenarios for improvements but asks Board to think back to the objective at hand. Mike Rosen: Mentions Linda has comments in the Q&A. Asks Eric to discuss the staff's questions for the Board. Eric Engmann: States that he hears a few main components that need to be readdressed at the next meeting. Some of the other issues don't seem to be as controversial. Asks if there are any issues with the specific charging levels listed in the EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed definitions. States that they are pretty typical from other cities. Mike Rosen: Asks if any Board members take exception to this or move on. Eric Engmann: Asks if there is any issue allowing all charging levels (Levels I, II, or III) to be allowed citywide. Also mentions that battery exchange stations would be considered an automotive repair use and allowed where they are allowed. Mike Rosen: Asks if battery exchange stations should be allowed at auto dealers. Rob Chave: States that this is a good idea for staff to review. Judi Gladstone: Agrees that planning for battery exchange stations is a good idea for the purposes of flexibility and future trends. Eric Engmann: Asks if there is anything else with the specific standards, besides more about separating non-residential uses, that the Board wants to see at the next meeting. Judi Gladstone: Talks about the comparison with the Denver scenarios, which has 80% EV capable, and believes it would be cheaper. Would like to know more about the difference between EV ready vs. EV capable, including the costs. States that aiming for 100% total EV infrastructure down the road might be more efficient. Eric Engmann: Mentions that EV ready still lets vehicles charge from a portable charger so it gives more flexibility. Agrees that there is a trade off with cost and will provide more information at the next meeting. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 290 8.2.b Rob Chave: States that part of the concern is ownership, especially for multifamily buildings. Would be hard for a tenant to get a building owner to make that investment of an upgrade from EV capable to EV ready. Judi Gladstone: Asks for clarification, that EV capable does not have an outlet. Eric Engmann: Confirms that EV capable only has the behind the wall wiring, no outlet. Rob Chave: Mentions many EVs have portable charging devices that can work with EV ready. EV capable still needs significant steps to charge vehicles. Eric Engmann: States that many cities require 10% of EV spaces to be accessible spaces. Staff may need to create more scenarios to determine the best percentage. Mentions that the draft code language and terminology is similar to the surrounding cities. Much of the language comes from best practices and other codes. Mike Rosen: Thanks staff. Asks if it makes sense for this item to come back one more time before scheduling a public hearing. Roger Pence: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks if staff has any issue with presenting this one more time before a public hearing. Rob Chave: Agrees to this. Mike Rosen: Introduces the bicycle parking code amendment. Eric Engmann: States that staff will be discussing the goals of this amendment and look at the proposed draft. States the closest goal is in the Climate Action Plan, Transportation Goal 3. Which seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting active transportation. Having access to bicycles, places to park them, places to use them, sidewalks, all of this is part of this metric. Discusses the difference between short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards. Difference is based on how long they function for and (usually) where they are located. Short-term parking is typically for short trips, located at the front of a building, and is intended for parking less than 4 hours. This is the typical bike parking standard found in most zoning codes. States that long-term parking is important for biking as an alternative form of transportation. It occurs for parking of more than 4 hours and is typically located in a secure location within a building. This standard is seen more often in multifamily residential developments. Employees riding bikes to work also rely on this option. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 291 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 9, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuen Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Discusses the meeting's agenda. Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience for public comment. Natalie Seitz: Discusses city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property. Addresses some of the statements the Council made during the Stage 2 Tree Issues discussion on June 1't, and the memorandum/information developed by the city in support of the Stage 3 Issues discussion. Encourages Planning Board to review comments made at the City Council meetings. Packet Pg. 292 House Bills 1236 and 1277 apply to tenant situations and protects people who are renting. House Bill 1287 is about zero emission vehicles and sets goals for having all new vehicles be electric vehicles (EV) by 2030. Also provides for the Building Code Council to increase their rules about providing EV charging stations. Senate Bill 5022 limits plastic bags and non-compostable containers from restaurants. Senate Bill 5126 addresses ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It includes a cap and invest program and provides for ways that incentivize the reduction fossil fuels. Senate Bill 5235 addresses emergency shelters and housing. Prevents local governments from regulating the number of unrelated persons that could occupy a household. Senate Bill 5253 establishes new programs for ensuring the health of bees and other pollinators and is an educational program. Senate Bill 5287 deals with the multi -family tax incentive program and allows additional years to use it. As a summary there was little change with growth management bills, modest changes Roger Pence: to housing laws, and climate bills are gaining momentum. Shane Hope: Asked for a copy of the presentation. Nathan Monroe: Agrees to send presentation. Thanks Shane for 10+ years of service then asked about Tax Increment Financing and whether the funds would be restricted within certain areas. Shane Hope: Confirms it would be limited to specific areas. Mike Rosen: States there are no public hearings and introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure item. Rob Chave: Introduces Eric Engmann as the new planner working on code updates. Eric Engmann: Introduces himself and provides background experience in planning and code drafting. Introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure topic. States that the meeting will be an introductory look into the components needed for the code and to connect this initiative to the City's larger sustainability efforts. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 293 8.2.b Discusses the connections between this code amendment and specific Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action Plan, and New Energy Cities Action Plan goals. Most notably the goal for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050. Talks about the sources for greenhouse gases within the City of Edmonds and identified the transportation section as the largest single localized contributor. Talks about the connection between reduced greenhouse gases produced by EVs and the City's future EV goals. He then talks about how vehicle manufacturers are producing more electric vehicle models and mentions the years that many will start producing only electric vehicles. Talks about the fear of not being able to charge vehicles as a key factor limiting EV adoption and indicates 80% of EVs are charged at home or at work. Also, mentions that it is much cheaper to install EV charging infrastructure in new development rather than in retrofits. Provides examples. Discusses key elements needed for the code amendment. The first one is the charging level, how much power goes into this infrastructure. Then the stages or types of infrastructure. Finally, how different uses will have different EV charging infrastructure needs. Talks about the difference between the EV stages: EV capable, EV ready and EV installed. • EV Capable means that the electric panel has the capacity to handle the charging voltage needed and has the initial wiring. Mentions EV Capable does not allow for current EV charging, but means it will be ready for future use. • EV Ready has the panel capacity, the conduit lines, and a plug in the wall. The circuitry is in place to physically charge the car with a portable charger. • EV Installed has the panels in place, conduit lines, circuit lines, and the specialized equipment geared specifically for electric vehicles. It deals with the voltage and shut- off times. It is considered the full, complete package for charging infrastructure. Then talks about the charging levels: Level I, Level II and Level III or fast chargers. • Level I is a 120-volt circuit, similar to what is seen on a typical household outlet. Can charge an EV but takes a long time, average charging time can be from eight to 20 hours. • Level II is the most common charging level, especially for residential use. It runs on a 240-volt circuit which is similar to an oven or dryer outlet. It can fully charge an EV battery in four to eight hours. • Level III, also known as rapid charging, has a 480-volt circuit. This is considered too much for current home usage. It can fully charge an EV battery in 20 to 60 minutes. They are typically found at large commercial sites, electric vehicle dealerships, and along major highways. Mentions the need to separate uses into three categories: single-family, multi -family, and nonresidential uses. Also mentions staff has done a lot of research on other cities and Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 294 8.2.b explains how the standards vary. Reiterates the specific items that will be discussed at the next meeting including a draft code amendment and development scenarios. Mike Rosen: Thanks Eric and asked for Planning Board questions Roger Pence: Mentions load management and if that is applicable here. Eric Engmann: Is unsure of the implications. Roger Pence: Asks how people will be charged for the electricity used in multifamily buildings. Eric Engmann: Mentions several options, specifically credit card readers on EV installed infrastructure. Alicia Crank: Asks about the types of costs based on the charging level and whether a consumer should have a preference. Eric Engmann: Mentions the major cost difference are between the stages themselves e.g. ready vs. capable. The cost of the electricity should be relatively similar amongst charging levels. Alicia Crank: Talks about the importance in charging levels across the city. Asks if the ones downtown are Level III. Eric Engmann: Unsure of downtown but mentions that most are Level II. Rob Chave: Believes city -sponsored ones are Level II. Nathan Monroe: Asks for staff to keep some flexibility in the code because technology is still advancing. Mentions that, since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting standards will be important as part of remodel work. Asks for staff to consider how this ordinance will apply to retrofits. Matt Cheung: Asks how much it generally costs to charge an EV battery. Eric Engmann: States that it generally takes about $4.00 to fully charge an EV battery based on current Washington kilowatt hour costs. Matt Cheung: Asks if the city tracks how often the charging stations are being used. Rob Chave: Mentions that the city would only know about the 5 or 6 public ones and is unsure if that information is tracked. Todd Cloutier: Talks about how this amendment should be "future focused" and not just looking at the technology around today. Wants to be careful not to try to legislate too hard and keep the metrics more flexible. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 295 8.2.b Judi Gladstone: Also discusses flexibility and understanding what the future trends are. Asks about analysis for different scenarios and mentions examples such as if Level III chargers become preferred. Would like to know what information staff can provide to look at upcoming technology. Eric Engmann: Offers to provide more information on future technology. Mentions the difficulty in assessing future technology trends in the code. States that an option would be to revise the code if the technology does change. Judi Gladstone: Clarifies the desire for different scenarios based on the charging types and levels. Asks if scenarios can account for financial, environmental, and social costs to address equity. Eric Engmann: Agrees to provide more scenarios and to have more conversation about the other topics Mike Rosen: Agrees with others' statements. Asks for more information about how this effort will tie directly into the city's climate strategy; if there is a specific target for this amendment. Asks about the effectiveness of this amendment since new development will represent a small amount of Edmonds' future growth. Eric Engmann: Mentions the Climate Action Plan updates and the effort to find items to "close the gap" for carbon neutrality. Also acknowledges that Edmonds is mostly built -out but mentions that this amendment will still have an impact. Mike Rosen: Sees no other questions and asks if this item will come back to the June 23rd Planning Board meeting. Eric Engmann: States that this will be back on June 23rd. Thanks the Board. Mike Rosen: Discusses the extended agenda and asks for any comments by Board members. juai vladstone: Mentions that there are several meetings where she will unfortunately be on vacation Matt Cheung: In looking at the extended agenda, asks if EV charging regulations will be ready for public hearing in two meetings as proposed. Rob Chave: States that this is tentative and can change based on what happens at the next Planning Board meeting. Roger Pence: Asks when the Planning Board will go back to live meetings. Mike Rosen: States there will probably be a hybrid or combination model after the City Council tries it first. Roger Pence: Expresses desire to go back to in -person meetings. Alicia Crank: Asks if there will be a break in Planning Board meetings at some point this summer. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 296 8.2.c of EDA, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Amendment to establish electric vehicle charging infrastructure standards in a new chapter, 17.115, of the Edmonds Community Development Code. These standards would require a percentage of parking spaces to accommodate the infrastructure needed to charge electric vehicles in new or substantially improved development. It also amends other ECDC sections to be consistent with the new regulations. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: City Wide. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by October 1, 2021. Project Planner: Eric Engmann, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: September 17, 2021 Signature: xee6 rza4l-e, XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than October 8, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on September 17, 2021, at City Hall, Edmonds Public Library, and the Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under permit number AMD2021-0002, by emailing the project planner (eric.engmann@edmondswa.gov), or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT AMD02021-0002.DOCX 9i10i21.SEPA Packet Pg. 297 8.2.c Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ❑X Applicant ❑ Parties of Record ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish and Wildlife ❑X Puget Sound Energy ❑X Snohomish PUD ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer ❑ Alderwood Water District ❑ Edmonds School District ❑X Port of Edmonds ❑ South County Fire ❑ Swedish Hospital ❑X Community Transit pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑X Dept. of Ecology ❑ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ❑ Dept. of Natural Resources ❑N Dept. of Commerce ❑ WSDOT ❑ WSDOT — Ferries ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑X Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ❑ Puget Sound Partnership ❑X Tulalip Tribe ❑X City of Everett ❑N City of Lynnwood ❑N City of Mountlake Terrace ❑N City of Mukilteo ❑N City of Shoreline ❑N Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑X Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County— Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT AMD02021-0002.DOCX 9i10i21.SEPA Packet Pg. 298 F ED O 8.2.c �a ##P71 Vt.,gCITY OF EDMONDS g ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist. Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements — that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Code Amendment 2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Eric Engmann, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 5"' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist guidance updated June 2011 Packet Pg. 299 8.2.c 4. Date checklist prepared: September 3, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The city sponsored amendment has been reviewed by the local Planning Board and is intended for review by the City Council in Fall 2021. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No further activity is planned at this time. Staff will monitor the outcomes of the proposed amendment and any new state legislation to see if any future amendments are necessary. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No direct environmental information has been prepared for this proposed amendment. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No pendind applications or approvals would be affected. Once adopted, the proposed EV charging infrastructure regulations would apply to any new or significantly improved development within the City of Edmonds. Permit applications within the City of Edmonds would be processed according to the regulations and procedures in effect at the time the application was determined to be complete. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1) Review and determinations under the State Environmental Policy Act for non -project actions; and 2) Adoption by the Edmonds City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project action for an amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The proposal would establish citywide electric vehicle charging infrastructure standards to power electric vehciles. This amendment (AMD2021-0002) would apply to all new or substantially improved multifamily and non-residential developments. It estastablished the number or percentages of parking spaces required to install this charging infrastructure. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. This is a citywide non -project action that will affect development throughout the City of Edmonds. B. Environmental Elements SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 15 Packet Pg. 300 8.2.c 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long- term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildi ngs)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. This proposed amendment would help as part of the solution to reduce emissions, by promoting EV usage. Specifically, the proposed amendment supports more EV usage by reducing a major barrier, the number and availability of the charging infrastructure. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 301 8.2.c c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The City of Edmonds sits along the western shores of the Puget Sound and contains a number of relatively small streams including Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Northstream, Frutidale Creek, Perinville Creek, Meadowdale Creek and a number of smaller unnamed creeks. Portions of Lake Ballinger are also located within the City of Edmonds' jurisdiction. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The 100-year flood plain is mapped for the City of Edmonds on the Snohomish County Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps. Within Edmonds, the 100-year flood plain is shown around the Edmonds Marsh, the Port of Edmonds, near the mouths of Shell Creek and Perrinville Creeks. The flood plan is also mapped around the shoreline of Lake Ballinger. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 302 8.2.c 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 303 8.2.c d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable to a non -project action. S. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Numerous fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland habitats for either part or all of a life stage. Shellfish resources include clams, mussels, crab, and shrimp. Eight species of salmonids use nearshore areas of Puget Sound at some point in their life cycle. These include Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon and sea -run cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout. Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Several federally listed threatened or endangered species that may inhabit marine waters or adjacent habitats within the City are identified in the State database The threatened marbled murelet are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer. Federally listed threatened fish species that may occur in or in the vicinity of Edmonds, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout. Federally listed marine mammals (Steller sea lion and Puget Sound orcas) may be present in the Edmonds shore zone, but are not commonly observed. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The shoreline of Puget Sound provides a migratory route for salmon and the City of Edmonds is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 304 8.2.c The proposed amendment would require electricity to power the EVs. This will be used as an alternative fuel source to fossil fuels, which have a significant climate impact caused by their emissions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. However, the intent of these regulations are to promote EV usage by providing adequate locations for EVs to charge. This will result in a switch from fossil fuel burning traditional vehicles to EVs that use electricity. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 305 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. Noise from the charging infrastructure itself would be minimal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. r c 8. Land and Shoreline Use m E a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Q No. The proposed non -project, non -site -specific action would not affect current land uses or nearby or adjacent m o properties. U ZM c Single-family residential uses are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city and occupy the majority of the M city's land use base. Approximately 3,100 acres, or 55 percent of the City's area is developed for single-family z residential uses. Higher density residential development (including apartments and condominiums) is primarily U located south and north of the downtown; in the vicinity of the Edmonds-Woodway High School site and w Stevens Hospital; and adjacent to 196th Street, 76th Avenue and Highway 99. Together, single-family and -- multi-family residential units comprise approximately 3,400 acres (nearly 60 percent of the total land in the w city). Commercial activity is concentrated in two principal areas -- the Downtown/Waterfront and the Highway 99 corridor (which includes the retail and medical development in the vicinity of Swedish Hospital). Smaller commercial nodes that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods are located at the intersection of Edmonds Way U (SR104) and 100th Avenue/9th Avenue (Westgate) and at212th Street/84th Avenue (5 Corners). The Port of Edmonds is located in the southern portion of the city's waterfront. The Port owns and manages 33 upland acres as well as a small boat harbor and marina, with space for 1,000 boats (approximately I I acres). The Port's c property is occupied by approximately 80 businesses including office uses located in Harbor Square. c Approximately 258 acres of parks and open space lands are owned or operated by the City, while there are E another 229 acres of County -owned parks and open space land in the Edmonds area. Regional parks and beaches figure prominently in the City, including Brackett's Landing North and South, the Edmonds Fishing Pier, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Edmonds Underwater Park, Marina Beach Park, Olympic Beach Park, local a tidelands, and the South County Senior Center. The Edmonds Marsh is a significant City -owned open space (23 w acres), while Yost Memorial Park is the largest community park owned by the City (4S acres). The largest to County resources are Southwest County Park (120 acres) and Meadowdale Beach County Park (95 acres). M Overall, approximately 96 percent of the city is developed. z x w b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? M Q No. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 306 8.2.c c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 307 8.2.c 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 308 8.2.c 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Edmonds has a number of recreational opportunities within its jurisdiction. The City of Edmonds Park Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies 9 neighborhood parks (24.85 acres),2 Community Parks (58.10 acres), 6 Regional Parks (17.05 acres), 15 Special Use Parks (19.77 acres), and 12 Open Space sites (69.21 acres). b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are numerous buildings through the City of Edmonds that are over 45 years. The City of Edmonds has a local historic register with 20 sites on the register. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None known. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Edmonds is served by a series ofstate and local roads. SR 104 runs from the east at Interstate 5 through the southern part of Edmonds, ending at the State of Washington Ferry Terminal. SR 524 begins in Lynnwood at Interstate 5 and runs west through the center of Edmonds from the crest ofthe hill and down into the city center. Local roads provide access throughout Edmonds. These roads provide access for Community Transit, the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 309 8.2.c commuter bus service for South Snohomish County. Commuter Park and Ride lots are located throughout Edmonds and are served by Community Transit bus service. The rail lines along the Edmonds' shoreline are primarily used by BNSF for freight service, but also provide Amtrak passenger train service through Edmonds. Sound Transit provides daily commuter service to and from Seattle. Washington State Ferries operates ferry service from Edmonds to Kingston providing access to the Olympic Peninsula. This is one of the busiest commuter ferry terminals in Puget Sound, as well as one of the major access points from the east side of Puget Sound to the west. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The City of Edmonds is served by Community Transit bus service, Washington State ferries, Sound Transit commuter rail and Amtrak passenger train service. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. This amendment would not reduce the number of vehicle trips but would make it easier to switch from fossil fuel to electric vehicles. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The proposed amendment, for bicycle parking requirements, is a measure to reduce transporation impacts. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 310 8.2.c No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other The City of Edmonds is served by all the utilities identified above. While a few septic systems may still be in service in Edmonds, that vast majority of the City's residences are connected to a sanitary sewer system. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. The City may, in the future, seek to increase the amount of publically available EV charging stations. However, that is not covered in this amendment. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Name of signee Eric Engmann, AICP Position and Agency/Organization Senior Planner, City of Edmonds Date Submitted: 9/13/2021 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would not directly increase discharges to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. The proposed amendment would support increased electric vehicle usage by providing sufficient numbers and locations to charge the EVs. More cars switching to EV usage will help to reduce greenhouse gases (ghg) and other pollutants.. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 311 8.2.c All development and redevelopment within the City of Edmonds would be subject to applicable local, state and federal regulatory requirements, including building code, fire code, and storm water, in addition to the provisions of critical area regulations (where applicable). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendment would have a neutral to positive affect on plants, animals, fish, and marine life. The amendment would promote EV usage as an alternative to fossil fuels. Reducing the usage of fossil fuels will have a benefit for the entire environment, including flora and fauna. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendment will not deplete energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: This amendment is part of a larger strategy in the City's Climate Action Plan. The results of which will be measured and adjusted to conserve energy, reduce pollution, and protect natural resources. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed EV charging infrastructure amendment will not likely use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed EV charging infrastructure amendment will not likely affect land and shoreline uses. It will not allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 312 The City has adopted a Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) that guides development within shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP allows most uses that are allowed by the underlying zoning provided they are developed consistent with the SMP's development standards. The SMP would not allow any new uses in the shoreline that are not currently allowed. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendment will not likely increase transportation demand but will shift the mode of powering vehicles from fossil fuels to electrification. This will provide a cleaner, more environmentally friendly option rather than affecting the demand on transportation. The resulting EV charging could have a mnor impact on a building's electrical consumption. Based on the requirements, these impacts would be proportionate to the increased sizes of new development: small for single-family development, minor for smaller multifamily or non-residential development, and larger for large scale developments. The City has been in contact with Snohomish County Power Utility District to review and comment on the proposed amendment. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Snohomish County Power Utility District has reviewed and provided comments on the proposed amendment. An exception or reduction of the EV charging infrastructure has been added to the amendment in cases where the added electrical load capacity could significantly increase demands on the power utilities. This ability to adjust these standards, when warranted for lack of sufficient public services (power), responds to such a possible demand. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This proposed EV charging infrastructure amendment will not likely conflict with laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The addition of this infrastructure will take place as part of developments. These developments will be subject to all applicable laws and regulations to protect the environment. None of the provisions of this code amendment would allow a development to avoid or reduce environmental regulations. The very nature of this proposed amendment will aide in the much larger effort to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and help protect the environment as part of the City's larger Climate Action Plan strategies. . SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 313 8.2.d 8. SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY PLAYGROUND RENOVATION PROJECT 9. PRELIMINARY DECEMBER 2021 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 1.02 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS 11. APPROVAL OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT, DISPOSAL, AND TRANSPORT CONTRACT EXTENSION 12. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND WATER METER VAULT EASEMENTS AT 21200 72ND AVE W 13. APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION DOCUMENTS FOR 22921 HIGHWAY 99 14. PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT RENEWAL 15. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEE PREMIUM PAYMENTS AND VACATION DAYS FOR ESSENTIAL WORKERS 16. NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE BD2 ZONE COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUCH BD2 ZONED LOTS, SETTING TWO MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about setting a date for the public hearing. Councilmember Paine advised the date of the public hearing was April 5, 2022. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT Senior Planner Eric Engmann advised the next topic of code amendments is EV charging infrastructure. He reviewed: Tonight's agenda: an introductory discussion 1. The need for EVs and EV charging infrastructure 2. Highlights of proposed code amendments Topic One: EV as part of a sustainable solution o EV Ties to Major Sustainability Goals Comprehensive Plan Transportation Encourage and promote the use of EV charging stations... including Element standards for new developments that provide parking facilities Policy 6.22 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 5 Packet Pg. 314 8.2.d Transportation Position Edmonds to respond to technical innovation, such as EVs Element Policy 6.23 Community Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation options Sustainability that reduce GHG emissions Element Policy B.3 Climate Action Plan Goal Carbon Neutral by 2050 TR-5 Promote Electric Vehicles and other low -carbon vehicles Policy Electrification of the Transportation System. Shifting the transportation fuel Initiative source from fossil to clean electricity (including) charging stations ... for Action 3C I multifamily construction o Sources of Edmonds' GHG emissions ■ Local Sector Based Emissions - Buildings (residential) 35% - Buildings (commercial) 15% - Refrigerant Loss 6% - Waste 2% - Transportation 40% • Passenger travel 80% • Truck Freight 9% • Port 6% Commercial Services 3% • Rail1% Transit 1 % • Off Road <1% o Washington Annual GHG Emissions by Vehicle Type Vehicle Type Annual Pounds Per Vehicle Gasoline 11,500 Hybrid 6,000 Plug-in Hybrid 4000 All electric 500 o Growth in EV Demand ■ Electric Vehicle Registered in Edmonds - 2017: 367 - 2021: 838 - As of yesterday: 980 o Growth in EV Options ■ Number of options and models are increasing ■ Battery technology continues to improve ■ Many auto companies moving to all -electric vehicles Company Pledge Year Jaguar All Electric 2025 Toyota All Electric or Hybrid 2025 Volvo All Electric 2030 GM All Electric 2035 Honda All Electric 2040 Ford Carbon Neutral 2050 o Remaining Barriers ■ Largest concern for people considering buying EV is: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 315 8.2.d - Finding locations to charge vehicles • 80% of EVs are charged at home or at work • Also require convenient locations to "top off' • Need charging stations at new development to help meet current and future demand o Costs of Retrofitting ■ Bottom Line: It is much cheaper and cost effective to include EV charging infrastructure during new construction or major renovation ■ Cost Estimates for EV Parking Spaces in Denver EV Infrastructure During New During Savings w/ New Requirement Construction Retrofit Construction Electrical Panel & $300/space $2,500/space $2,200/space Wiring Full Circuit I $1,300/s ace $6,300/s ace $5,000/s ace Topic Two: Identified solutions through Development Code (ECDC) o Three Main Components of Code ■ Which staging levels should be required by use type? (capable, ready, installed) ■ Which charging level is appropriate (Levels 1,11 or III) ■ Identifying an appropriate ratio of EV charging stations, by use type (single family, multifamily, non-residential, etc.) o Staging or "Types" of EV Charging Infrastructure ■ EV Capable - Electrical Panel capacity and conduit for future use ■ EV Ready - Electrical Panel capacity conduit and circuit for charging ■ EV Installed - Electrical Panel capacity, conduit, circuit and specialized equipment for charging o Charging Levels - The infrastructure is categorized by the "Charging Levels" or voltage produced ■ Level - 120-volt circuit (like a household outlet) - 8-20 hours to fully charge ■ Level II (code proposal) - 240-volt circuit (like an oven or dryer) - 4-8 hours to fully charge - Most common level for residential uses ■ Level III (Rapid Charging) - 480+ volt circuit (too much for home usage - Less than one hour to fully charge - At commercial sites or near highways Who we've spoken with o Master Builders Association (MBA) o Built Green (MBA) o Goodman Real Estate (GRE) o Snohomish County Public Utility District o City of Issaquah o King County o Regional Code Collaboration o Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) o Also Held 5 Meeting Sessions with Planning Board .... Applicability Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 316 8.2.d o EV Charging Infrastructure would be required when... ■ A new development or new off-street parking facility; ■ Existing development — substantial damage or substantial improvement (50% rule) occurs within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or ■ 50% increase in parking capacity (based on total parking spaces) Proposed Edmonds Standards Type of Use Number of EV Capable Number of EV Ready Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Single family N/A 1/dwelling unit N/A dwelling units' Multiple dwelling 40% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces units' Non-residential 40% of parking spaces N/A 10% of parking spaces uses Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages shall follow the requirements for single family dwelling units Draft Code Review o Code draft, Planning Board minutes, SEPA information are included in Council agenda packet Code update page o The code updates page is now available ■ Sign up for notification list for all code updates or just this topic: www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates ■ Take a picture of the QR code to visit the EV Charging specific page Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Proposed Edmonds Standards and asked the difference in cost between EV Capable and EV ready for most single family dwellings. Mr. Engmann recalled it was $300 for EV capable in new construction and slightly over $1,000 for EV ready. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that would be a disincentive for new home buyers, adding $700 on top of other costs. Mr. Engmann answered it is possible but if EV capable or ready is not required for new construction, it is a lot more expensive to install compared to including it when a home is built. Councilmember Tibbott asked what builders were saying. Mr. Engmann answered for single family it has become kind of the norm; many codes including Seattle require one EV ready space so it is not a concern for single family. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the work the Planning Board has done on this, noting a lot of wonderful questions were asked particularly regarding how development would include these new code standards. The proposal is simple to understand and flexible enough as more information becomes available. She noted the Planning Board minutes cover virtually everything. She was appreciative of this coming to the council and said it was a good time for it. Councilmember Tibbott said in reading the Planning Board minutes, there was an indication that some neighborhoods may not have the capacity to handle additional EV charging stations. He asked if solar could help offset the lack of capacity. Mr. Engmann answered as the proposed amendment was going through the Planning Board, staff was contacted by Snohomish County PUD who offered to look over the City's code. The only change they proposed was a possible exception in a unique situation where the power capacity or capability wasn't there, to allow the proposed Edmonds standards to be lowered. He clarified it was not related to a specific area, this is a common request from the electricity provider in other cities, basically a preventative measure that is included in all codes. Staff and PUD discussed some scenarios where it could happen, but it was more of a situational thing that could possibly occur. If the proposed standards are adopted as proposed, PUD could reduce the requirement from EV installed to EV capable or from Level II Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 317 charger to Level I. He reiterated it was more of a hypothetical that could happen rather than a defined, specific case. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether solar could be a capacity booster. Mr. Engmann answered he was sure it could be; any clean energy options could be beneficial. One of the things added to the code was load management technology which allows for the diverting of power sources to supply these and other uses; he assumed solar would be a good option for that. Councilmember L. Johnson said her questions had been answered and this was definitely thought provoking. Councilmember Chen thanked staff for their hard work and the wonderful information they gathered. He was glad to see this moving forward. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged Mr. Engmann for his hard work, relaying this is his last presentation to council as tomorrow is his last day. 3. PRESENTATION OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY RETROFIT GRANT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SOLAR PLANT Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan explained the goal of the project is to align public works and facilities projects with state, county and city environmental goals and clean energy commitments. In 2019, Snohomish County passed Joint Resolution 19006 committing to 100% clean electricity by 2030 and 100% clean energy by 2045. In 2020 then -Public Works Director Williams and he commissioned a draft solar PV panel assessment of the four largest City buildings for future consideration. MLA Engineering prepared a draft evaluation of City Hall, Frances Anderson Center, Public Works, and Public Safety Complex for future solar project consideration. Mr. Sullivan continued, in 2021, the state energy strategy commits to step standards for 100% clean electricity grid by 2030. The measures include the doubled output of clean electricity by 2050 which removes the state's reliance on fossil fuel consumption. This strategy urges state and local agencies to lead by example with clean energy investments for public buildings to increase municipal resilience and energy security. The state recognizes the high cost of initial investment in equipment and infrastructure for aggressive climate action and had generously created the energy retrofits for public buildings grant program to assist. Solar grants, like the aforementioned, provide competitive funds for new solar power installations and other energy updates for public buildings and facilities. The public works department and facilities PV panel assessment determined the Public Safety Building was the best candidate for the state solar grant program application in 2021. The application was prepared in partnership with McKinstry with the State Department of Commerce's ESCO program being the preferred procurement method to execute the solar installation. Shelby Sawyers, McKinstry, reviewed: • Project Description o Drawing of the proposed array o Scope ■ Install a 133kW DC Solar PV system with 324 modules (panels) on the roof segments of the Public Safety Building ■ System will be interconnected and set up for Net Metering with the local utility (Snohomish PUD) ■ The generated power to offset about 18% of the building's annual consumption. o Funding ■ Project costs estimate: $469,645 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 9 Packet Pg. 318 8.2.e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS AND A NEW CHAPTER 17.115 ECDC, ENTITLED "ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE" AND AMENDING OTHER ECDC SECTIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY, SECTIONS 16.60.30 ENTITLED "COMMUNITY GENERAL DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS," 16.110.020 ENTITLED "WESTGATE MIXED -USE ZONING DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS," 17.50.010 ENTITLED "OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIRED," 17.50.020 ENTITLED "PARKING SPACE REQUIRED," 21.90.012 ENTITLED "AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION", AND 22.110.090 ENTITLED "HEIGHT BONUS." WHEREAS, electric vehicles are an important step towards achieving the City's climate goals due to their reduced greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use compared to gasoline powered vehicles; and WHEREAS, a lack of widely -accessible charging, especially in multifamily housing, is still a significant barrier to greater EV adoption; and WHEREAS, the speed of EV adoption is expected to grow in the coming years due to increased affordability, driving range, and popularity. Further, EV sales are expected to grow due to the passage of Senate Bill 5811 in 2020, which authorizes the Department of Ecology to require automakers to sell a certain percentage of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) each year; and WHEREAS, increased EV ownership has benefits outside of greenhouse gas reductions; namely, a drastic reduction in particulate matter pollution, leading to numerous health benefits, and lower maintenance costs over the vehicle's lifetime when compared to a gasoline -powered vehicle; and WHEREAS, the planning board recommended adoption of the proposed EV charging regulations that are attached to this ordinance on September 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on those regulations on March 22, 2022; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Pg. 319 8.2.e THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 17.115 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure," is hereby adopted to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Section 2. To create consistency between the Edmonds Community Development Code and the new EV charging regulations adopted in Section 1, above, the following sections of the ECDC are 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 s4ile thfettgh): ECDC 16.60.30 entitled, "Community General District Site Development Standards," ECDC 16.110.020 entitled "Westgate Mixed -Use Zoning District Site Development Standards," ECDC 17.50.010 entitled "Off -Street Parking Required," ECDC 17.50.020 entitled "Parking Space Required," ECDC 21.90.012 entitled "Automobile Service Station", and ECDC 22.110.090 entitled "Height Bonus." Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: Packet Pg. 320 8.2.e MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 321 8.2.e SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS AND A NEW CHAPTER 17.115 ECDC, ENTITLED "ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE" AND AMENDING OTHER ECDC SECTIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY, SECTIONS 16.60.30 ENTITLED "COMMUNITY GENERAL DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS," 16.110.020 ENTITLED "WESTGATE MIXED -USE ZONING DISTRICT SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS," 17.50.010 ENTITLED "OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED," 17.50.020 ENTITLED "PARKING SPACE REQUIRED," 21.90.012 ENTITLED "AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION", 22.110.090 ENTITLED "HEIGHT BONUS." The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2022. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 al CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 322 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/22/2022 Public Hearing Regarding Code Amendment to ECDC entitled Bicycle Parking Development Standards Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History This code amendment was initiated as a way to support and promote alternative forms of transportation. The Planning Board reviewed the draft bicycle parking code amendment (AMD2021- 0001) on June 23, 2021 and held a public hearing on July 14, 2021. The City Council received an introduction the bicycle parking code amendment on January 25, 2022. Staff Recommendation Consider the potential amendments to the bicycle parking standards and adopt the bicycle parking standards with ordinance provided in Exhibit 7. Narrative Introduction Bike parking facilities help implement a modal shift in transportation that reduces the number of motor vehicles on the road. Bike parking also requires less space than motor vehicle parking and, in many situations, allows users to park closer to their destinations. This amendment would assist City's goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as identified in the Climate Action Plan. Providing these facilities will enable people to choose alternative transportation choices and achieve Comprehensive Plan goals. For instance, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 4.13 states, "Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities and installation of bike racks and lockers near schools, commercial districts, multi -family residences, recreation areas, and transit facilities." This amendment would address the bicycle parking needs within Edmonds. Currently, bicycle parking standards are only required in the Community General (CG) zoning district and do not apply to city-wide development. Bicycle parking is also used as a height incentive in the Westgate Mixed Use zone. The proposed amendment establishes when development projects are required to install bicycle parking. These bicycle parking spaces would apply to all multiple dwelling units (multifamily) and non-residential development that is new, substantially damaged or improved, or if a parking lot is expanded. The requirements of this code amendment are separated into short-term and long-term parking standards to address the different bicycle parking needs for a development. Short-term parking is intended for parking lasting less than four hours. These bicycle racks are typically located outside a development and near the entrance to provide safe and convenient locations for short term parking of the bicycles. This is commonly seen at business or commercial sites and used when running errands or Packet Pg. 323 8.3 making shorter trips. Long-term parking is intended for parking lasting four or more hours. It is primarily used by residents or employees of a development. Long-term parking is typically found within a building site such as a garage or storage room. Designing bike facilities for short- and long-term parking is important to meeting the needs of the cyclist and maximizing utilization, thereby reducing barriers to this form of transportation. Potential Revisions from January 25. 2022 Council Introduction The draft bicycle parking regulations in Exhibit 1 include potential revisions to the Planning Board recommendation presented to the City Council. The potential revisions are highlighted in yellow. These changes address the City Council and public comments on the draft regulations. 17.120.020.0 - Increased parking capacity. There was a suggestion that the threshold for requiring compliance with the bicycle parking requirements were too high and that any increase in parking for cars should trigger bicycle parking requirements. After review, staff felt it would be too difficult to impose the long-term requirements on small parking increases (think an extra space at a condo building or a few extra spaces as a shopping center). So staff decided to suggest a two tiered approach, short- term only for minor parking increases and full compliance with code at 50% expansion. 17.120.030.13 - Short-term bicycle parking location. Comments were received regarding the location of short-term parking near the entrance. Subsection B.1 was modified to remove the signage reference and short-term parking is not located near and entrance and subsection B.2 was added to clarify the preferred located of short-term parking. 17.20.040.A - Long-term bicycle parking requirements. Slight increase in required parking for non- residential uses which was suggested by the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG). Another amendment deletes the exception for ground floor units with direct outdoor access. 17.120.040.13 Long-term bicycle parking location. Amendment suggested by EBAG reducing the distance long-term parking can be from the building when not provided inside the building and requiring the storage to be in lockers when not provided in the building. 22.110.090 Westgate Mixed -Use zone height exception. The Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone provides incentives for portions of the WMU zone where buildings are allowed to be four stories. One of these incentives for indoor/covered bicycle storage and indoor changing station. Where the bi-cycle parking code requires indoor bicycle storage, this should not be counted towards points for the height bonus. There are still enough incentives that would allow applicants to achieve the height bonus. Exhibits The code amendment language is included as Exhibit 1. The minutes from the June 23, 3021 Planning Board Minutes and the July 14, 2021 Public Hearing are included as Exhibits 2 and 3. The Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG) has also submitted a set of recommended changes to the code amendment, which is included as Exhibit 4. SEPA DNS and Checklist is provided in Exhibit 5. A minute's excerpt from the January 25, 2002 Council meeting is included in Exhibit 6. And an ordinance for Council's consideration is provided in Exhibit 7. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Public Hearing Draft Bicycle Parking Code Language Packet Pg. 324 8.3 Exhibit 2- June 23, 2021 Planning Board Intro Excerpt Minutes Exhibit 3- July 14, 2021 Planning Board Hearing Excerpt Minutes Exhibit 4- EBAG Letter of Recommended Changes Exhibit 5 - SEPA DNS and Checklist Bicycle Parking Exhibit 6 - January 25, 2022 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 7: DRAFT Bicycle Parking Ordinance Packet Pg. 325 8.3.a Chapter 17.120 Bicycle Parking Facilities 17.120.000 Purpose 17.120.010 Definitions 17.120.020 Applicability 17.120.030 Short -Term Bicycle Parking 17.120.040 Long -Term Bicycle Parking 17.120.050 Calculations 17.120.000 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide adequate and safe facilities for the parking and storage of bicycles, and to encourage alternative forms of transportation. 17.120.010 Definitions. A. Bicycle Parking- means the space one bicycle takes up when locked to a bicycle rack or similar device. B. Long-term bicycle parking- means bicycle parking or storage anticipated to be at a building site for four or more hours. C. Short-term bicycle parking- means bicycle parking or storage anticipated to be at a building site for less than four hours. D. Substantial damage — for the purposes of this chapter 17.120 ECDC, substantial damages means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the structure before the damage occurred. E. Substantial improvement- for the purposes of this chapter 17.120 ECDC, substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a primary structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the primary structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. 17.120.020 Applicability. Development for each of the land uses identified in this Chapter 17.120 ECDC shall be required to provide bicycle parking facilities when one of the following occurs: A. A new development; B. Substantial damage or substantial improvement is made to an existing development within a one- year period, as determined by the Building Official; or March 22, 2022 Council Public Hearing Draft Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 326 8.3.a C. Increased parking capacity. Increased parking capacity to an existing development that do not meet the other applicability standards in this subsection shall meet the following standard: Parking space increased between 1% and 49% of existing capacity shall meet the short-term bicycle parking standards in section 17.120.030. 2. Parking space increases above 49% of existing capacity shall meet both the short-term and long- term bicycle parking standards in subsections 17.120.030 and 17.120.040. 17.120.030 Short -Term Bicycle Parking. A. Requirements. Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Table 17.120-1. Table 17.120-1: Short -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units 1 per 10 dwelling units; not less than 2 spaces Non-residential uses 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces B. Installation of Short -Term Bicycle Parking. Short-term bicycle parking shall comply with all of the following: 1. Required to be visible from and within 30 feet of a building's public entrance;, except it Ga 2. Must be located within the landscape/furnishing zone (defined as that area between the roadway curb face and the front edge of the sidewalk); except where the landscape/furnishing zone is more than 30 feet from the public entrance or the landscape/furnishing zone is adjacent to an arterial without on -street parking, the short-term bicycle parking may be provided at the building frontage; 3. Required to be located at the same grade as the sidewalk or at a location reachable by ramp or accessible route; 4. Adequate illumination of the bicycle parking surface shall be provided; 5. Required to have an area of not less than 18 inches wide, 60 inches long, and 48 inches high for each bicycle; 6. Required to be provided with a rack or other facility for locking or securing each bicycle; 7. The rack or other locking feature shall be permanently attached to concrete or other comparable material; and 8. The rack or other locking feature shall be designed to accommodate the use of U-locks or similar devices approved for bicycle security. 9. Bicycle parking facilities shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. 17.120.040 Long -Term Bicycle Parking. March 22, 2022 Council Public Hearing Draft Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 327 8.3.a A. Requirements. Long-term bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Table 17.120-2. Table 17.120-2: Long -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units' 0.75 per unit Non-residential uses -12 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than � 3 spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages OF gFO nd f'^^" L I^'6 I.A.9ith AMC# eN tdooF aGGess are exempt from this requirement. Installation of Long -Term Bicycle Parking. Long-term bicycle parking shall comply with all of the following: 1. Required to be located on the same site as the building; 2. Required to be located inside the building, such as a vehicle parking garage or other secure common area, except it can be located outside the building if located within a secure area up to 300150 feet of the building's main or employee entrance and provides eluding but net lk lited *^ Fof E)veFhang, awning, ^" bicycle storage lockers; 3. Adequate illumination of the bicycle parking surface shall be provided; 4. Required to have an area of not less than 18 inches wide, 60 inches long, and 48 inches high for each bicycle; 5. At least one electrical outlet shall be available for the use of electric -assisted bicycle charging within eight feet of each area where a group of long-term bicycle parking spaces is located. 6. Required to be provided with a permanent rack, locker, or other facility for locking or securing each bicycle that is attached to concrete or other comparable material. Up to 50 percent of the racks may be located on walls. 7. Alternative bicycle parking configurations and designs such as double decker lift assisted racks or bicycle parking in dedicated storage areas may be approved by the Development Services Director if it is determined that these alternative configurations provide adequate access, are easy to use, and allow a bike to be securely locked. 8. Bicycle parking locations within auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier such as curbs, wheel stops, stanchions, fences, or similar device. 17.120.050 Calculations. A. Fractions. For the purposes of this chapter 17.120 ECDC, calculations will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. B. Different Uses on Same Site. The requirement for different uses on the same site is calculated as the sum of all requirements for the individual uses. March 22, 2022 Council Public Hearing Draft Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 328 8.3.a 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design. (CG Zoning District) B.6. Bicycle Storage Spaces. See Chapter 17.120 ECDC for parking; standards relating; to bicycle parking; facilities. BieVele storage spaces for multifamily heusing, excluding housing fA-.r assisted li� ene -hicycle sterage space fer each reside.ntial unit unde.r 700 square feet and two bicycle sterage spaces fA-.r each ressiodeRtial unit gFeatp_l: than 700 square feet. gieyele steFage spaees shall ee.p-rist ef storage raci(s, lecl(ers, or other secure space to -acce-M.r.n.edate sheltered, safe, and convenient bicycle storage for building residents. Such space may be in a vehicle parl(ing garage er shelte.red bicycle sterage us being previded within -a dedic-ated cernmen space ef the budding, the tet.al number of required bicycle storage spaces may be reduced by up te 50 percent frern that _;A least fe ur bicycles u previ.de d ..,within the front Seth- r-1K of then ert., 22.110.090 West Gate Mixed Use Zone — Height Bonus 22.110.090 Height bonus. Areas eligible for a fourth -story height bonus are shown in the diagram contained in ECDC 22.110.010(B). Areas within the Westgate mixed -use district that are not shown in Figure 22.110.010.13 may not contain four-story buildings regardless of how many points such a development could achieve on the height bonus score sheet, below. In order to obtain the height bonus for projects in eligible areas, the proposal must obtain eight points from the height bonus score sheet, with at least one point in each of at least four different scoring categories. When a fourth story is proposed in a building, the fourth story must be stepped back at least 10 feet from a building facade facing SR 104 or 100th Avenue W. In addition, no third or fourth story may be located within 30 feet of the intersection of SR 100 and 100th Avenue W, measured from the corner points of the right-of-way intersection. For proposals seeking to earn points in the green building program category, the applicant shall be required to submit a deposit sufficient for the city to retain an independent green building consultant who is qualified to evaluate the construction of the building at key milestones in order to determine that the building is being constructed in a manner that is consistent with the points proposed on the height bonus score sheet. Height Bonus Score Sheet Height bonus to obtain 4 stories requires A points with points in at least 4 categories Green Building Program (points are not additive) Points ❑ Required z Built Green/LEED Certified Rating or Equivalent Required ❑ Credit 1 LEED Silver/Built Green 4-5 Rating 1 ❑ Credit 2 LEED Gold or Evergreen Sustainable Development Rating 2 March 22, 2022 Council Public Hearing Draft Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 329 8.3.a Height Bonus Score Sheet Height bonus to obtain 4 stories requires 8 points with points in at least 4 categories' ❑ Credit 3 Passive House Standard/LEED Platinum Rating 4 4 Living Building 6 iCredit ik Green Factor (points are not additive) Points ❑ Required Green Factor Score 0.3 Required ❑ Credit 1 Green Factor Score 0.4 2 ❑ Credit 2 Green Factor Score 0.5 3 ❑ Credit 3 Green Factor Score 0.6 4 ❑ Credit 4 Green Factor Score >0.7 5 Amenity Space (points are not additive) Points ❑ Required Percentage of Amenity Space 15% Required ❑ Credit 1 Percentage of Amenity Space 20% 2 ❑ Credit 2 Percentage of Amenity Space 25% 3 Credit 3 Percentage of Amenity Space >30% 4 i Miscellaneous (points are additive) Points ❑ Required Meet Street Standards Incl. Bikeway and Pedestrian Networks Required ❑ Credit 1 Car -Share Parking,' Provide Minimum 2 Spaces 1 ❑ Credit 2 Charging Facility for Electric Cars, Provide Minimum 4 Spaces 1 Q rd:. 3 r.,a, ..ir,, ered Bieyele Storage and indoor Changing aeilities 4 ❑ Credit 4 Public Art Integrated into Provided Amenity Space 1 Large Format Retail Space ❑ Credit 1 Development Contains One or More Retail Spaces > 15,000 sf 3 See locational requirements for extra floor bonus in ECDC 22.110.090. z "Required" means required for all development, whether seeking a height bonus or not. ' "Car -share" parking refers to parking for vehicles that are rented by the hour or portion of a day. March 22, 2022 Council Public Hearing Draft Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 330 8.3.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 23, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuen Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (Excused) Nathan Monroe (Unexcused) Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order. STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planning Division Eric Engmann, Planning Division Richard Kuen: Reads Land Acknowledgment for Indigenous Peoples. Rob Chave: Calls roll. (Planning Board responds) Mike Rosen: Mentions Alicia Crank has an excused absence and unless Nathan Monroe joins, it will be an unexcused absence. Packet Pg. 331 Rob Chave: States that part of the concern is ownership, especially for multifamily buildings. Would be hard for a tenant to get a building owner to make that investment of an upgrade from EV capable to EV ready. Judi Gladstone: Asks for clarification, that EV capable does not have an outlet. Eric Engmann: Confirms that EV capable only has the behind the wall wiring, no outlet. Rob Chave: Mentions many EVs have portable charging devices that can work with EV ready EV capable still needs significant steps to charge vehicles. Eric Engmann: States that many cities require 10% of EV spaces to be accessible spaces. Staff may need to create more scenarios to determine the best percentage. Mentions that the draft code language and terminology is similar to the surrounding cities. Much of the language comes from best practices and other codes. Mike Rosen: Thanks staff. Asks if it makes sense for this item to come back one more time before scheduling a public hearing. Roger Pence: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks if staff has any issue with presenting this one more time before a public hearing Rob Chave: Agrees to this. Mike Rosen: Introduces the bicycle parking code amendment. Eric Engmann: States that staff will be discussing the goals of this amendment and look at the proposed draft. States the closest goal is in the Climate Action Plan, Transportation Goal 3. Which seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting active transportation. Having access to bicycles, places to park them, places to use them, sidewalks, all of this is part of this metric. Discusses the difference between short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards. Difference is based on how long they function for and (usually) where they are located. Short-term parking is typically for short trips, located at the front of a building, and is intended for parking less than 4 hours. This is the typical bike parking standard found in most zoning codes. States that long-term parking is important for biking as an alternative form of transportation. It occurs for parking of more than 4 hours and is typically located in a secure location within a building. This standard is seen more often in multifamily residential developments. Employees riding bikes to work also rely on this option. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 332 8.3.b Mentions that single-family is not included because there is typically space to store bicycles there. Mentions the applicability standards would be similar to those discussed for EV charging infrastructure. Would be required for new buildings, major renovations, or parking increases. Would be a choice between the 50% recommendation or the existing non- conforming standards. Discusses the effects of the regulations on different scenarios; small, medium, and large developments. Mentions larger developments would likely use storage rooms or lockers. Talks about other standards: • Proximity to entrances • Minimum sizes • Secure structures • Visibility • Outlets for electric bicycles (E-bikes) • Exceptions to the standards for units with direct outside access and reductions for assisted living • Considering higher standards for certain uses (idea borrowed from Shoreline) Mike Rosen: Asks for comments. Acknowledges Roger Pence. Roger Pence: Mentions the picture of a short-term bike rack. Asks if one "hoop" could count for two bike parking places. Eric Engmann: States this is the case if there was enough room on both sides to meet the minimum size requirements. Roger Pence: Mentions downtown locations and asks if short-term parking located in the public sidewalk could count toward this standard. Eric Engmann: States that improvements typically need to be on private property. Rob Chave: Agrees that, generally speaking, these requirements would take place on private property. Roger Pence: Reiterates that new development would have to provide an off-street or off -the -public sidewalk area for short term bike parking. Eric Engmann: Mentions the new zoning standards for the Community General (CG) zoning district. The buildings are required to build closer to the property line but bike parking still typically occurs onsite near the entrance. Roger Pence: Mentions he is thinking of the 13131 (central downtown) zone. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 333 8.3.b Eric Engmann: States that staff can look into allowing special consideration for this area. States that new development should be able to meet this standard but it could be difficult for existing building. Roger Pence: Comments that the Downtown Improvement Association is already installing bike racks on the public sidewalk downtown. Mike Rosen: Comments that he likes the exceptions to require additional bike parking for the 10 examples listed (in the code) but this seems arbitrary and discretionary. Asks if there is something about those uses that could be summarized if staff wants to require more parking there. Eric Engmann: Concedes that this exception can be difficult in code. Asks for more clarification. Mike Rosen: Asks how someone would decide which uses need additional parking. Eric Engmann: States that the code often gives staff discretion to reduce standards. Mentions these uses (playfields, libraries, etc.) are ones that typically require more bike parking. Agrees that staff will look at this again. Mike Rosen: States that specificity in these kinds of things is always useful. Was wondering if there was another way to describe the content of this exception. Asks if there is any other comment. Sees none and thanks staff. Eric Engmann: Asks if this item is ready for public hearing. Mike Rosen: Confers with the Board. Todd Cloutier: Thinks it is ready to go. Judi Gladstone: Agrees that it is ready. Mike Rosen: Confirms the item is ready for public hearing. Mike Rosen: Introduces the extended agenda. Acknowledges that Council's meeting tomorrow may affect the extended schedule. Rob Chave: Agrees that some things are in flux as the council continues to discuss various things Mike Rosen: Asks for any specific questions. Acknowledges Roger Pence. Roger Pence: Asks if he can suggest a potential addition. States that the County has published a buildable lands report and includes a section on Edmonds. Has questions about the data and the maps. Would like a briefing on the Edmonds section of the buildable lands report by the author of the technical work. Feels it would be very useful to understand housing Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 334 8.3.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom July 14, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) Judi Gladstone (excused) Richard Kuen (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Asks Rob Chave for roll call. Rob Chave: Does roll call. Mike Rosen: States Judi Gladstone, Richard Kuen, Alicia Crank, and Todd Cloutier have excused absences. Mike Rosen: Mentions two past meeting minutes to approve. Starts with June 9. Asks for changes or Packet Pg. 335 8.3.c summarize her past comments to the city council and planning board for the benefit of the new planning board members. Talks about climate change and the effect of the existing emergency ordinance and the upcoming consideration of the permanent ordinance. States climate change is likely to exacerbate extreme heat events like the one a few weeks ago and is part of a long term trend of hotter, drier summers. Also states native tree species encouraged by the current code are likely to decline and die off in the coming years. Mentions Seattle's master arborists have identified that if soil is dry near the trees 4 inches below the surface, that the trees should be watered lightly for about an hour every week. Says drought or dry and hot conditions is correlated with limb failure during the summer or upon the first wind event and branch fall creates a hazard to both people and property. States the result of the emergency ordinance is an implicit requirement for property owners to maintain trees above 24 inches or live with existing and increasing hazards in coming years. States that the city is not going to pay for her water bill for the days leading up to and the weeks following the last heat event or maintenance as things get worse. States the city made these costs and hazards required for a portion of her property with the emergency ordinance and they are a current reality for portions of the city annexed in the '60s, '90s, and SR 99 Corridor. Hopes that the planning board thoughtfully considers the burdens and hazards that the city is imposing on overburdened and other less developed communities and states that the city's narrow focus on preserving the private urban forest in its current location misses the reality of climate change. Mike Rosen: Thanks the board and apologizes for the interruption of the presentation. Eric Engmann: Asks Eric Engmann to continue where he left off with the presentation. States the main changes since the last draft. • Created a definition section • Updated the 50% rule to use existing code language for substantially improved and substantially damages • Created a calculations section • Removed exception option to allow City to set minimum standards above what is stated in the code (without specific requirements) • Updated minor Schriever's errors Explains the differences between short-term and long-term bicycle parking and how they are used. Reiterated that these standards would apply to multifamily and non-residential development. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 336 8.3.c Then explained the proposed standards. One short-term (multifamily) space per 10 dwelling units. Short-term nonresidential parking requires one per twelve parking spaces, with no less than two spaces. For long-term multifamily parking it is 0.75 per unit. For long-term nonresidential, it would be one per 25,000 square feet of floor area, not less than two spaces. Explains the footnote that multifamily units with individual garages and those with ground floor access directly outside of the development are exempt from these requirements. Briefly mentions the rest of the requirements and mentions the exception for assisted living and similar uses. States that he spoke with the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group and showed them a few of the standards. Mentions some minor language recommended to be added by Public Works for the short-term and long-term standards. Talks about the applicability standards and how the new 50 percent rule would work and where the new language, using the defined terms substantial improvement and substantial damage, comes from. Also compares the proposed language to the other non- conforming standards in the code. Mentions that the work would need to take place over a 1-year period and the final decision would be made by the Building Official. Asks the Board to consider the proposed standards, the updated applicability standards and any other comments on the current draft. Also, asks the Board to consider transmittal to City Council. Mike Rosen: Opens up the public hearing. Asks if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience and can speak if she wishes. Ms. Seitz: States she hasn't reviewed this in detail. States one of the major impacts of all of those bicycle sharing programs is ADA accessibility and making sure there is ADA accessible pedestrian access. Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie Seitz and, understanding that there are no other people wishing to participate, closes the public hearing portion. Nathan Monroe: Asks if the short-term bicycle and the long-term bicycle, is governed by PROWAG or ADAG. Eric Engmann: Unsure. Asks if it refers to bike parking in the right-of-way. Nathan Monroe: Asks about bicycle parking on the fringe of the right of way, it would be accessible to our right of way and wonders what building code governs, PROWAG or ADAG? Eric Engmann: Unsure. Nathan Monroe: Imagines the Building Department will sort that out. Has four questions to ask. Has some pause about the assisted living exception and notes that building uses change Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 337 8.3.c Asks why assisted living was carved out. Eric Engmann: States this is standard for bike parking standards and done in other cities. This acknowledges that some use might required less bike parking. Nathan Monroe: States his concern is that building uses change often as the needs of the city change. Mentions assisted living now might become condos or apartments later and this could lead to insufficient infrastructure. Discusses caveat to have the space now but not necessarily use it as such. Has another question about electrical outlet distances. Would like to see the average extension length included, whatever it may be. Also mentions the lighting required in Section F and that there ware no specific lumen requirements. Worried about the code simply using the term lighting, and that developers can twist those words. Lastly, agrees that the 50% applicability rule seems appropriate. Eric Engmann: Mentions that staff discussed using specific lumens in earlier drafts. In talking with Public Works and the Building Official, it was felt that lumens were hard to specify. Mentions that it can be difficult if codes are too specific to allow for different scenarios. Mentions this is also why no specific distance was used for electrical outlets. States they were left out for some flexibility. Nathan Monroe: States he seems the point with lumens, but feels that average length of an electrical bike plug is a known quantity. Suggests the Board direct staff to include a specific electrical outlet distance. Mike Rosen: Discusses the applicability options. Asks if it is the consensus on using the 50% rule. Doesn't hear pushback so assumes there is consensus on 50%. Mentions Nathan Monroe suggests there be a specific plug-in (distance) number based, asks if this is a reasonable approach. Nathan Monroe: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung or Roger Pence have any concerns. Roger Pence: Observes that most electrical bikes have demountable batteries that riders take up to their living quarters to charge them up. Unsure how much demand there is for charging at the bike rack. Mike Rosen: Asks if there is any downside of putting this in the standards. Roger Pence: Has no objection, just pointing out fact. Mike Rosen: Reiterates what he assumes is the consensus of the group. Ponders if it is reasonable to mention a certain lumen to address the brightness of a surface. Asks if that is a reasonable Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 338 8.3.c approach. Nathan Monroe: Asks if this is more like performance criteria. Mike Rosen: States the standard could be based on brightness of the room and not how it is done. Rob Chave: Mentions that bicycle parking can be provided in many different kinds of circumstances, sometimes within parking areas and other in personal storage units. Mentions that it is not a uniform thing. Nathan Monroe: Clarifies that short-term parking would be more public. Rob Chave: Agrees. Nathan Monroe: Mentions that for a safety and usability aspect, it should be well lit. States the current language seems a little ambiguous. Eric Engmann: Mentions the current language states it requires adequate illumination. Mentions that there are a lot of different scenarios to consider. Nathan Monroe: Asks if the code addresses safety, specifically if it must be in an easily accessible safe area Eric Engmann: Confirms. States that for short-term parking it needs to be near the building entrance unless specifically assigned to a different location. For long-term parking, it is typically where people live so it doesn't need the same sort of signage. Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe about his recommendation on the lighting. Nathan Monroe: States he is nervous from a builder's standpoint and acknowledges this is a minor issue. Mentions that the more standalone and performance criteria included the better. Defers to staff but mentions that he wanted to bring it up. Eric Engmann: Mentions that this was specifically discusses with the Building Official and Public works, the consensus was switching to the current language. Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe if he has a specific recommendation. Nathan Monroe: States that he is okay with adding the electrical (distance) language and not including the lumen language. Eric Engmann: Agrees that the electrical distance can be added. Mike Rosen: Brings up the assisted living exception. Asks if Eric Engmann has concern with that change Eric Engmann: Clarifies that the Board's amendment would require Senior living to comply. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 339 8.3.c Mike Rosen: States that they could still use it for other purposes, but it would be available. Eric Engmann: Mentions that there are considerations or scenarios where there may be use for some exceptions, but it is up to the Board. Mike Rosen: Asks Roger Pence and Matt Cheung if they have any opinion. Reiterates staff's comment that if Nathan Monroe has a strong opinion, then they will honor it. Nathan Monroe: States he thinks it makes the most sense to future proof our infrastructure. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make the change and brings up the proposed ADA standards that was discussed. Asks for the thoughts of the Board. Nathan Monroe: States that if it is inside of a building, it's already got to honor ADAG, which is the building code for accessibility and if it's outside, it's PROWAG if it's public right of way. States that the criteria already exists in other parts of the code and doesn't think it needs to be reiterated. Eric Engmann: Mentions that following ADA requirements is already part of the overall code language Mike Rosen: Mentions that staff had recommended adding two additional components to short-term and long-term parking installation requirements. Asks if anyone has any concerns. Hears none. Asks if Eric Engmann has any other discussion points. Eric Engmann: Mentions that Roger Pence had brought up whether there should be an exception to the short-term parking requirement in downtown if there is on -street parking nearby. Mike Rosen: Asks Roger Pence for his opinion. Roger Pence: States he was thinking about downtown where businesses and buildings are close together. Mentions the Board ought to be encouraging combined parking both automobiles and bicycles. States this approach seems logical. Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for his thoughts. Nathan Monroe: Mentions this would mostly affect retrofits. Rhetorically asks who can use the on -street bike parking and how it would be used for multiple buildings. Roger Pence: States that logic would have the different building owners cooperating on a joint use facility. Concerned about how the short-term bike parking on private property would work; who could use it. Mike Rosen: States he appreciates that kind of thinking. Asks Eric Engmann if there is any other direction needed. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 340 8.3.c Eric Engmann: Mentions that was it. Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anything else to add or change. States that he thinks the Board is looking for a motion to send to Council. Nathan Monroe: Confirms that the update includes the electrical outlet distance component and removing the senior living exception. Mike Rosen: Agrees and mentions the two additions by staff. Nathan Monroe: Moves that this, with those modifications, be sent to Council. Matt Cheung: Seconds. Mike Rosen: Asks for any discussion. Asks for all those in favor say aye. Group: Aye. Mike Rosen: Asks if anybody is opposed. States that hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Eric Engmann: introauces continuation or Lv cnarging intrastructure potential code amendment States it will be focused on the changes from the last draft which are • The mix of EV charging standards in the table. • The applicability standard. Also mentions that there are a few changes to the draft since the last meeting. They are • Included Level 3 charging into the definition for EV capable and EV ready- for the sake of flexibility • Updated the 50% rule language- now uses substantial damage and substantial improvement in the definitions • Clarifies parking restrictions will only apply to EV Installed spaces • Minor clarifications and corrections States one of the big topics from the last meeting had to do with the mix of standards that were proposed. Highlights (and reads slides) of the pros and cons for each of the EV staging type: (EV Capable, EV Ready, EV Installed. Highlights the specific proposal. Mentions Board seemed comfortable with single family proposal, which also includes multifamily with individual garages. Discusses multiple dwelling unit (Multifamily) proposal. 20% EV capable, 40% EV ready, Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 341 8.3.d Engmann, Eric From: Luke Distelhorst <luke.distelhorst@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:38 PM To: Engmann, Eric Cc: Hauss, Bertrand; McLaughlin, Susan Subject: Edmonds bike parking code recommendations from EBAG Attachments: EBAG - bike parking.docx Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Eric, Thank you so much for reaching out to the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group, as well as for these great code updates! It's a big step toward better infrastructure to support further active transportation development in Edmonds. Tonight we discussed the draft code and would like to make the following recommendations for consideration, please 1. Recommendation: Increase the number of long-term spaces for non-residential properties to, "2 per 25,OOOsgft, not less than 3." a. Justification: Depending on the property, long-term spaces may be used both by employees and "customers." In order to have sufficient space, we recommend a slight increase that would account for potential dual -usage. A property like Winco, at—85,000 sq ft and a significant number of employees, would still only require 6 long-term parking spots. More secure parking will be a bigger incentive than ample short-term parking that is less secure. If a business would need 16 EV spaces, but only 2-3 long- term bike spaces, it is likely inadequate and may discourage biking (presentation slide 11). 2. Recommendation: Reduce distance for long-term, non-residential parking from front door as well as eliminate less -secure options. "Required to be located inside the building, such as a vehicle parking garage or other secure common area, except it can be located outside the building if located within 150 309 feet of the building's main or employee entrance and provides ^ ^t e ^elud ng 1but net ' ngite ' to of ever-"^^^ secured space, such as bicycle storage lockers." a. Justification: 100 yards is a considerable distance, and the potential for no security other than an awning/roof, is likely less secure than short-term parking that is visible to the entrance. If that provision is included, it would be a considerable downgrade not equivalent to parking inside a building or inside a parking garage, or even secure bike lockers. 3. Recommendation: Support for up to 50% on -wall as a reasonable balance. Many a -bikes are too heavy to wall hang/mount unless there is a fully -built system, as noted in point "g" (uncommon in North America, common in Europe). 4. Recommendation: Maintain "50% rule" for property redevelopment/improvement be included (as it is in current draft). S. Recommendation: The city provides a guiding document for best -practice racks (Barb Chamberlain at WSDOT uses this one: https://www.apbp.org/assets/docs/EssentialsofBikeParking FINA.pdf). Packet Pg. 342 8.3.d a. Justification: Current racks around Edmonds vary greatly from best -practice examples (Ed! racks around downtown), to unusable wave racks installed against brick walls. This will help ensure that new racks meet current best practice. Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you so much for all this great work! Best wishes, Luke Distelhorst 206-475-7751 Packet Pg. 343 8.3.e of EDA, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Amendment to establish bicycle parking standards for multifamily and non-residential development in a new chapter, 17.120, of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: City Wide. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by October 1, 2021. Project Planner: Eric Engmann, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: September 17, 2021 Signature: 1691,� r,� XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than October 8, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on September 17, 2021, at City Hall, Edmonds Public Library, and the Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under permit number AMD2021-0001, by emailing the project planner (eric.engmann@edmondswa.gov), or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION BIKE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT AMD02021-000I.DOCX 9i10/21.SEPA Packet Pg. 344 8.3.e Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ❑X Applicant ❑ Parties of Record ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish and Wildlife ❑ Puget Sound Energy ❑ Snohomish PUD ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer ❑ Alderwood Water District ❑X Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑ South County Fire ❑ Swedish Hospital ❑X Community Transit pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑X Dept. of Ecology ❑ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ❑ Dept. of Natural Resources ❑N Dept. of Commerce ❑ WSDOT ❑ WSDOT— Ferries ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ❑ Puget Sound Partnership ❑X Tulalip Tribe ❑X City of Everett ❑N City of Lynnwood ❑N City of Mountlake Terrace ❑ City of Mukilteo ❑X City of Shoreline ❑ Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑ Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County— Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION BIKE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT AMD02021-000I.DOCX 9i10/21.SEPA Packet Pg. 345 OF ED�O 8.3.e �a ##P71 Vt.,gCITY OF EDMONDS g ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist. Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements — that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Bicycle Parking Code Amendment 2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Eric Engmann, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 5"' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist guidance updated June 2011 Packet Pg. 346 8.3.e 4. Date checklist prepared: September 3, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The city sponsored amendment has been reviewed by the local Planning Board and is intended for review by the City Council in Fall 2021. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No further activity is planned at this time. Staff will monitor the outcomes of the proposed amendment to see if any future amendments are necessary. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No direct environmental information has been prepared for this proposed amendment. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No pendind applications or approvals would be affected. Once adopted, the proposed bike parking regulations would apply to any new or significantly improved development within the City of Edmonds. Permit applications within the City of Edmonds would be processed according to the regulations and procedures in effect at the time the application was determined to be complete. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1) Review and determinations under the State Environmental Policy Act for non -project actions; and 2) Adoption by the Edmonds City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project action for an amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The proposal would establish citywide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities. This amendment (AMD2021- 0001) would apply to all new or substantially improved multifamily and non-residential developments. It estastablished the number or area required for these facilities and the regulations for their installation. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. This is a citywide non -project action that will affect multifamily and non-residential development throughout the City of Edmonds. B. Environmental Elements SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 15 Packet Pg. 347 8.3.e 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long- term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildi ngs)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 348 8.3.e 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The City of Edmonds sits along the western shores of the Puget Sound and contains a number of relatively small streams including Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Northstream, Frutidale Creek, Perinville Creek, Meadowdale Creek and a number of smaller unnamed creeks. Portions of Lake Ballinger are also located within the City of Edmonds' jurisdiction. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The 100-year flood plain is mapped for the City of Edmonds on the Snohomish County Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps. Within Edmonds, the 100-year flood plain is shown around the Edmonds Marsh, the Port of Edmonds, near the mouths of Shell Creek and Perrinville Creeks. The flood plan is also mapped around the shoreline of Lake Ballinger. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 349 8.3.e number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass _pasture crop or gram Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 350 8.3.e N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable to a non -project action. S. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Numerous fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland habitats for either part or all of a life stage. Shellfish resources include clams, mussels, crab, and shrimp. Eight species of salmonids use nearshore areas of Puget Sound at some point in their life cycle. These include Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon and sea -run cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout. Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Several federally listed threatened or endangered species that may inhabit marine waters or adjacent habitats within the City are identified in the State database The threatened marbled murelet are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer. Federally listed threatened fish species that may occur in or in the vicinity of Edmonds, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout. Federally listed marine mammals (Steller sea lion and Puget Sound orcas) may be present in the Edmonds shore zone, but are not commonly observed. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The shoreline of Puget Sound provides a migratory route for salmon and the City of Edmonds is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 351 8.3.e b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. However, the intent of these regulations are to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in passenger vehicles by providing additional bicycle parking opportunities. This action would make it easier for people to use an alternative to energy consuming transportation methods. The reduction of VMT is a component of the City's Climate Action Plan and identified as an option to reducing greenhouse gases within the City. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Im 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 352 8.3.e 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: •L N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. _ 8. Land and Shoreline Use 3 a a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or c adjacent properties? If so, describe. E E No. The proposed non -project, non -site -specific action would not affect current land uses or nearby or adjacent properties. Q Single-family residential uses are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city and occupy the majority of the d o city's land use base. Approximately 3,100 acres, or 55 percent of the City's area is developed for single-family V residential uses. Higher density residential development (including apartments and condominiums) is primarily c located south and north of the downtown; in the vicinity of the Edmonds-Woodway High School site and Stevens Hospital; and adjacent to 196th Street, 76th Avenue and Highway 99. Together, single-family and a multi -family residential units comprise approximately 3,400 acres (nearly 60 percent of the total land in the Y city). Commercial activity is concentrated in two principal areas -- the Downtown/Waterfront and the Highway op 99 corridor (which includes the retail and medical development in the vicinity of Swedish Hospital). Smaller commercial nodes that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods are located at the intersection of Edmonds Way c (SR104) and 100th Avenue/9th Avenue (Westgate) and at2l2th Street/84th Avenue (5 Corners). The Port of Y Edmonds is located in the southern portion of the city's waterfront. The Port owns and manages 33 upland acres a as well as a small boat harbor and marina, with space for 1,000 boats (approximately I I acres). The Port's m property is occupied by approximately 80 businesses including office uses located in Harbor Square. Approximately 258 acres of parks and open space lands are owned or operated by the City, while there are m another 229 acres of County -owned parks and open space land in the Edmonds area. Regional parks and beaches = figure prominently in the City, including Brackett's Landing North and South, the Edmonds Fishing Pier, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Edmonds Underwater Park, Marina Beach Park, Olympic Beach Park, local V tidelands, and the South County Senior Center. The Edmonds Marsh is a significant City -owned open space (23 acres), while Yost Memorial Park is the largest community park owned by the City (4S acres). The largest = County resources are Southwest County Park (120 acres) and Meadowdale Beach County Park (95 acres). y Overall, approximately 96 percent of the city is developed. Z Q b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much (L u agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? s No. x w c m 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, E such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: c� a No. c. Describe any structures on the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 353 8.3.e N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 9. Housing SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 354 8.3.e a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 355 8.3.e 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Edmonds has a number of recreational opportunities within its jurisdiction. The City of Edmonds Park Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies 9 neighborhood parks (24.85 acres),2 Community Parks (58.10 acres), 6 Regional Parks (17.05 acres), 15 Special Use Parks (19.77 acres), and 12 Open Space sites (69.21 acres). b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are numerous buildings through the City of Edmonds that are over 45 years. The City of Edmonds has a local historic register with 20 sites on the register. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None known. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Edmonds is served by a series ofstate and local roads. SR 104 runs from the east at Interstate 5 through the southern part of Edmonds, ending at the State of Washington Ferry Terminal. SR 524 begins in Lynnwood at Interstate 5 and runs west through the center of Edmonds from the crest ofthe hill and down into the city center. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 356 8.3.e Local roads provide access throughout Edmonds. These roads provide access for Community Transit, the commuter bus service for South Snohomish County. Commuter Park and Ride lots are located throughout Edmonds and are served by Community Transit bus service. The rail lines along the Edmonds' shoreline are primarily used by BNSF for freight service, but also provide Amtrak passenger train service through Edmonds. Sound Transit provides daily commuter service to and from Seattle. Washington State Ferries operates ferry service from Edmonds to Kingston providing access to the Olympic Peninsula. This is one of the busiest commuter ferry terminals in Puget Sound, as well as one of the major access points from the east side of Puget Sound to the west. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The City of Edmonds is served by Community Transit bus service, Vy'ashington State ferries, Sound Transit commuter rail and Amtrak passenger train service. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. However, the purpose of this amendment is to assist in reducing vehicle trips per day and promote an alternative form of transporation. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The proposed amendment, for bicycle parking requirements, is a measure to reduce transporation impacts. 15. Public Services SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 357 8.3.e a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other The City of Edmonds is served by all the utilities identified above. While a few septic systems may still be in service in Edmonds, that vast majority of the City's residences are connected to a sanitary sewer system. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Name of signee Eric Engmann, AICP Position and Agency/Organization Senior Planner, City of Edmonds Date Submitted: 8/31/2021 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would not directly increase discharges to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. The proposed amendment would require both short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities for multifamily and non-residential development throughout the city. This action would reduce barriers to people cycling as a form of transportation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 358 8.3.e Increased bicycle ridership as a form of transportation has been identified in the City's Climate Action Plan as a way to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Reducing the number of vehicle trips would lead to a reduction in discharge to water, emissinos to air, production, storage and release of toxic or hazardous substandaces, and lowered production of noise. All development and redevelopment within the City of Edmonds would be subject to applicable local, state and federal regulatory requirements, including building code, fire code, and storm water, in addition to the provisions of critical area regulations (where applicable). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendment would have a neutral to positive affect on plants, animals, fish, and marine life. The amendment would promote cycling as an alternative to vehicle usage. The ability to have ample and safe locations to park bikes for short trips or long-term (overnight) storage provides ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Reduced VMT, especially for those using fossil fuels, will be a benefit for the entire environment, including flora and fauna. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The critical area regulations require buffers from wetlands established by best available science. These buffers help to protect and conserve plants as well as fish and wildlife habitat. The critical area regulations also contain provisions that require the preservation of native vegetation within the City of Edmonds 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendment will not deplete energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The bicycle parking regulations will aid in the protection and conversavtion of energy and natural resources by reducing VMT. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed bicycle parking amendment will not likely use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 359 8.3.e 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed bicycle parking amendment will not likely affect land and shoreline uses. It will not allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompativle with existing plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The City has adopted a Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) that guides development within shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP allows most uses that are allowed by the underlying zoning provided they are developed consistent with the SMP's development standards. The SMP would not allow any new uses in the shoreline that are not currently allowed. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The intent of this amendment is to reduce demands on vehicular transportation. By providing better facilities to park and store bicycles, it will help with other efforts, such as adding bike lanes and more sidewalks, to encourage cycling as an alternative to automobiles. This proposed amendment would not likely affect demands for public services or utilities. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Since increased demands are not anticipated, no specific measures are proposed. This amendment is a measure to reduce automobilie transportation and allow for alternatives. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This proposed bicycle parking amendment will not likely conflict with laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The addition of these bicycle parking facilities will take place as part of developments. These developments will be subject to all applicable laws and regulations to protect the environment. None of the provisions of this code amendment would allow a development to avoid or reduce environmental regulations. The very nature of this proposed amendment will aide in the much larger effort to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and help protect the environment from the negative effects of increased ghg emission. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 360 8.3.f • There are already a number of vehicles in the police and public works departments. These vehicles purchases can wait a year when Council has a better understanding of all cars needed from the B-Fund and supply shortages decrease. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #71- Vehicle charging network • Further review of this to entail creating a charging network system and data on current use of our charging stations. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #72 - Strategic Planningfor or optimizing the solar panel upgrade on Frances Anderson Building. • There is not sufficient information in place to understand this request. Should be vetted more fully by Council Committee to determine cost or impact of aged infrastructure. • Motion: Delete decision packet. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed 2022 budget amendments to increase appropriations • Motion to add Municipal Court restructure to reflect impact on 2022 budget numbers (currently represented only as attachments to the budget via DP 230-22001,02, and 03) • Motion to reflect the expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2022 budget numbers. • Motion to add $100K for the Creative District's Fourth Avenue Corridor project design. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed 2022 budget amendments to increase appropriations • Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. • Motion to add $150K for Streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area (CIP/CFP impact) • Motion to add the South County Fire adjustment to the budget. 3. INTRODUCTION REGARDING CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC ENTITLED BICYCLE PARKING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced Senior Planner Eric Engmann, a temporary employee hired to work on code amendments. There are several amendments in the pipeline, this is the first one and there will be more in succession. Mr. Engmann previously worked in Bellevue and Seattle and is originally from Florida. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin explained tonight's agenda is an introduction to potential bicycle parking regulations including, 1) connection to the Comprehensive Plan goals, 2) highlights of draft amendment, and 3) a special goodbye. She reviewed: • Bike Parking Ties to Major Sustainability Goals o Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ■ Policy 4.1: Encourage active transportation by providing safe facilities for bicycle and pedestrians ■ Policy 4.13: Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities and installation of bike racks and lockers near schools, commercial districts, multifamily residents, recreation areas, and transit facilities o Community Sustainability Element ■ Policy B.3: Explore and support the use of...transportation options that reduce Greenhouse gas emissions o Climate Action Plan ■ Goal: Carbon Neutral by 2050 ■ TR-3: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by promoting active transportation Mr. Engmann reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 361 8.3.f • Proposing new chapter in Title 17 for bicycle parking and storage o Four main components 1. Creates bike parking standards for multifamily and non-residential development 2. Separated into short term and long term parking requirements 3. Includes locational, installation and maintenance requirements (how to operate) 4. Provides definitions, calculations, and applicability standards to support new chapter • Difference between short-term and long term bicycle parking o Short term parking ■ Less than 4 hour parking ■ Bike rack near primary entrance ■ Higher need with non-residential use o Long term parking ■ More than 4 hour parking (overnight) ■ Parked in secure on -premise space ■ Higher need with multifamily residential use • Proposed short term bicycle parking requirement Type of use I Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling unit 1 per 10 dwelling units Non-residential 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces • Proposed long term bicycle parking requirement Type of use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units' 0.75 per unit Non-residential 1 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than 2 spaces Footnote 1: multiple dwelling units with individual garages or those with ground floor units with direct outdoor access are exempt from this requirement o Edmonds bicycle advocacy group proposed increasing the non-residential to 2 per 25,000 square feet and not less than three • Standards — Multifamily examples Development Type Short Term Spaces Long Term Spaces 10 multifamily units 2 8 50 multifamily units 5 38 100 multifamily units 10 75 • Standard — Non-residential examples Development Type Short Term Spaces Long Term S aces Smaller building 2 2-3 Medium building (25,000-50,000 square feet) —5 2-4 Larger building (over 50,000 square feet) 13-15 3-5 • Locational and installation requirements o Visibility and illumination o Proximity to entrances o Accessibility o Minimum area requirements (18" by 60") o Secure structures o Electrical outlets (long-term) o Accommodations for wall mountings (long-term) • Draft code review o Code draft, planning board minutes, and Edmonds bicycle advocacy group letter are included in council agenda packet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 362 8.3.f o Code update page ■ The code updates webpage is now outline ■ Sign up for notification list for all code updates or just this topic ■ www.edmondswa.gov/codMdates ■ QR code to visit the bike parking specific page Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the statement in the agenda memo, substantially damaged or improved or if a parking lot is expanded by 50% or more and asked how the 50% or more was determined, how often parking lots were substantially damaged, improved or expanded by 50% or more, and why wouldn't the requirement bicycle parking be required for any expansion. She referred to his comment that townhomes may be able to store onsite and asked whether the code could be written so it was not specific to townhomes but the exemption would only apply if there was an ability to store onsite case -by -case. Mr. Engmann responded 50% is seen as a major expansion. For example, an older building may add 1-2 parking spaces, should that trigger compliance with the code? Typically the standard is higher than that and addresses a major improvement. He acknowledged 50% may be too high, but the goal is not to have it be any expansion because the addition of 1-2 parking spaces may not be enough to trigger those improvements. Councilmember L. Johnson observed the intent is to meet goals and combat climate change; if there is any increase in parking spaces which increases auto usage, she felt there should be some expansion of bike parking. She summarized any expansion to accommodate more cars should trigger a requirement to also accommodate bikes. Mr. Engmann said that could be looked at that. With regard to substantial expansion, Mr. Engmann said that was discussed with the Planning Board, what method should be used. For example, when improvements are made to an existing multifamily building, the question arises at what point do they have to meet these standards. A bathroom or kitchen remodel might not require compliance. In the code, the requirement to come into compliance with the code is typically 75% improvement. The Planning Board is proposing to use the lower threshold of 50%. They looked at several examples of 50% improvement and it is a major renovation and it was felt that that would be the appropriate point to require these improvements versus smaller improvements. The building official also agreed. With regard to townhomes, Mr. Engmann agreed there could be a better way to phrase that so it is not an automatic opt out, acknowledging there may smaller townhomes that do not have space to store bikes. Councilmember Paine said this was very exciting to see this, code changes that encourage non-polluting aspects and she was glad bike parking was being proposed. She asked when it would be appropriate to have bike storage lockers, recalling the letter from bicycle advocacy group included a suggested change related to storage lockers. She noted if someone is working for 7-9 hours, they are not checking on their bike during the day unless they feel the parking is not secure. She encouraged him to take the issue of bike security seriously, noting someone losing their bike is akin to losing their car stolen if that is their sole mode of transportation. She also encouraged him to consider the numbers offered by the bicycle advocacy group as the group is comprised of regular bike riders who know their stuff. She referred to the picture of the wave pattern bike rack, noting that is the advocacy group's least favorite bike rack design and they prefer the C-shaped rack. Councilmember Tibbott found this very interesting and looked forward to seeing its application. He referred to the City current incentives related to development of multifamily and asked if those incentives would be replaced a requirements for bicycle storage. Mr. Engmann said he was not familiar with incentives other than in one district. Councilmember Tibbott vaguely remembered while on the Planning Board including incentives for bike storage in exchange for some other feature. Mr. Chave recalled it was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 363 8.3.f part of the incentives in the Westgate zone. Councilmember Tibbott said he would hate to see the incentive go away, yet he saw the value of requiring bike storage. Councilmember Tibbott pointed out the impact of bike racks on walkways. The proposal refers to installation on private property and he asked whether bike racks downtown or in front of other commercial space that might take up public walkway space were addressed in the code. Mr. Engmann answered this affects development on private property; there are different standards on public property. Councilmember K. Johnson challenged some of standards, relaying there are standards for multifamily dwelling units in areas where there is not safe bicycle access. For example, the presentation mentioned 75 long term and 10 short term spaces for a 100 unit multifamily building on Highway 99, but there isn't access to the Swift Line or north -south access on Highway 99. There is the interurban trail and east -west bicycle routes, but if long and short term spaces are required, the building needs to connect to a usable bicycle network. It doesn't make sense to encourage bicycle use in areas where people cannot safely ride a bike. Mr. Engmann suggested that was a philosophical question. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed it was philosophical, but was related to the redevelopment of Highway 99, space allocated in the right-of-way and the standards the City is encouraging. It takes the theoretical and attaches it to reality and she saw a disconnect. Ms. McLaughlin said one of challenges, chicken before the egg, is building out an entire city network with protected, all ages and abilities bicycle facilities. That is a goal to become carbon neutral, but the City does not have the capital funding to do that. There are all sorts of riders, some are very comfortable riding in traffic and do not need a protected facility. Best practice facilities for all ages and abilities are protected; but to preclude the ability to store a bike for people who are comfortable on a standard roadway would go against progress toward climate goals. Councilmember K. Johnson challenged that, commenting in the development of networks, bicycles have to be considered as a mode of transportation. There is nothing that prohibits bicycles on those highways, but they are not safe unless they are planned for. She saw a disconnect and felt the City should do both; if there is a requirement for long and short term spaces, there should also be safe access to Swift, the Park & Ride and north -south travel. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were statistics to support the requirements, anticipating there would be concern from builders, people who do not need bikes and want parking instead. She asked if a public hearing will be held. Mr. Engmann said there will be a public hearing. In developing code amendments, consideration is given to what other cities including surrounding cities have done, best practices, etc. The Master Builders Association and other builder groups are also consulted for feedback. The proposed standards are used in a lot of surrounding cities. Typical best practice is between %2 - 3/4 space per unit which is common in the Puget Sound region. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was appropriate to have that requirement for every unit and was that saying that bikes were equivalent to cars, noting the requirement for vehicle parking was one space/unit. Builders are required to provide one parking space per unit and additional space for bike storage. Mr. Engmann answered bike storage is usually much smaller spaces, long term storage is usually in a secure room with bicycle mounts on the walls, etc. and is not equivalent to a parking space. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:40 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Chen asked if ADA access was considered. Mr. Engmann answered ADA is required for any new construction, walkways and entrances and safe passage to the space. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 364 8.3.f Council President Olson commented she was thrilled to see the QR code and anticipated citizens were as well. Having a code update page and being on the notification list for updates will excite many citizens. In the interest of time, she will submit her comments via email. Ms. McLaughlin displayed the following: Thank you to Rob Chave for 30 years of service to Edmonds Last day January 31 His wit, experience and leadership will be missed by all Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Rob Chave for the time he has given to the City and all his work over the years. She had many stories and was very happy for him. Mr. Chave said it has been pleasure to work for Edmonds. One of the nice things about a small city is getting o do a lot of things which has Edmonds allowed him to do. Thirty years is a long time and now feels like the right time. A number of people have left the City over the past 1-2 years, and he was thinking they must know something he doesn't. After looking into it, he decided he would be stupid if he didn't follow them so he is retiring. He wished everyone well in continuing to serve and support Edmonds as it evolves and prospers in the future. The City is in good hands between the mayor, council and dedicated staff who work hard for the City and deserve all the gratitude they can get. 4. ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM (ERP) REPLACEMENT Deputy Administrative Services Director Megan Menkveld introduced herself to council. She reviewed: • Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System o General Ledger (GL) ■ Financial statements ■ Capital ■ Accounts payable/receivable ■ Budget o Payroll & HRIS ■ Position control ■ "Hire to Retire" ■ Timekeeping (pay codes) ■ Benefits ■ Employee self-service o Utility Billing o Other (outside scope) ■ Permitting (Tracklt) ■ Procurement (N/A for Edmonds) • The existing ERP solution, Eden went live in 2001 (20 years old). It is now being phased out by Tyler Technologies. o Tyler Technologies no longer sells Eden to new customers. o Tyler no longer invests in improvements to the software. Minimally they still provide security updates, software patches, and changes due to new regulatory requirements. o Tyler has indicated they will continue to support the product, but it will eventually become technologically obsolete due to the operating system it runs on, the hardware it uses, or changes to the language (code) used to program the software. o Tyler has a new product that customers can opt for called Munis. • Traditional Option (One Service Agreement) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 365 8.3.g ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS AND A NEW CHAPTER 17.120 ECDC, ENTITLED "BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES"; AMENDING ECDC SUBSECTION 16.60.030.13 ENTITLED "PARKING, ACCESS, AND BICYLE STORAGE STANDARDS" AND AMENDING ECDC 22.110.090 WESTGATE MIXED USE HEIGHT BONUS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS WHEREAS, increasing the use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation is an important step toward achieving the City's climate goals due to their not emitting greenhouse gases or using fossil fuels; and WHEREAS, a lack of bicycle parking can be a barrier to greater use of bicycles; and WHEREAS, the exercise associated with increased bicycle usage would have corresponding human health benefits; and WHEREAS, the planning board recommended adoption of the proposed bicycle parking regulations that are attached to this ordinance on July 14, 2021; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on those regulations on March 22, 2022; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 17.120 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Bicycle Parking Facilities," is hereby adopted to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Section 2. To create consistency between the Edmonds Community Development Code and the new bicycle parking regulations adopted in Section 1, above, subsection 16.60.030.13 of the ECDC entitled, "Parking, Access, and Bicycle Storage Standards," is hereby amended to read Packet Pg. 366 8.3.g 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 3. To create consistency between the Edmonds Community Development Code and the new bicycle parking regulations adopted in Section 1, above, section 22.110.090 of the ECDC entitled, "Height Bonus," 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 st-Fike through). Section 4. 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 5. 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. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 367 8.3.g FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 368 8.3.g SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS AND A NEW CHAPTER 17.120 ECDC, ENTITLED "BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES"; AMENDING ECDC SUBSECTION 16.60.030.B ENTITLED "PARKING, ACCESS, AND BICYLE STORAGE STANDARDS" AND AMENDING ECDC 22.110.090 WESTGATE MIXED USE HEIGHT BONUS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12022. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 E CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 369