2022-12-06 City Council - Full Agenda-3330Op E D
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
tnl. }nyo REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
DECEMBER 6, 2022, 7:00 PM
PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE 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. PRESENTATION
1. Presentation of 2023 Public Works Utility Rates (20 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
December 6, 2022
Page 1
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. Written Public Comments (0 min)
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 22, 2022
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
3. Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278
4. 2023 Legislative Agenda
5. Street Vacation Ordinance PLN2022-0045
6. Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self -Determination of Land Use
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Deliberations on the 2023 Edmonds City Budget (120 min)
2. Council Discussion of CIP/CFP (30 min)
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT 10:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
December 6, 2022
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Presentation of 2023 Public Works Utility Rates
Staff Lead: Oscar Anti Ilon
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Emiko Rodarte
Background/History
The utility rate study schedule for 2022 was not completed, however staff has the projected rate
increases from 2019, considering the changes to CPI and constructions costs the recommended rates are
considered conservative and minimum to meet the operational and capital needs of the utilities.
Staff Recommendation
Information only, staff recommends holding a public hearing on the regular council meeting of 12/13/22
and adopting the updated ordinance with the new rates during that meeting.
Narrative
n/a
Attachments:
2022 Utility Rate Update
Packet Pg. 3
E
I 4.1.a I
Utility Rate Update
December 2022
T.170. 199O
Pa e 1
Packet Pg. 4
4.1.a
Enterprise Funds
Along with their missions to provide their respective services in an efficient
and effective manner, each of the city's enterprise activities must also work
y
to be financially self-supporting. o
This means that each is expected to cover all costs
associated with operations as well as all costs
associated with capital maintenance and depreciation
by generating the necessary revenue itself (i.e.
through user fees).
A key component of enterprise operations is the
maintenance of the capital equipment and
infrastructure of the "business". User fees are set to
recover operating costs as well as to finance the
continuous maintenance (depreciation) of the capital
investments supporting the service.
A completely successfu N
0
enterprise operation -
would never need to
borrow funds to replace
and renew the existing
infrastructure of the
business.
N
N
O
N
r
C
d
Debt should only be used to expand an enterprise activity's capacity or level of
service, and not to replace or renew the existing infrastructure. a
Packet Pg. 5
What chan
ov ED y
ed to Kev Assumptions
Annual Cost Inflation
■ General (CPI): 2.5% (2022 average 9 %)
■ Benefits: 10.0% (New Union contract, pending
final negotiations impact TBD)
■ Alderwood Water Purchase Costs:
— 8% in 2020; (21.8%)
— 8.5% in 2021; (4.4%)
— 8% in 2022; (5%)
50/ Thereaf+or (2023 Projected at 11.25%)
■ Construction Costs: 4.0% (1st Qtr. 2022 7.2%)
Washington
Everett
Recent CIP Needs
Tacoma
Reservoir Inspections (Yost & Seaview): Vancouver
Yakima
■ Potential needs for seismic retrofit per
reservoir($7M)
■ Or new per reservoir($11 M)
■ Values above will be double due to 2
reservoirs needing retrofit/re place ment.
Chart 1_ Oyer -the -year percent change in CPl-U, Seattle-Tacana-Bellevue, WA, M
October 2019-October 2022
All isms
Percent change _ _ _ _ All :ems less food and energy
„0 -
10 0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
00
Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oc to
2019 2020
2021
M
Source- U S_ Bureau of Labor Statistics_
d
a
d
Material
Installation
Average
m
+11.20
+2.26
+7.56
+
+
+
�'
+11.82
+0.57
+7.28
+11.40
+1.47
+7.46
N
+11.42
+0.41
+7.12
N
E
Pa e 3
Packet Pg. 6
a
Proposed vs no increase (Water
Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
Policy Induced Rate Increases
Proposed 4% No Increase
4.38% 3.60% 3.88% 4.38% 3.60% G
4.50% 4.00% 4.00% 4.50% 4.00% 4.00%
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 10,074,858
$ 10,539,471
$ 11,025,796
$ 11
$ 10,074,858
$ 10,134,107
$ 10,601,727
Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
10,074,858
10,539,471
11,025,796
11,
10,074,858
10,134,107
10,601,727
Additional Taxes Due to Rate Increases
City Utility Taxes
$
124,629
$
165,899
$ 209,286
$
$
124,629
$ 125,362
$ 166,879
Excise Taxes
62,676
83,430
105,250
62,676
63,045
83,923
Total
$
187,306
$
249,329
$ 314,535
$
$
187,306
$ 188,407
$ 250,802
NetCash Flow After Rate Increase
$
9,422
$
34,222
$ 11,173
$
$
9,422
i
Coverage After Rate Increase
3.91
3.95
4.14
3.91
3.64
3.81
Operating Reserve Ending Balance
$
893,266
$
927,489
$ 938,662
$
$
893,266
Operating Reserve Target Balance
$
713,360
$
751,246
$ 782,064
$
$
713,360
$ 7
$ 782,064
# of Days of Cash Operating Expenses
56 Days
56 Days
54 Days
56 Days
35 Days
13 Days_
Results of no increase:
Required increase in 2024 jumps to 10.4%
Net cash flow is negative ($310,220)
Cash operating is reduced from 56 Days to 35
Pa e 4
Packet Pg. 7
N
O
r
O
r
a+
L
O
IL
M
N
O
N
4-
0
C
O
M
c
O
w
d
L
(L
a)
M
m
M
N
N
O
N
a
O
E
M
a
4.1.a
Proposed vs no increase (Sewer,
Info. Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
Policy Induced Rate Increases
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Additional Taxes Due to Rate Increases
City Utility Taxes
Excise Taxes
Total
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
Coverage After Rate Increase
Operating Reserve Ending Balance
Operating Reserve Target Balance
# of Days of Cash Operating Expenses
Results of no increase:
Proposed 5%
4.49% 4.25% 4.48%
5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
$ 9,880,669 $ 10,426,576 $ 11,002,645
$ 9,880,669 $ 10,426,576 $ 11,002,645
$ 134,538 $ 184,861 $ 238,178
29,860 41,029 52,863
$ 164,398 $ 225,890 $ 291,042
$ 42,153
$ 65,787 $
47,994
2.87
3.06
3.23
$ 1,503,530
$ 1,569,317 $
1,617,311
$ 1,190,217
$ 1,221,175 $
1,257,048
57 Days
58 Days
58 Days
Required increase in 2024 jumps to 11.1%
Net cash flow is negative ($370,047)
Cash operating is reduced from 58 Days to 42
IF
No Increase
N
Y
L
4.49%
4.25%
CA
O
2
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
d
M
N
5.00%
1 11',
1101
N
O
2022
20231
C
$
9,880,669
$ 9,930,073
$ 10,478,709
O
$
9,880,669
$ 9,930,073
$ 10,478,709
c
m
a�
$
134,538
$ 135,210
$ 185,785
a
29,860
30,010
41,235
$
164,398
$ 165,220
$ 227,019
a
$
42,153
1 1 ,
a�
2.87
2.98
a
$
1,503,530
1
$
1,190,217
$ 1,2
$ 1,257,048
57 Days
42 Days
-
N
Pa e 5
Packet Pg. 8
E
a
4.1.a
Proposed vs no increase (Stormwater)
Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
Policy Induced Rate Increases
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Additional Taxes Due to Rate Increases
City Utility Taxes
Excise Taxes
Total
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
Coverage After Rate Increase
Proposed 4%
9.41% 3.53% 3.89%
9.50% 4.00% 4.00%
$ 5,903,366 $ 6,154,849 $ 6,417,046
5,903,366 6,154,849 6,417,046
$ 140,704 $
21,106
164,729 $
24,709
189,821
28,473
$ 161,810 $
189,438 $
218,295
$ 4,170 $
24,789 $
6,188
6.14
6.36
6.64
Operating Reserve Ending Balance $ 410,294 $ 435,083 $ 441,270
Operating Reserve Target Balance $ 316,038 $ 328,172 $ 341,053
# of Days of Cash Operating Expenses 58 Days 60 Days 58 Days
Results of no increase:
Required increase in 2024jumps to 10.4%
Net cash flow is negative ($184,713)
Cash operating is reduced from 60 Days to 31
No Increase
N
Y
L
9.41%
3.53%
G
O
v
9.50%
4.00%
4.00%
d
M
I',
I II',
4.00%
N
O
N
O
2022
20231
$
5,903,366
$ 5,918,124
$ 6,170,237
r
5,903,366
5,918,124
6,170,237
c
m
rn
a�
$
140,704
$ 141,056
$ 165,141
d
21,106
21,158
24,771
v
$
161,810
$ 162,215
$ 189,912
a
$
4,170
6.14
5.
6.20
$
410,294
$ 225,581
$ 10,200
$
316,038
$
341,053
_
58 Days
31 Days
1 Days
N
N
Pacle 6
Packet Pg. 9
a
ED
4.1.a
Financial Impact
$100,000
$50,000
$(50,000)
$(100,000)
$(150,000)
$(200,000)
$(250,000)
$(300,000)
$(350,000)
$(400,000)
Water
=M9
Utilities Net Cash Flow
Sewer
Mi
■ Net cash flow with increase ■ Net cash flow No increase
Total with increase
Total with no increase
Cash Flow
$ 124,796
$ (864,980)
Stormwater
I
Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
N
O
r
O
r
L
O
t2
IL
M
N
O
N
4-
0
c
O
M
C
O
d
L
a
d
M
d
r
M
r
N
N
O
N
C
O
E
M
a
Recommendation
Considering the impacts of inflation and to prevent future double-digit hikes
necessary to meet the operational and capital needs for each of the utilities while
a new rate fee study is completed in 2023 staff recommends setting the rates as
projected on the utilities rate model of 2019 with the following increases.
Sewer rate 5%
Water Rates at 4%
Stormwater rates at 4%
The monthly equivalent increase for a single-family home is: $5.535
Single family increase*
Current
2023 Change
Water"
$52.13
$54.24
$2.11
Sewer
$50.53
$53.055
$2.525
Stormwater
$22.55
$23.45
$0.90
Total
$125.21
$130.745
$5.535
*Does not include applicable taxes
**Assumes 7ccf per month water consumption plus base rate
Pa e 8
Packet Pg. 11
4.1.a
Sewer 5%
Sewer proposed 5%
Single Family Residence (bimonthly per unit)
Duplex, apartment houses, condos, and other multi
unit residences (bi-monthly per unit)
All other customers (bi-monthly per unit)
N
r
r
a+
Effective Date `o
1/1/2021 1/1/2022 1/1/2023Change 2
connected $96.25 $101.06 $106.11
unconnected $15.55 $16.32 $17.14
connected $77.33 $81.20 $85.26
unconnected $15.55 $16.32 $17.14
Fixed Rate $10.94 $11.48 $12.05
Volume Charge (per
$6.20 $6.51 $6.84
CCf)*
$0.82 o
$4.06
$0.82 �.
a�
$0.57
0
$0.33 N
r_
0
E
M
a
Packet Pg. 12
4.1.a
Water 4%
Single Family Residence (per unit)
Duplex Apt Houses, condos and other multi unit
Residences (per unit)
All other customers
Variable Rate
Meter
3/411
111
1.5"
211
311
411
611
Effective Date
1/1/2021 Current
$40.56 $42.38
$35.72 $37.33
Effective Date
1/1/2021
Current
$49.04
$51.25
$99.84
$104.34
$184.63
$192.94
$281.48
$294.15
$607.23
$634.56
$860.14
$898.85
$1,744.49
$1,822.99
1/1/2021 Current
$4.23 $4.42
1/1/2023Change Y
L
O
$44.08
$1.7
a
M
N
O
N
$38.82
$1.4 0
0
r
r
c
m
a
1/1/2023Change
$53.30
$2.0 a
$108.51
$4.1
$200.66
$7.7
$305.92
$11.7
$659.94
$25.3 N
$934.80
$35.9 N
$1,895.91
$72.9
E
a
1/1/2023 Change
$4.6
Packet Pg. 13
4.1.a
Stormwater 4%
Category
Singel Family and Multifamily Residential
Bimonthly Billing Cycle
All other customers per ESU
(bi-monthly cycle)
Effective Date
1/1/2021 Current F 1/1/2023
Change
$41.19 $45.10 $46.90 $1.80
$41.19 $45.10
$1.80
Packet Pg. 14
Monthly Combined Utility Bill Comparison (2022
Lake Stevens
Ki rkl and
Mountlake Terrace
Bothell
Snohomish
Edmonds
Silver LakeW/S District
MukiIteo WIWW District
Arlington
Bremerton
Alderwood WWW District
Lynnwood (Proposed)
Redmond
Lynnwood (Eksting)
Marysville
$146.93
$135.52
$12521
$124.07
$123.57
$122.84
$11728
$116.66
$113.84
$113.70
$100.66
$175.99
$163.48
$163.18
$86.41
$- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 $140.00 $160.00 $180.00
■ Water ■ Sewer ■ Storm
Notes:
1. Water bills assume residential meter under 1 inch and 7 ccf monthly usage
2. Sewer bills assume residential meter under 1 inch and 6 ccf monthly usage
3. Alderwood and Silverlake Districts assume City of Lynnwood's existing stormwater rates
Pa e 13
Packet Pg. 15
N
r
L
0
2
0
IL
M
N
O
N
4-
0
a
0
M
c
m
w
m
L
a
d
M
Q.
m
r
0
N
N
O
N
a
0
E
z
c�
Q
Setting up policies (exam
OF EDV
les)
Operating Reserve Minimum cash reserve to accommodate varied
revenue and expenditure timing
Capital Reserve To meet emergency repairs, unanticipated capital,
and project cost overruns
Replacement Reserve Rate funded capital — annual basis.
Funding (RRF)
Equipment Reserve To fund ongoing vehicle and equipment
replacement
Debt Service Coverage Compliance with existing debt covenants and
maintain credit worthiness for future debt needs
Revenue Sufficiency Set rates to meet the total annual financial
obligations of the utility and be self supporting
Policy Target
Water = 90; Sewer = 45-90
i
Storm/Solid Waste = 30 Days 0
l
1-2% of capital assets (origins
a
cost)
N
0
N
O
Original Cost Depreciation;
o
Replacement Cost Depreciatic
N•
d
L
Estimated replacement value
a
Target 2.0 or higher
Minimum 1.25
Rates shall be set to cover 0&I
N
debt service, reserves and fisc
N
policy achievement
a
Pa e 14
Packet Pg. 16
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Written Public Comments
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of written public comments.
Narrative
Public comments submitted to the web form for public comments
<https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment>
between November 17, 2022 and December 1, 2022.
Attachments:
Edmonds City Council Public Comments 20221206
Packet Pg. 17
7.1.a
Edmonds City Council Public Comments — 12/6/22
FirstName Natalie
LastName Seitz
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic November 22, 2022 Special Meeting - CG Emergency Interim Ordinance
Comments I would like to comment in support of the emergency ordinance and all Edmonds
residents being afforded access to equitable public process. I have had the opportunity to do a quick
review of the DEIS for the subarea located here:
https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/separ/Main/SEPA/Record.aspx?SEPANumber=201702892 The DEIS that
was noticed to the public includes the following language: "Across the street from single family zones
provide eight -foot step back for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16-foot step back
from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet." This language appears to be consistent
with the Emergency Ordinance. Based on the cover letter to the DEIS, the public meetings/hearings held
by council were not noticed to the public and adjacent property owners as part of the DEIS process. It
appears that a community meeting was held the hour before (6pm) the council meeting on 6/20 and
subsequent meeting occurred after the close of the public comment period to the DEIS on 7/3/2017.
The two comments made to the DEIS process do not appear to include reference to step backs. I
strongly disagree with any statement that "discussion of step backs across the street from single family
zoned properties was fully presented, discussed and vetted at the Council meetings" because I have
found no evidence that the changes to step back requirements were re -noticed to the public and
adjacent property owners from what was originally noticed in the DEIS. Why should adjacent
landowners receive less notice than what would be required for variance to zoning code? Notice should
be provided to all affected and adjacent properties so that for the first time adjacent property owners
can become aware of and discuss this change with City staff, council and those who wish to develop
their properties. All Edmonds residents deserve access to equitable public process. Please continue to
support the emergency ordinance until this noticing and process can occur. I would also appreciate your
continued support of the SEIS. I find evidence of the mounting inadequacies of the EIS process and FEIS
every day. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
FirstName Ken
LastName Reidy
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic Audience comments
Comments These comments are submitted using the Online Public Comment form due to the fact
that, at this moment (7:20 am November 22, 2022), City Council has not provided a Regular Meeting
Agenda for the fourth Tuesday of November, 2022. 1 am not sure what to do about tonight's confusing
c
m
E
E
0
U
3
a
c
m
Packet Pg. 18
7.1.a
situation. Per City Code: Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on every Tuesday of every
month, except for the second and fifth Tuesdays of a month, at 7:00 p.m. A regular meeting of City
Council is required to be held tonight, starting at 7:00. Such is mandatory under Chapter 1.04 ECC.
Please remember: Faithful enforcement of our laws should not depend on whether somebody sues the
City. Prior to appointing two Diversity Commission members, please repeal either Resolution 1381 or
Resolution 1498. The two Resolutions are incompatible. Please issue an RFP for the City Attorney
position immediately. The current Edmonds City Attorney Jeff Taraday actually argued on December 10,
2019 that: "In plain language, Ordinance 3303 is not binding on the City Council. So the City Council
cannot violate Ordinance 3303." A week later, City Council voted to repeal Ordinance 3303. Incredible. I
CD
always find it amazing that the City Council thinks it can simply repeal a law that has been violated E
without addressing the violations of that law that have taken place. The failed street vacation code c
update shows the City is also unwilling to address violations of law even when the attempt to repeal v
FAILS. It truly is amazing. Such conduct makes it extremely difficult to trust Edmonds City government.
Next, from my October 23, 2013 Public comments submitted via email: Please prioritize the Code a -
Rewrite! Please make sure that the proper amount is budgeted to complete the Code rewrite, and 1
mean the entire City CODE! Both parts of the CODE require updating! The City of Edmonds 2007-08
Budget stated that "A complete rewrite of ECDC over a two year period is proposed for completion in ..
2007." The complete rewrite of the ECDC was never completed. Please consider the challenges related o
to updating just Chapter 2.10. 1 believe I myself have well over 100 hours of research into just this
section of Chapter 2. The CODE rewrite is a complicated, huge project. Please make sure it is properly
budgeted for. Former City Attorney Snyder stated that: "The biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the
code rewrite."
Packet Pg. 19
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 22, 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:
E112222
Packet Pg. 20
8.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
November 22, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Vivian Olson, Mayor Pro Tern
Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tern
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir.
Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Olson in
the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the
flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We o
acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors a
the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these
Q
lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual
N
connection with the land and water." N
N
N
r
3. ROLL CALL j
Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Mayor Nelson. z
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Q
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY PROCLAMATION
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 21
8.1.a
Mayor Pro Tern Olson read a proclamation proclaiming November 26, 2022, as Small Business Saturday,
and urged the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small
businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tern Olson described procedures for audience comments.
David Cohanim, Seattle, developer's representative on the project at 236' & 84t' W, spoke regarding the
interim ordinance on the CG zone. Their concerns include that it may have been made in error, it did not
interpret the EIS correctly as it was stated, and the original ordinance was previously debated and
unanimously approved. The biggest problem with the interim ordinance is it does not address the issue the
council is trying to deal with, it calls for a reduction in the impact of the building through a reduction in
the massing by imposing step baEkAg -backs. The degree of the step b"step-backs are not an issue; if
they build in that location, there will be 200+ units regardless of whether there are step b wakstep-backs. It
will be a large building in a neighborhood that hasn't not experienced that yet. He suggested instead of
step ba&step-backs, taking a longer look at what the neighbors are interested in now versus what they
may have been interested in in the past and to perhaps have a system in place for design review where
buildings of a certain size trigger a review that includes contacting the neighbors to determine what the
real issues are and put in place mechanisms that can truly mitigate impacts to the neighborhood such as
design guidelines that address modulation, color, material, etc. They did a shadow study that showed even
if they reduced the number of units by 20%, it does not impact the shadowing of neighboring buildings; it
is still a big building. The best thing that can be done is to implement design guidelines that make the
project amenable to the neighborhood in a better fitting fashion; the emergency ordinance is not the way
to do that.
David Preston, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, announced Port Executive Director Bob
McChesney will make a presentation regarding Port District facts to the Edmonds Civic Roundtable next
Monday. The Edmonds Yacht Club is presenting Holiday at the Docks with boats lit up for the holidays
December 3 through January 12. The Port of Edmonds is presenting Holiday Night at the Marina on
December 15t''. He invited Edmonds and Woodway residents to attend the events.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said there is one glaring omission from the extensive list of topics and items a
on the legislative agenda, the City should be advocating for its right to self-determination particularly as it Q
pertains to land use and zoning policies and ordinances. Over the last few sessions, the legislature has N
tried to change or eliminate single family zoning either regionally or statewide. Such a change was N
proposed in the last legislative session which eventually failed but not due to lack of trying. He expected
the legislature would try to pass a similar change during the upcoming session. He suggested the council w
make the City's position perfectly clear by drafting a resolution that would be forwarded to the state
representatives in support of upholding the City's ability to control its own destiny, where the City retains E
control of its land use policies and zoning codes, and tell the legislature to stop the nonsense. After all,
78% of Edmonds citizens support the neighborhood character. One needs only to look at the Land Q
Acknowledgement Statement for inspiration, "We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-
determination..."; if the City does not respect its right to self-determination, he questioned how these
words could be mimicked at every council meeting. If the City gives up this right, they are giving up an
important role they were elected to fulfill. He urged the council to control how Edmonds should grow and
prosper and do it on our terms by drafting a resolution to make this clear.
Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, extended her appreciation to the council for their interest in neighborhood
concerns and City staff's attempts to provide some consolatory effort to address problems created when
the entire Gateway area of the Highway 99 subarea was globally upzoned to Commercial General without
implementing adequate transitions to single family neighborhoods. She had hoped the discussions with
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 22
the developer of the proposed Terrace Place Apartments would reveal alternative potential mitigation for
the impact of massive structures currently allowed by the code across the street from a single family
residential area, but was disappointed it did not have that result. While she welcomed the developer's
creativity and design to make the building more appealing, no alternatives to step lac-kstep-backs in the
emergency ordinance were identified to get around the mass and bulk of a 6-story building. The 2016
Edmonds comprehensive plan indicated a growth target of an additional 5,705 housing units between
2011 and 2035. The Highway 99 subarea plan had a target of an additional 3,325 housing units by 2035
just for that area. That number makes up a substantial amount of the target identified in 2016
comprehensive plan. Planning for such a sizeable number of units in the Highway 99 area puts less
pressure on the rest of Edmonds to densify.
Ms. Gladstone continued, at the time of the subarea plan, equity was not the topic of discussion it is
today. There was not as much consideration for the type and amount of investments made throughout the
City which may have made it easier to make it the only area in the City where a 75-foot tall building can
be directly adjacent to or across the street from single family residential areas. Eliminating the
multifamily zoning at the time eliminated the transition between the two. Implementation of step
ba&step-backs now is the only measure she has heard to address the mass and bulk of buildings that the
CG zone allows. Their neighborhood is only one of several areas adjacent to Highway 99 that will be
impacted in this way; many will not be as vocal as their neighborhood has been until the development is
at their doorstep. Some will not have the wherewithal or time to voice their concerns and will just live
with whatever happens. Continuing the emergency ordinance will buy time to continue working through
this issue with the council to make all Edmonds neighborhoods appealing. She hoped the council's
decision about the step tekstep-back emergency ordinance would be more inclusive than the decision in
2017 to upzone the area.
Mike Rosen, Edmonds, thanked the council for their service and commitment to the community, not just
the hours they invest, but also their emotional investment. Although the council does not hear thank you
very often, he assured many citizens appreciate their work. He encouraged the council to add to the
legislative agenda a request to leave zoning to cities. There are issues that should be handled at a national vn
or state level, but zoning is not one of those. People chose to live in Seattle, Tacoma or Edison and others o
choose to live in Edmonds. He acknowledged the mobs are coming to western Washington and that needs
to be addressed, but he preferred the residents figure out how to do that in Edmonds. He encouraged the o
council to send a message to the state saying we've got this and thanks, but no thanks. With regard to the a
budget, he said he once heard someone refer to a budget as an orderly system of living beyond your Q
means and would appreciate if the City did not do that. Next year is looking rocky at best; some experts N
cm
say it will be a really soft landing and other experts say the worst is coming. Edmonds is in a great N
position to ride this wave, but he feared the City was not going to that. Spending one-time dollars and
setting the City up for future expenses is not good and spending down reserves does not set the City up w
well. He urged the council to honor the commitment to residents that the vital services they need will be
there and additional tax burden will not be placed on them in the future to pay for decisions made today. z
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, requested the council continue the interim ordinance affecting commercial Q
buildings in the CG across the street from single family houses. The intent of the interim ordinance was
for the City to come up with mitigations for the mass of a 6-story building across the street from a single
family residence. For historical context, the buildable lands report showed that housing development
activity for the 23 years 1995-2018 averaged 58 units per year throughout the whole City. The council
knew there had been sluggish growth year after year when they approved a redevelopment plan and
upzone for Highway 99. Then -Development Director Hope reported to council in 2017 that code changes
impose new requirements on developers and the council needed to balance the interest of developers with
the interests of residents which is hard to do. The cover letter accompanying the annual update stated,
"Permitting activity was at historic highs in 2021 and development in Edmonds continues at a healthy
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 23
8.1.a
pace." The development update report showed six projects on parcels in the CG zone that represent 888
housing units. Assuming there are four years between a project's submission and completion, that will
increase from a rate of 58 units per year at the time the council voted to upzone the area to CG to 222
units per year in just the Highway 99 corridor's CG parcels. Developer's whose multifamily parcels were
upzoned received a substantial increase in the market value of the property.
Ms. Hollis continued, with regard to her comments to council last month, she got it wrong; she was
thinking of step "Aep-backs as a solution to an engineering problem, however, this isn't really an
engineering problem, it is a problem of residential neighborhood experience. When the problem is
redefined, a richer set of possible solutions can be discovered about what could make a better
neighborhood experience for the houses across the street from tall multifamily buildings: should the
developer get an incentive to build mixed use so there are retail shops and pubs on the ground floor to
build community like the site of the field trip she asked the council to take to Mountlake Terrace; should
the council place art next to the sidewalk at these large projects that defines the three districts in the
subarea that has been talked about, distinct design and identity, art would provide a lot toward that goal;
should the City give grants to low income homeowners across the street from the tall CG zones to build
plant landscapes or fences in their front yards to create their own new focal point; should the City install
power pedestals on the rights -of -way so food trucks can feed the neighborhood during special events;
should the developer of a large project be required to provide EV charging stations as a public amenity?
She was not satisfied that the most forward -thinking solutions had been presented to council yet which is
why the interim ordinance should be continued. The council spent a lot of time getting the tree code right
and is investing in creeks and wetlands. She recommended pivoting from trees and fish to people and to
get the neighborhood experience right. Things are known now that were not known in 2017.
Patricia Evulet, Edmonds, referred to Jim Ogonowski's letter in My Edmonds News and agreed it was
important that Edmonds decide how to zone the city. Looking at the land mass and population of cities in
Western Washington, Edmonds is overly developed and has more people than Olympia, Tacoma and
other cities. There are no jobs in Edmonds for affordable housing; for example, housing should not go to
lawyers, dentists and doctors. The only jobs in Edmonds are being a barista or waitress. There are plenty vP
of union jobs with pension plans in the Tacoma/Bellevue/Seattle corridor where the population density is o
so much lower, less than 1,000 per square mile, versus Edmonds which is 4,700 per square mile. This
needs to be considered instead of letting the state blindly decide for Edmonds and homogenize the o
population. Edmonds shouldn't be the victim of someone in Olympia who plans this and hasn't seen how a
nice Edmonds is and why people moved to Edmonds. A recent survey found 72% of Edmonds residents Q
support single family zoning. She referred to a denser area at the intersection of 220t' & 76t1i, a narrow N
cm
alleyway with houses on both sides where if residents left their garages at the same time, they would N
crash into each other, and there is no extra parking. That is not what Edmonds residents want; they want it
to look like a village with pretty flowers and a little bit of space. Frederick Law Olmsted, who created w
Central Park, said without green around the houses, temperatures increase and people are unhappy.
E
z
Matt Richardson, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Evulet. He said King County's population actually
decreased last year and the idea of population increase is a myth, it has been steady for the last 3-4 Q
decades. Seattle's population year over year has been steady without any inflection point whatsoever.
Edmonds is incredibly overbuilt; in places like Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, the builders have anticipated
the crash that's coming, Edmonds has been building into it and has a surplus of housing, more bedrooms
per capita than ever before. If one believes in affordable housing, why invest at the top of the market? The
longer the City can wait without overdeveloping is equity in the bank. He referred to Chief Pruitt who
was suing the City because the process did him dirty. The man put his name in the ring to apply for the
police chief position; he didn't misrepresent himself and the reason he was not appointed was he didn't
disclose that he had a job application in Lake Stevens a decade before. He pointed out Mayor Nelson did
not disclose that he was a registered lobbyist for the SEIC union while the City bargained with the union
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 24
8.1.a
or disclose that he was being fined by the Washington State Deputy Attorney General for illegal
electioneering. He questioned why Chief Pruitt was being held accountable for not disclosing that he
applied for a job in Lake Stevens when the mayor got away with it. The mayor got on the city council, got
his foot in the political system by failure to disclose. He said he recused himself, but Edmonds'
ordinances indicate recusal is not a method for conflicts of interest, a one year hiatus is. He thanked Chief
Pruitt for putting his hat in the ring and was sorry he was punished for the process.
Denise Cooper, Edmonds, referred to Porchfest hosted by businesses and the City as part of the
Reimagining of Edmonds, and suggested instead of reimagining streets, using one of the many beautiful
parks in Edmonds for community get-togethers. She felt it was part of the mayor's push on housing and
the use of a City intern as part of the Porchfest planning made her suspicious about what was behind it.
She supported reimagining street safety in all neighborhoods such as better crosswalk signals and more
sidewalks especially near schools where children walk every day and put their lives at risk. There are
great community events in Edmonds that awesome businesses contribute toward but City planning events
should consider what citizens really need. Citizens should be allowed to vote on zoning in the
neighborhoods; over 70% already said leave the neighborhoods alone, that they live in Edmonds because
they love the community.
Ms. Cooper extended her apologies to the Pruitt family and expressed her support for his lawsuit against
Mayor Nelson. She assured Mayor Pro Tern Olson will be cleared, recalling the city attorney said she did
her job. She thanked Mayor Pro Tern Olson for her investigation to answer questions and represent the
citizens. Mayor Nelson should be held liable for the hiring debacle and should immediately apologize to
the Pruitt family and should step down as mayor, a feeling she has had for a long time. The City needs
leadership that bring people together, not a mayor that divides this beautiful City. She suggested calling
the tree lighting what it is; Hannukah lights are Hannukah lights, a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. The
City celebrates diversity and should be inclusive of the Christian holiday. She wished all a Happy
Thanksgiving and thanked the council for all they do.
Debra Arthur, Edmonds, said she did not support blanket zoning in Edmonds. The concrete buildings cis
proposed by developers are not affordable housing; buildings with no yard or trees that have only tiny bit o
of green will only worsen the environment. Such buildings create more chaos between citizens and the
less fortunate, just asking to overwhelm infiltration systems and power grids. Both 212t' and 220' lead o
into the bowl are and are only 2 lanes; continuing to overbuild is ridiculous. She lives in Five Corners a
which is multifamily on the east side of 80t' from 220t1i to 212t' and there are several new condominium Q
developments that abut the high school. Her neighborhood is very culturally and politically diverse, but N
cm
everyone gets along great because they care about each other, their yards, the bowl, water running down N
the hill, etc. She suggested homes that are in disarray be turned into duplexes instead of selling them to a w
developer to build a large building where units sell for $880,000 for a studio.
c
m
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to an email he sent to council on November 7t' regarding the city z
attorney contract that the council considered that evening. The rules of professional conduct created by
the Washington State Supreme Court allow for a flat fee contract, but do not allow a triggering option or a Q
termination liability agreement. In fact a flat fee contract is required to have a special paragraph; in RCP
1.5.£2, the law firm agrees to provide for a flat fee in the amount of the following services. The flat fee
shall be paid as follows and there is a place to fill in the amount, and upon receipt of all or any portion of
the flat fee, the funds are the property of the law firm and will not be placed in a trust account. The fact
that the fee has been paid in advance does not affect the right to terminate the client -lawyer relationship.
In the event the relationship is terminated before the agreed upon legal services have been completed, the
client may or may not have the right to a refund of the portion of the fee. Mr. Tupper said all the language
in RCP 1.5 indicates that the fees have to be reasonable. He was disturbed that this evaluation had
occurred in private for the purpose of excluding the public and that there had been no notice regarding the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 25
8.1.a
date or time of meetings, redacted documents have been provided, documents and requested by the public
have not been provided because they need further legal review. He questioned the city attorney reviewing
those documents and whether there was a conflict of interest. He referred to an email he send today
indicating tonight's meeting was illegal.
Stanley Piha, Seattle, one of the owners of the vacant land at the corner of 84t' & 236t'', said following
the passage on October 4, 2022 of the General Commercial emergency ordinance specific to step
lakstep-backs for CG zoned property across the street from single family zoned property, a thorough
investigation of the step aekstep-back issue within the Highway 99 subarea planned action in 2017 by
the City's planning department concluded that their proposal and the council's adoption of the ordinance
was an exercise in futility. It was confirmed that the subject of step b wkAep-backs had been fully vetted
during the public hearing process and council meetings in 2017. Proof of this is clearly found in the
public record and video of city council meetings. Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and then-
Councilmember Nelson were in attendance and provided comment and questions. At the conclusion of
the August 15, 2017 public hearing, the city council voted unanimously to approve the planned action. In
2017, the consultant and planning director routinely focused on encouraging transit oriented development
in the Highway 99 corridor. By definition, their property is a TOD site as it is within 1/4 mile walking
distance to two bus rapid transit stations at 238' and Highway 99. Not everyone has the ability to own a
home in Edmonds; Edmonds and the region has an affordable housing crisis. As the approved planned
action intended, modern multifamily housing in the Highway 99 corridor is one approach to addressing
this challenge. Complaints from some residents after the adoption of the planned action to create barriers
to building and denying those who would like to make Edmonds their home simply sends the wrong
message.
Mr. Piha continued, their property and the proposed building checks all the boxes as described in the
planned action. Due to its location within '/4 mile walking distance to two BRT stations, it is an
opportunity to allow individuals easy access to public transportation. With the programs being developed
by Community Transit, this site will be minutes away from the Mountlake Terrace light rail station. This
property is adjacent to a major shopping center allowing residents to walk to the grocery store and vn
pharmacy without using a vehicle. This property is across the street from the surface parking lot of a faith o
based institution serving the community which also has a preschool. The property is on a full city block
facing Highway 99, mostly occupied by a shopping center and does not encroach into the single family 0
neighborhoods. Until yesterday, no notice of any kind of the ordinance has been received by property a
owners affected by the ordinance. This council has an obligation to govern with equality; targeting this Q
one project with conditions that do not exist in the code does not meet that standard. The City's planning N
staff on two occasions recommended the council vacate the ordinance. Those two recommendations, N
along with the lack of proper notice, should be given the consideration they deserve and the ordinance w
should be vacated.
c
m
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING r
1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM AL ANSARI & PAUL STROMME FOR FILING Q
2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2022
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 26
8.1.a
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
5. EPOA COMMISSIONED MOU WAGE REOPENER & COMMANDERS
6. EPOA LAW SUPPORT MOU WAGE REOPENER
7. EDMONDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 3517 (AFSCME COUNCIL 2) 2022-
2024 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
8. CONFIRMATION OF DIVERSITY COMMISSION APPOINTEES ANIL DECOSTA &
JESSIE OWEN
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum introduced the City's lobbyist
Debora Munguia. He reviewed:
• Background
o Every year we prepare a formal Legislative Agenda and present to the city council for
approval prior to the upcoming Legislative Session in January
o Compiled from
■ Remaining items from last session
■ Items for all City departments
■ Items from other agencies
■ Items from individual councilmembers
o Presented this evening — draft 2023 Legislative Agenda for review
o After this session, the document will be formalized and forwarded to the December 61"
consent agenda for approval
Ms. Munguia reviewed:
• Preview of 2023 session
o Long session: 105 days - begins January 9, 2023
o Governor will propose his budget in early December
o Bills will begin to be pre -filed in early December
o Three biennial budgets
■ Operating
■ Capital
■ Transportation
o Democrats retained majority in both House and Senate
o Legislative changes
■ Representative Joe Fitzgibbon elected new House Majority Leader
0 2023 anticipated legislative focus
■ Affordable housing/homelessness
■ Behavioral health
■ Climate
■ Revenue
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 27
N
N
N
N
r
w
c
m
E
z
Q
8.1.a
■ Public Safety
Mr. Tatum reviewed
Edmonds Priorities
o Highway 99 Corridor Improvements
■ Program $22.5 million allocated under the Move Ahead Washington Transportation
package in the 2025-27 Biennium for SR99 Revitalization Project Stage 3 and begin
work to secure funding for future phases for the 2027-29 Biennium.
o Edmonds Marsh
■ The Legislature in the 2021 Session approved a proviso for the duration of the 2021-2023
biennium that provided Edmonds first right of purchase of the former UNOCAL site
when it transfers to WSDOT. These provisions are in effect until 6/30/23. The clean-up
process will take through 2025, and therefore will require an extension of the first right of
purchase.
■ In 2021, the Legislature earmarked $258,000 to help fund the potential purchase of the
UNOCAL property. Request that these funds be reallocated to the 2023-25 Biennium.
o Gun violence prevention
■ Support continued efforts for legislation addressing the prevention of gun violence.
o Environmental and climate -related issues
■ Support items highlighted in our climate action plan y
■ Broadly support environmental protection measures
Other significant issues
1. Housing affordability & availability & accessibility
■ Support a proactive approach to create new tools/incentives/revenues for cities to use to
support increasing housing supply and addressing affordability.
■ Support increased funding for the Housing Trust Fund.
2. Infrastructure funding
■ Fully fund the Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA) a
■ Explore expanding state funding opportunities to assist with maintenance and operations
of local infrastructure. o
■ Support legislation which helps local municipalities with ongoing maintenance due to the >
expansion of Complete Street mandates. a
3. Support Parks and Open Space Q
■ Support robust funding for Capital Budget programs that invest in the outdoor recreation
sector. "'
N
■ Support funding to help local parks agencies address severe maintenance backlogs N
exacerbated by COVID-19 w
■ Support technical change to the Derelict Vessel Removal Program statute;
4. Puget Sound Health and Salmon/Orca
■ Support WRIA8's legislative agenda z
■ Support legislation and funding requests that promote stormwater management, planning, M
coordination and implementation on a watershed scale Q
5. Blake decision response
■ Support additional investments to help cities with the costs created by the changes
resulting from the Blake decision
■ Support more state investment in alternative response teams and treatment facilities
■ Support creating greater access to behavioral health services including substance abuse
treatment and dual diagnosis treatment facilities*
6. Transportation funding
■ Identify sustainable, ongoing transportation funding with a specific dedicated revenue
directed to cities.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 28
8.1.a
■ Support funding and options for cities and counties to create innovative "last mile"
solutions.
7. Funding for arts and the creative economy
■ Support efforts to create funding sources which support creative businesses and
nonprofits' abilities to connect communities, particularly youth, with the arts.
8. GMA Planning & permitting
■ Engage in the GMA reform conversation and look to secure dedicated planning funding
in recognition of proposed new responsibilities in areas such as climate change and
salmon recovery that cities can support.
9. Behavioral health (combine with Blake)*
■ Support creating greater access to behavioral health services including substance abuse
treatment and dual diagnosis treatment facilities.
■ Support continued state funding to help communities establish alternative response
programs — also in Blake statement.
10. Public safety vehicular pursuits
■ Support clarification of the ability to conduct vehicular pursuits using a reasonable
suspicion standard
Next steps
o Finalize legislative agenda based on comments/issues raised tonight
o Attractively package the agenda for use in handouts
o Include on the 12/06/22 consent agenda
o Meet with legislators before and during the session
Councilmember Nand observed this was a very comprehensive list that addressed a lot of the objectives c
of City staff and concerned citizens. She referred to the Blake decision response, and asked Mr. Tatum to
elaborate on the 3' bullet (in the materials in the council packet) "Support clarification regarding the �
crime of possession of a controlled substance..." and "Revise the current system of two referrals prior to
criminal charges..." She asked what that revision would be. Ms. Munguia responded she hasn't seen any a
draft legislation yet, but the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief s draft legislative agenda seeks to cn
enact a simple possession criminal offense statute that incentivizes treatment first and foremost, but also 0
accountability for those found in unlawful possession of controlled substances. They are also seeking an
audit and assessment of the additional treatment capacity created with an appropriation. AWC is also
looking at legislation that would do away with the two referral system due to the difficulty in determining Q
if someone was given a referral in another city or county.
N
N
Mayor Pro Tem Olson advised the council will need to provide at least head nods or vote on motions to cN�
give direction regarding any proposed changes to the draft legislative agenda. w
Councilmember Nand asked if the 3' bullet point would support recriminalizing simple possession. Ms. �
Munguia answered that is something the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs is discussing, not E
z
something that the City would necessarily support. She expected that would be a potential bill.
Q
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD A BULLET POINT TO NUMBER 8, GMA PLANNING AND
PERMITTING, "REJECT MANDATORY DENSITY SCHEMES THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE
LOCAL CONTROL OF ZONING DECISIONS."
Councilmember Nand explained she made this motion in response to the significant volume of concerned
citizens who have reached out to the council this week in response to a letter to the editor in the Edmonds
Beacon regarding concern there will be a renewed push toward changing statewide law. There have been
efforts in the past to institute mandatory upzoning statewide. This is causing considerable alarm to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 29
8.1.a
citizens and is not something the City would support. To calm the community's concerns, she strongly
supports including affirmative language to reject mandatory density from state law.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis expressed her support for the motion. During Christmas break, she
will draft a resolution for council consideration. She was concerned with the legislature's continued effort
to push this through every year and believed that zoning should be done locally. WRIA 8 Salmon
Recovery Council which includes 26 cities and the Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery Council
which includes all the WRIA 8 cities and all the tribes are concerned about this effort because every city,
county, tribe area is different and do not have the same topography, character, etc.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Nand recommended also including a bullet point regarding bridge housing which is
something Edmonds has proactively engaged in before WSDOT decided to start partnering with
nonprofits to purchase motels such as the City's motel voucher program for people in the community
experiencing the crisis of homelessness. This is something that local municipalities have been asserting
leadership on, waiting for the state to catch up. She wanted to include discussion about the efforts the City
has already undertaken and the desire to have more information and connectivity with WSDOT and the
state as they pursue these objectives.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO INCLUDE A NUMBER 11 REGARDING BRIDGE HOUSING AND SEEKING
MORE INFORMATION FROM THE STATE AND THE LEADERSHIP EDMONDS HAS
ALREADY PROVIDED AT THE CITY LEVEL WITH MOTEL VOUCHERS.
Councilmember Nand suggested allowing Mr. Tatum and Ms. Munguia to craft the verbiage. She
requested the content include a desire for more communication from the state regarding the addition of
bridge housing to Edmonds and more explanation about what is already being done at the local
jurisdiction level.
Councilmember Paine asked if there was any active legislation being proposed by the housing folks
regarding bridge housing for communities. She knew there were federal funds from the bipartisan o
infrastructure law, but was interested in what the state was thinking about. Ms. Munguia answered she a
had not seen anything specific about this, but will look into it. It may be there will be something in one of Q
the budget bill about work that needs to be done and if so, language could be included to ensure the state N
is communicating with cities and getting information about leadership that cities have provided. She will N
check to see if there is anything brewing on this topic and work with Mr. Tatum to craft language for the r
council to consider. w
c
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested including this as a bullet point under Item 1, Housing
E
affordability, & availability & accessibility. Councilmember Nand agreed it could fit under Item 1. She
was specifically concerned due to the controversy generated by the Mayor of Everett's letter resisting the
addition of bridge housing in Everett and specifically targeting WSDOT. Councilmember Nand Q
summarized it is something that should be addressed at the state level.
Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding that bridge housing was a local issue at the county or city
level, but he would like to learn if the state has any initiatives or bills. Ms. Munguia said she hasn't heard
of it being an issue, but she will look into it and follow up with Mr. Tatum who can provide the council
the information she finds. Councilmember Chen suggested the council not vote on this tonight because
there is not enough information.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson suggested the motion be for staff and the lobbyist to look into it.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 30
8.1.a
Councilmember Nand restated the motion as follows with the agreement of the seconder:
REQUEST THE LOBBYIST AND DIRECTOR TATUM LOOK INTO THIS AND PROVIDE
LANGUAGE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONSIDERED UNDER SUBHEADING 1
UNDER OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OR A SEPARATE BULLET POINT.
Councilmember Paine suggested a vote was not necessary as it was simply direction to staff. Mayor Pro
Tem Olson said a motion had been made and seconded and amended.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Since staff and the lobbyist would be spending time on this issue, Mayor Pro Tem Olson recommended
the council vote on the motion.
Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, pointing out Councilmember Nand had withdrawn the
motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked for input from the city attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded it is
always helpful for the council to express its direction to staff. If the council does not vote on things like
this, staff doesn't know which things the council supports having staff research. He concluded a vote
would be appropriate especially if the request is for staff and the consultant to spend time researching
something.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER CHEN ABSTAINING.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD TIRE DUST POLLUTION UNDER
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES.
Councilmember Paine explained tire dust pollution is up and coming science and an environmental issue
that directly affects Edmonds due to the proximity of roads to the water. This is an important issue as tire
dust is one of the things killing salmon and tire dust mitigation should be included in the City's legislative
agenda.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented this a huge topic of discussion at the Puget Sound
Salmon Partnership and WRIA 8. She supported looking into ways to mitigate tire dust pollution. N
N
r
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. w
Councilmember Paine referred to House and Senate bill 1099 during the last session regarding climate m
resiliency and asked if that would come back during the upcoming session. Ms. Munguia answered it is E
something a task force of cities, counties and other stakeholders have been working on and a draft may be
coming out next week. As soon as that is available, she will send it to Mr. Tatum. C,,.,n,.ilffle-�.o, Q
Councilmember Paine explained House Bill Paine-1099 is -was about adding climate resiliency into the
GMA standards and was not completed during the last session..... Ms. Munguia advised that was R-That
representative doers-Duerr's bill and she anticipated Representative Lekanoff's bill adding salmon
recovery to the GMA ..will also be back during this session, possibly combined. , maybe teget er-.
Councilmember Paine asked if w the council will be provided an update about what is happening
in the legislature a -when the session starts early next year r-o ..,h.,* happening in legislaturve Ms. Munguia
answered she -provides weekly reports to the eCity with a summary of what is happening along;
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 31
8.1.a
bills that have been introduced,- hearings that are scheduled, etc. -and is always happy to talk by phone or
m-eet in person in Olympia to talk about specific items.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis relayed her interest ed-in the Edmonds Marsh and referred to
inel ding Resolution reso 1508 passed on October 4, 2022 requesting an 2 extension of the
right of first refusal for the UNOCAL_property—be included iin the transportation budget for the in
n2023-202-35 biennium.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis acknowledized the resolution was know sent to the rese-to-members
of the transportation committee, but recommended it also badges -but aeeE) paff e included in the
legislative agenda. Took off rt to pass resolution, keep in legislative information.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked about the Why deei oa .ant to request to reallocate the E
$258,000 that Senator l-Sealomon included in the tansperatientransportation budget for that purchase. o
She asked if was done because Beea-usethere were other issues in the have other- issues „ watershed that Z
were more impfer-antimportant.-er?Mr. Tatum answered the purchase will not occur by the end of this
his under -standing not get to pufehase by eP biennium and the City did not want to lose that m9gey. se '
c
lose -$Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said the City could an --request a carryforward. She
wWondering why there was a recommendation to divert the funding to a different project versus asking
for a carryforward. Ms. Munguia answered two different legislative actions occurred in 2021 re ag rding
the marsh T. One was i� in the t ransportation budget, the -proviso that gave the City
the ion -right of first purchase; the -mother was in the capital budget to earmark the state's -support for
the City ive-of-eyLdoing this, basically a placeholder. The cc-apital lbudget appropriation
expires at the end of the biennium, June 30, 2023; the City -can ask for another appropriation in the
capital budget for the new biennial budget that the legislature will pass, but gassing, bi+ut if the Ceity has -
another capital project that would be eligible for funding from the capital budget that they would for- R
llike to request the funds be redirect Ito, the City may be able to use that $258,000 for another project o
�t be able to use S258k of e ..: while still asking f `
while still asking for or an ���- appropriation in the �
a
next capital biennieual 1-budget for the marsh. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis observed that would Q
be simpler than a carryforward. N
N
N
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked about project PWubhe-W& s-01. Mr. Tatum said it has been r
called the TEdmonds Marsh, it is the infiltration, the collection basins along SR_104. One is funded now, w
this would allow the City
to make headway on others.
z
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked what if the want fFam council needed to do anythingsQ
the legislative agenda already includes a request to reallocate the funds to the 2023-25 biennium. his.
. Mr. Tatum answered no. Council President Pro
Tem Buckshnis asked if the council should request funding in the 2023-2025 capital budget for the marsh.
?Mr. Tatum answered that could be done. Ms. Munguia commented there are two looking at 0,vo
diffident things, 1) whether to seek a capital budget appropriation similar to the one in the current biennial
budget that would go toward the "urchase of the march if that will happen in the 2023-2025 biennium,
in ... and 2) whether to ask the legislature to reapp pFreappropriate the $258,000 aite-for the supplemental
budget that will come out in early 2023 for the current fiscal year. of ftinds fealloeate, not see nee"
motion to do that.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 32
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO AA TT —REQUEST ANOTHER CAPITAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE
MARSH IN THE 2023-2025 BIENNIUM AND REDIRECT THE CURRENT EXIST-INGFUNDS
TO A DIFFERENT PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.COUNGILMEMBE
Councilmember Chen referred to Item bu"et-�l0, public safety vehicular pursuits,
euffently which currently reads, "Support clarification of the ability to conduct vehicular pursuits using
a reasonable suspicion standard...". He asked if the intent was to seek clarification or was it supporting
reconsideration of vehicle pursuits using the reasonable suspicious standard. Ms. Munguia said she did
not craft that language; depending on the council's position, the language could be modified €y-to be
mse-more general and not as specific, depends on .:,here ^ ei 's position on that Mr. Defer to Taw,„
Tatum said his understanding of this item is support for legislation that would give police the ability to
conduct vehicle pursuits using a reasonable suspicion standard as opposed to probable cause which is the
standard now.
... Councilmember Chen answered if any bills had been proposed to reverse that standard. Mr.
Tatum answered he did not know of aaMspecific bills,,but it is on the WASPAC's agenda. Ms. Munguia
added -some legislators are entertaining sponsoring that, but she has not -,4te -seen gMlanguage yet. If it
Ls pre -filed, that will be available filled soon.
_Councilmember Chen proposed changin&^ „.ordi ^ 4 ^m `°clarification" to "reconsideration." fitly
The current standard is probable cause which is a much higher standard and results in c-anse-public safety
concerns when immediate danger occurs. .
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND ITEM 10 TO READ, "SUPPORT .
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT VEHICULAR PURSUITS USING
REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARD..." WITH "RECONSIDERATION."
Councilmember Nand seek clai4fie-atioa E)a this,asked ifasked if this was &-s-seeking to lower the burden C%4
of proof on police officers for their on --assessment of when they engage in a vehicular le -pursuit; the N
r
gFenerality of the language made it difficult for her to ri aks diffie ilt to under-sta-a understand. Mr. Tatum
w
answered he is not a_police officer, but his understanding was there is a difference between probable
cause and reasonable suspicious, probable cause is a much higher level of certainty that someone has
engaged in criminal activity as opposed to reasonable suspicion. The use of probable cause as a z
standard has This has the number of people who run_nfrom the police because th�know
thats high standard must be met before police can pursue them. This language would lower the Q
standard.
Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding that the duty of care that a police officer who decides to
engage in a pursuit owes the general public versus whoever is effected by the criminal behavior
usually comes into play durin& inrlitigation if there is a fatal accident where a bystander is killed. She
questioned whether taking a position to change that standard was_—... eem6agsomething the City should
pursue as part of its legislative package_, take s4ang stand ra Do not see
this.how jttstif� Mr. Tatum explained the reason it is -included on the legislative agenda is because it is a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 33
challenge the police are dealing with and the have seen an increase in flight from police. The police
department requested to have this This was one of their asks to have this clarified.
Mayor Pro Tem. Olson suggested a different approach, tak-etrtremoving" "clarification of' so the bullet
point reads," as differ -eat way of aekieving what motion making -.-Support ^1^Fifiea4ien 9 the ability to
conduct vehicular pursuits using a reasonable suspicion standard..."te eon;
Councilmember Chen said his motion was to p,.,,,.-sal was to change the wording to reconsideration and
Mayor Pro Tem Olson's suggestion has the same effect, basically just —asking the -legislature to
reconsider using the lower standard versus probable cause. ^ ^Moves that p••rp
Councilmember Tibbott expressed his support for either version of the motion okay with either- ver-sio
Councilmember Nand did not support nethe council taking a position on this. It is a vVery sensitive issue
and an officer's decision to engage in a vehicular pursuit usually only arises in the context of litigation
where a bystander or the suspect themselves is seriously injured or killed due to a pursuit. She was not ;
and going baek and using iffor whether. Usually only eemes up in eentext of litigation... E) r-
kille der f ptir-s it Not eemfeittblecomfortable with lowering the legal standard for an
officer's decision to engage in a pursuit; there should .. Should be probable cause because it is a ,
dangerous activity that can earrkill get -members of the public, the officer or a suspect. She summarized
this was nNot something the council should be undertaking in its legislative a e� nda. p"
Mayor Pro Tern Olson said she has heard a lot regardingthis h�pic from 0 this f fm m^-- parties
including mayors and police officers. There has been a real uUptick -in blatant violations knowing there
is no ability for the police to te-pursue. Most jurisdictions do not want to do high speed pursuits, but the
fact that an officer cannot pursue without meeting the . R„A f et eannat pufsue without this really high
standard of probable cause has made it difficult for law enforcement to keep the communitye
safe from people who are Joy riding and doing other reckless things. She expressed her she -support for the
motion.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN AND
TIBBOTT AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND
NAND VOTING NO; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
• il N
N
N
Rail
N
cotmeilffleffiber- Chen yes
C
E
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 34
8.1.a
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the 5' and 611 bullet points in Item 4, commenting in communities like
Edmonds, storm drains were installed many years ago and the related culverts are almost always
undersized. That needs to be pointed out because the culvert issue in the City is related not only to
stormwater management but also salmon recovery efforts.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THE 6TH BULLET POINT UNDER ITEM 4, TO READ,
"SUPPORT LEGISLATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS THAT PROMOTE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLANNING. COORDINATION. AND IMPLEMENTATION AT A
WATERSHED SCALE INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF IMPROPERLY SIZED CULVERTS ON
CITY OWNED, STATE OWNED, AND RAIL SYSTEM OWNED LAND."
N
0
N
Councilmember Teitzel explained he had an opportunity to visit te-=P�the Perrinville Creek
N
s4uie situation near Talbot Road and observed the stormwater system that is not ...
€tinetingfunctioning well due to the ,aA e f A* is culvert under Talbot Road as well as the undersized
culvert under the and-ander-ffailroad bridge. That area often fliloods during heavy rain events eften-and
scouring in the ingstreambed is making it flood prone as well as afW-resistant to fish recovery efforts.
c
z
Councilmember Nand asked whether the change would also include asked language eity owned and state
N
evffled, -alse-mea*--privately owned land_?L-Councilmember Teitzel said he did not mention
privately owned land but that is a good point. He is aware of property owner rights and in some cases
there are privately owned culverts, but agreed privately owned land should be included in his motion. jaut
S
good ssue also have... in some eases privately owned eulvefts. Changer- amendment
Councilmember Teitzel reread estated the amended motion.
f°
"SUPPORT LEGISLATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS THAT PROMOTE
a
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND
U)
IMPLEMENTATION AT A WATERSHED SCALE INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF
o
IMPROPERLY SIZED CULVERTS ON CITY OWNED, STATE OWNED, PRIVATELY
OWNED AND RAIL SYSTEM OWNED LAND.11SUPPPORT LEGISLATION....
p
L
REPLACEMENT OF 1AWROPER-LY SIZED CULVERTS.... PRIVATELY OMINED A
Q
RAIL SYSTEM OMINED LAND.
Q
N
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. N
N
r
W
Councilmember Tibbott said the wording in the legislative agenda regarding the hBlake decision_;
wording in legislative agenda begin to addresses the issues that originally brought the bh*eBlake
deeiensdecision -about, but it needs to be btA need strengthen by changing the two referral
requiernentrequirements for legal leet4ai*certain
Q
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO REQUEST THE STATE BUR-ELEGISLATURE REMOVE THE TWO
REFERRAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE BLAKE DECISION.
Councilmember Tibbott commented as Ms. Munguia pointed out, it is very difficult for cities to apply
that rule and is an . One of these -issue that police a PolieeDdepartments wrestle -with. The le islg ature
needs to make that chan eg and he recommended the City'� Ih-and4egislature agenda be strengthened by
needs make tha4 ehange. Stfe ghent legis a4ive agen Jej adding that wording.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 35
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING-ABSTAININGNO.:
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis referred to Iitem 7i4un4*nfunding for arts grand the creative
economy, pointing out the arts stimulates the economy and Edmonds is a Creative District. As the arts
ads - -(connects everybody and have a tremendous impact on tourism, she suggested adding language
about sunnortina the creation of creative districts and funding for creative districts. brine in fact sunDo
or- stfengthen and bringaek. TMr. Tatum offered to revise the language in Item 7will do that.
2. RESOLUTION ON FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE EMERGENCY INTERIM CG STEP
BACKSTEP-BACK ORDINANCE 4278
742
Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin advised this is a follow --up on last week's public
hearing and subsequent action by council to request findings of fact. This is related to the Commercial
General (CG) zone step -back and the emergency interim ordinance that was approved on October 4,
2022. She thanked communitv members and the Terrace Place development team for taking the time to
meet with City staff and councilmembers to )..et a €<€
PT
History last week. Thank eemmunity members and develepmepA team Fofeteffa Plaee meet wit
eouneilmember- and staff �'better understanding of the implications_ on one particular site. She
emphasized This emer-geney or-d anee all parcels across the street from residential in the CG zone would
be subject to this emergency ordinance which equates to- 39 acres 10% of the CG zoned properties.
She reviewed:
• Highway 99 Subarea Planning
Highway 99 Subafea Planning
R
o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077) i
o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) a
o Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079) Q
o Vision 2040 award from PSRC N
N
N
N
• Interim Ordinance Process
o October 4 2022 - council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) w
■ With assumption that information in the DEIS was not carried forward into the FEIS and
subsequent code amendments in ECDC 16.60 E
■ Following furtherStaff research, staff recommends atien,-not te-include step b"step_ U
back across the street from single family Q
o November 15, 2022 - council held a public hearing and directed staff to return with findings
of fact
o Tonight - council must issue findings to retain or vacate interim ordinance
Step -back means the upper portion of a building that is required to set (or stepped( back further
baek-than the minimum setback otherwise required by ECDC 16.20.020(A).
.. .�
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 36
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 36
8.1.a
Interim CG step b tekAgp-back across from RS zone
2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet in
height shall step- step -back no less than eight feet from the required street setback. That
portion of building over 55 feet in height shall stepjxi�4step-back no less than 16 feet from the
required street setback.
xdght Llmit 75' ��
• Critical information discovered since
I I ' -
Q emergency interim ordinance
I8. 6 Q 0 Step aekStep-backs across the
e street from RS zones were considered and
dismissed in 2017
I I Council discussed on June 20,
3 July 18, and July 31, 2017
u - July 18 staff agenda
memo offered step baekstep-back options of an
I i even lesser extent of 5'; Council did not include
step step -backs in their recommended draft
language although it was discussed at hearing and
staff made explanation of why they were not
recommended.
■ Council unanimously approved
CG code without step aekAep-backs across the street from RS on August 15, 2017
(along with unanimous approval of Subarea Plan and Planned Action SEPA FEIS)
■ Step ba&Step-backs adjacent to RS zones were included in the CG code in revised
ECDC 16.60, those across the street were not included
Design rationale
o The street adds significant separation which reduces the potential impacts to the property
across the street
o Coupled with the setback requirements on both subject properties, the distance between
structures could be 80-100+ feet
0 Example of Terrace Place and the effect of the right-of-wav senaratina buildings
■ Total of 115'
- 25' setback
N
N
N
N
r
LU
C
d
E
t
C�
R
r
Q
o From a shadowing perspective, step -back oftentimes do not make much if any difference in
providing relief from shading
o Other mitigating factors for massing across from single family include:
em High quality streetscape especially street trees (required in streetscape zone)
em High quality fagade (glazing requirements)
Strong design guidelines to provide variety and interest in architectural details, fagade
articulation, site features and building materials
e
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 37
As part of the planned action and updates to the code, this is an administrative decision.
sStaff makes discretionary decisions on how well projects comply with the design guidance in
Chapter 16.60. dec-isio
Staff recommendation/next steps
o Based on new information, staff recommends vacating the interim ordinance
■ Recognizing benefit of early collaboration with neighborhood, staff recommends
neighborhood meeting requirements be amended into the CG code (16.60) on the
December 6' consent agenda
■ Staff has the ability to require shadow studies
■ Staff also has the ability to require setbacks or step -backs on a case by case basis (beyond
existing code) by administrative discretion to determine compliance with CG zone
o If the emergency ordinance is retained and findings of fact are adopted, staff will take project
through the planning board to consider modifications, and back to council in early 2023.
Councilmember Teitzel asked about the comment if the emergency ordinance is abandoned tonight, staff
has the hamability to require step I ekstep-backs on a case by case basis. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes,
that is in 4--Chapter 16.60.030. With regard to the Catineilme Y e - Teitzel r^ Terrace Place project
specifically, Councilmember Teitzel observed; the north side, the 236' street side, -,that borders a street
with a church and a large parking lot across the street; there are; no single family homes on that side of
the building within 100 yards on that side of building. The property the church is located on is greperty
ehweh s zoned orris -residential and he asked if the asked if eoul' waive step ba step -back requirement
could be waived on that side witlrat staff s -discretion. Ms. McLaughlin said she did not want to get into
design review of the Terrace Place project at this meeting, but the; shadow studies indicate .,men
given the right-of-way width, the location of the existing buildings and the required setbacks, there will
not be a ... not has v^ -a-shading issue. That being said, if staff had complete discretion and there was no
ordinance requiring step -backs of a certain dimension, staff could -require step -backs on the north side.
Councilmember Teitzel explained the reason for his question was to make sure he and the residents were
clear that staff has the lability on a case by case basis to require step b tekstep-backs on a project if it o
is warranted. Ms. McLaughlin reed. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. hef >
Clugston and the residents who met with him andm Councilmembers Paine and Olson -axdat the a
site; it was very helpful to have an informal_ te4iavetwo-way dialogue that is not limited to three Q
minutes at a council meeting. Use f,'
N
N
] N
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to the SEIS that council approved on October 18, 2022 on w
the 10118 to be a-o„^ in subarea plan and asked how this impacts that. but fiat see talk4 g "bout it Ms.
McLaughlin explained the issue at handy stepbacks across the street from F^�residential zoned
properties, was —discussed and identified in the DEIS, but was determined not to have a ... not R
significant impact and was not a mitigation measure in the FEIS for that reason. Relative to the SEIS,
there are -issues that the neighborhood identified such as li-e-displacement, transportation, Q
analyzing adjacent eei:Fdirsecorridors particularly 84t'', etc. that may not have been thoroughly analyzed as
part of the irrprevious EIS and that would be an addendum or supplemental EIS. The cGouncil already
adopted that as direction to staff se -and staff will be pursuing that SEIS.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis d4nk-opined there SEIS should be done seneersooner rather
than later on these large projects. If the council adopts findings of fact, she will f4f make that
amendment. The council aApproved having an SEIS and she waslE-9 trying to figure out the timing. Ms.
MeLauglieMcLaughlin asked if Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis was wondering how the step
b-aelfstep-back issue rolls into the SEIS. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis said she was not concerned
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 38
8.1.a
about the 4ep-bae4step-back although the step -back may/may not have an impact on the SEIS, but that
was unknown because the SEIS has not been done. It was her understanding the SEIS would be started
before "all this stuff came forward." Ms. L ughlin explained an SEIS is a significant
undertaking for staff and consultants and includes a request for proposal (RFP) process which tends to
take quite a while.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis observed a SEPA checklist was completed recently. Ms.
MeLaugliaMcLaughli answered this discussion is not about an individual project; each project is
required to go through a threshold analysis to ensure it is consistent with the impacts and associated
mitigation identified in the FEIS for the planned action. Mr. Taraday said the expedited type of SEPA
review that happens through a planned action is still happening, nothing changed with the planned action
ordinance. As of right now, when new applications come in, they use the expedited SEPA that is allowed
through the planned action ordinance. He distinguished that from regular SEPA which would include a
full blown threshold determination, analysis of impacts, whether impacts needed to be mitigated, etc. That
regular SEPA does not happen as long as the development thresholds are under the levels set forth in the
planned action ordinance.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if council approved the planned action. Mr. Taraday
answered it was approved by council in 2017. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested relooking
at that. She asked about the thresholds in the planned action ordinance. Mr. Taraday said he did not have
them memorized but guessed there was still quite a bit of room before the thresholds were met. Ms.
McLaughlin answered that was in the planned action 5 year review packet. Development is well within
the thresholds. The number of dwelling units anticipated in the cumulative environmental impacts in the
planned action was 3,325. There are also other thresholds in the planned action EIS.
Councilmember Tibbott commented it was interesting to review the documents related to the council's :9
decision in 2017, recalling at that time he raised questions about transition zones and step b tekstep-backs.
When the council was presented with the opportunity for step baekstep-backs or setbacks with public
space and landscape amenities and moving buildings further back from the center of street, the council vn
opted for setbacks that would provide public amenities as well as landscaping. In this particular situation, o
not only is the building moved back from street, but wider sidewalks and trees are also added. Whenever
tall buildings are proposed in the CG zones, they come with landscaping and other public amenities. He o
was confident the council made the best decision it could at the time with the information they had. The a
code was written and developers complied with code in terms of their plans for the project, ,went to great Q
expense to remove hazardous waste on that property, and made plans for public space and landscaping. N
cm
He expressed support for vacating the interim ordinance N
r
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO w
VACATE THE INTERIM ORDINANCE.
E
Councilmember Tibbott advised there were a number of reasons for the motion, including the comments
he already made, and that there are better ways to evaluate any project proposed in a CG zone. In Q
particular, the City is entering into the largest redevelopment project via the redevelopment of Highway
99. This will not only provide amenities for existing businesses but also future residents who want to take
advantage of transit options as well as business development options. He personally looked forward to the
upgrade that can happen as development occurs along Highway 99 in the CG zone. He also wanted to
ensure this was a time to add greater improvements and priorities in that area. He did not find the interim
ordinance helpful at this time.
If the emergency interim ordinance was extended and findings of fact adopted, Councilmember Paine
asked when it would expire, whether it would be in six months. Ms. McLaughlin advised if findings of
fact were approved tonight, a decision would need to be made by April 2023. Mr. Taraday advised the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 39
8.1.a
emergency interim ordinance was adopted on October 4, 2022 and he assumed it became effective
immediately. Therefore, if the council adopts the resolution tonight, it will remain in effect for six months
from October 4, 2022.
Councilmember Paine commented this is such a big issue and she is feeling on fence about it now that a
motion has been made. Councilmembers have heard from this community, a community they have not
heard much from in the past and it is vitally important to listen to them now that specifics are available.
She anticipated the City could do a bit better because the massing of a 75' tall building next to single
family housing is huge. Conversely, there absolutely needs to be consistency within the code so
developers can do the work they want to do. As Councilmember Tibbott said, redevelopment of Highway
99 is the biggest project the City has undertaken. She was unsure there had been enough consideration
given to how vehicles exit off Highway 99 and travel on side streets into neighborhoods. She was hopeful
the area would be more transit oriented so there needs to be better pedestrian paths. She was aware there
were some things in the budget to address it and that there are federal funds that can be used. She was
torn, relaying she respected the need for good design standards, and good developers; a developer does
not clean up a site without being mindful of what is happening in the neighborhood.
With regard to access points, sidewalks and transit oriented development, Ms. McLaughlin clarified the
issue today is only step kiaEkstep-backs. With regard to TOD, there are some aspects in the existing design
guidelines that speak to transit access, particularly because Highway 99 is the most transit oriented
corridor in the City. The requirements in the new CG zone for sidewalks are greatly improved compared
to the old CG standards. Transitional zoning, massing and height is not the issue at hand today with
regard to step -backs. Massing can be mitigated in a variety of ways and those tools are already
in the CG zone. She reviewed the CG requirements in Chapter 16.60 and was reassured regarding the
amount of discretion staff has, even the ability to recommend step b wkqqp-backs and setbacks for certain
buildings. The distance of 118 feet between single family and a standard CG zone building equates to
almost 2-3 parcel; a couple feet is unlikely to make much difference. Other issues such as equity,
displacement, etc. will be discussed as part of the SEIS.
Councilmember Paine said one of the issues is this development is underway and the necessary sidewalk
infrastructure is not in place. She recalled when visiting the area yesterday seeing a person using a
wheelchair who had to use the street. She acknowledged with development comes better infrastructure,
but it is not there now.
Councilmember Nand recalled during audience comments someone speaking from the perspective of a N
developer seemed to indicate the City lacked a design review process and Ms. McLaughlin indicated N
during her presentation that it may be desirable during the next project to have more neighborhood
contact than was undertaken with the Terrace View Apartments. She questioned why the subarea plan did w
not foresee the need for neighborhood contact and asked staff to speak to that from an equity perspective
as it seemed like there was extensive neighborhood contact when any zoning changes occur in the bowl z
because it is a high attention area. Ms. McLaughlin recalled the first time this was brought up to council,
her recommendation was, regardless of what happened with the emergency ordinance, a community Q
meeting needed to be required at the onset of new projects in the CG zone. She agreed it was an equity
issue as it was required in other areas of the City. That was done with some intentionality; five years ago
the City may not have been as well versed in that regard. The notification where property owners receive
a postcard about a public meeting for a proposed project process can be very formal.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, she did not think a notification process was the right approach given that a lot
of people are not comfortable with a public process. She recommended an actual sit-down with the
developer and the neighborhood. Other jurisdictions do that and they have better outcomes via informal
conversations instead of a microphone and a public process. She recommended amending 16.60 to require
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 40
8.1.a
a neighborhood meeting. With regard to design review, the person who spoke is not the architect for the
project; the City has design guidance as part of the CG zone which she reviewed extensively today. Those
can always be improved upon, possibly via the SEIS process. The current design guidance is actually
pretty good and offers a lot of design discretion. Design review was intentionally not included in the CG
zoning requirements largely due to an attempt to streamline development and put design guidelines in
place that staff can administer.
With regard to the motion, Councilmember Nand expressed appreciation for the work staff has done to
remedy the lack of neighborhood contact and allow affected property owners to have contact with the
neighborhood, but she felt this was a significant equity issue and therefore the council should uphold the
emergency ordinance. There is a significant perception that it is okay to impose these changes from the
top down on a more working class community with more people of color, something that has to be
remedied within the political and planning process and may be accomplished via the comprehensive plan
update. The council needs to send a signal to the community that their concerns are being heard and that
their desires and wants for their community will receive the same level of care as the much more affluent
community members who live in the bowl and are more comfortable with the political process. These are
people who are attempting to engage in the political process and voice their concerns for the first time.
For those reasons, she will support extending the emergency ordinance.
Ms. McLaughlin said her comment was not that people to date have not been familiar with the public
process, she was just talking about the standard notice that is provided to the broader neighborhood.
Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation to Ms. McLaughlin for bringing this together in
tonight's presentation. With regard to timing, the interim ordinance was adopted October 4, 2022 and c
adopting findings of fact will buy six months until April 4, 2023. He asked what the City could do during
those six months to change the situation in this area with regard to the lack of parks, sidewalks, amenities
and the concerns that have been voiced. Ms. McLaughlin answered this emergency ordinance, similar to
the recent BD2 zone process, would an immense amount of staff resources to move through a public
process which includes both the planning board and the council, for an issue that staff has researched vP
thoroughly and finds the step b"step-back is not warranted from a design perspective. She advised the o
SEIS also needs to be resourced so these items are actually competing with each other and added to that is
the comprehensive plan update which is a colossal citywide effort. Taking this very focused step 0
baekstep-back across the street from residential through to adoption in six months will be a resource a
challenge and will delay the SEIS. Q
N
N
Councilmember Chen asked if it would be enough time to perform the SEIS. Ms. McLaughlin answered N
until the scoping of the SEIS is completed, she was not sure of the breadth of that effort and did not know w
how long it would take. An SEIS or an addendum can take 6 months or 18 months, it is hard to say
without scoping, especially when dealing with transportation. She would like to move on the SEIS
quickly, but the planning manager position is currently vacant and she hopes to have that position filled z
by the end of the year so both the comprehensive plan scoping and the SEIS scoping can proceed.
Q
Councilmember Chen commented the budget process includes a couple of decision packages to improve
the sidewalk on 84t1i as well as the green street decision package which would improve the situation in this
area. Ms. McLaughlin advised the Housing Hope and Terrace Place developments along with capital
investment will help complete the micro sidewalk network in that area.
Councilmember Teitzel said council has clearly heard the concerns from residents in that area about the
massing and mitigating it to the extent possible. Until he arrived tonight, he was strongly leaning toward
continuing the emergency ordinance because it would provide a tool to require mitigation in the form of
step 6aAqp-backs. He recalled Ms. McLaughlin's answer to his question about the ability for staff to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 41
8.1.a
require step -backs in specific instances such as this development. He asked how clear that commitment
was; not a recommendation to the developer, a requirement if staff felt step bae step -backs were
necessary for aesthetic purposes. Ms. McLaughlin agreed it was a commitment. Asking for a shadow
study provides a sense of the need and allows adjustments to be made to a building's massing to mitigate
shadows, tools that are already available to staff. Before this started, staff had already discussed and
required a shadow study for Terrace Place.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed shadow studies are helpful, but in this case regardless of whether there
were step ba akAep-backs or not, it would not affect shadowing of residences across the street. However,
the issue is the mass of the building and single family across the street from a 70-foot vertical wall
without any modulation in the form of step -backs; that is an aesthetic issue that he agreed with. He was
feeling more confident now that staff has a tool to address that. Council has also heard about the need for
additional sidewalk improvements, traffic safety improvements, and additional park space and are N
addressing that in the 2023 budget on a separate, but parallel track. He anticipated the residents will be N
pleased with what they will see in that regard when the budget is complete. Ms. McLaughlin referred to N
16.60.030.D.2.b which states the bulk and scale of buildings over 3,000 square feet of footprint shall be N
mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation, modulation, .0
setbacks, step -backs, distinctive rooflines or forms, or other design details. She noted 3,000 square feet
was about the size of a single family residence these days so it will cover almost 99.9% of buildings. o
z
N
Mayor Pro Tern Olson said she tries to make her decisions rationally and thoughtfully and not based on
emotion and had to work hard not to let emotion creep in on this issue. She feels for the community and c
the stressors already on this neighborhood in the context of the infrastructure that is and is not there today.
Placing that emotion in the proper place, being fully committed and invested in making sure that the c
improvements they want to see is the right move. In the context of doing this and being rational and
looking at the decision to leave out the mitigation for across the street step baekstep-back confirmed in
her mind that the 2017 council got it right. In her impression even up three levels, what a pedestrian
experiences is not that altered except for the shade the building casts or the views it blocks. After taking
pictures at eye level of a building of this height from across the street at the distance this would be, she vP
felt the experience was not altered by the height of the building but by the building's aesthetics. o
Mayor Pro Tern Olson continued, she was hearing from the community that they were looking for o
mitigation, but she did not feel this mitigation would deliver anything that made them happy. In fact, the a
City needs to double down on the design standards and other amenities that will make a difference for Q
each project. She was personally committed, felt staff was committed and heard a lot of care from the N
developer about delivering something that will be a real positive for the neighbors. She was happy for the N
communications that have occurred between staff, the neighbors and the developer and expected to get to w
a good place with the focus on design standards and changes to the code to require neighborhood
meetings. She looked forward to moving those things forward at the first opportunity, maybe even before
the new year. If she lived there, she wouldn't be excited at having a four story building across the street, z
but she didn't see a difference with a seven -story building; what someone sees when walking straight out
their front door is what needs to be mitigated. Q
Mr. Taraday pointed out the motion on the floor is to repeal the interim ordinance. The council packet
does not include an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Staff was following council direction to
draft a resolution with findings of fact to continue the ordinance. He suggested to the extent the council
wanted to vote on this motion, staff will interpret it as a preliminary motion to direct staff to bring back an
ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Because this is a special meeting, final action cannot be taken
on something that is not on the agenda. If this motion is approved, staff will bring back an ordinance on
the consent agenda at the next council meeting to repeal the interim ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 42
8.1.a
Mayor Pro Tern Olson said she takes responsibility for putting forward the motion at last week's meeting
directing staff to only provide a resolution with findings of fact in the packet. In hindsight that was a
mistake and coupled with tonight being a special meeting, she created a difficult situation.
UPON ROLL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3); COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, COUNCILMEMBE
TIBBOTT, PAINE AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson declared a brief recess.
3. CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT EXTENSION DISCUSSION
Councilmember Teitzel explained on September 20, 2022, the council discussed forming a council work
group to investigate issues around the city attorney contract; those issues included vetting the data
presented on August 23 in the city attorney annual report. The work group verified the numbers reported
were accurate in terms of the effective hourly rates for 2021 and 2022. The work group has worked
through several options for council to deliberate on tonight regarding how to proceed with the contract.
The goal is to share the information with council, deliberate and get direction from council about where to
go from here. The work group is also asking for council approval of up to $2500 in additional spending
from the council contingency fund for an independent legal review by Madrona Law Group of whatever
contract the council agrees to pursue as well as an associated issue regarding public record requests about
the contract.
Councilmember Teitzel advised he will provide an overview of the project, Councilmember Paine will
present the various options she has been working on with Lighthouse, and Councilmember Chen will
present the revenue and expense effects of the various contract options. As context, he relayed the work
group learned in March 2022, Lynnwood signed a city attorney contract with a Kenyon Disend; in that
contract, the lead attorney Michael Kenyon charges $370/hour and junior attorneys charge $195-
$3 1 0/hour. He suggested councilmembers keep those hourly rates in mind during tonight's discussion;
they represent the market rate for contracted city attorney services.
Councilmember Teitzel said one of the prime reasons for having a contract extension with Lighthouse for 'o
one year is to allow the council to do its due diligence. There are various schools of thought about how a
the City should obtain city attorney services; some believe that function should be brought in-house and Q
be a direct report to the mayor, others want to consider another contractor, and others want to continue C,
with Lighthouse. The work group will work through those issues and ensure all the data is brought to c`m
council so the best informed decision can be made with regard to how to proceed next year. He requested cV
clear direction from council regarding which option to pursue and once that direction is provided, the w
work group will work with Madrona to refine that contract and bring it back for final approval on
December 6. He also requested council approve funding of up to $2500 for an additional external legal E
review with Madrona Law Group.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM Q
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF THE MADRONA CONTRACT FOR UP TO
$2500.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion, advising the work group needs the outside
advice.
Councilmember Teitzel clarified the request is for up to $2500. Depending on the option council chooses,
a complete legal review of the contact may not be needed as they already reviewed one version of the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 23
Packet Pg. 43
8.1.a
contract. There needs to be review of the public records requests that have been made recently due to
legal overtones. He concluded the actual expense maybe less than $2500.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST THE $2500 COME OUT OF THE
GENERAL FUND INSTEAD OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis asked why Councilmember Chen wanted it funded from the
general fund when there are funds available in the council contingency fund. Councilmember Chen said
the city attorney contract benefits the entire City and not just the council.
Councilmember Paine commented this is very specific to council work and is directly related to the work
group needing specific legal advice and there are adequate funds in the council contingency fund.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND CHEN
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine restated the motion:
APPROVE AN AMOUNT OF UP TO $2500 FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MADRONA LAW
GROUP CONTRACT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine referred to Attachment B which includes a description of the two options that will
be presented tonight and seven other scenarios that the work group or Mr. Taraday considered but they
were discarded. She reviewed:
Option 1: Flat fee contract
• Includes 7.5% CPI-U increase from 2022 rates
• Removes the need for city attorney attendance at council committee meetings as well as other
board/commissions, unless requested o
• No changes in available hours a
• Adds language allowing Lighthouse Law Group to respond to community commentary from time Q
to time, and within the bounds of Rules of Professional Conduct. N
N
N
Councilmember Paine invited City Attorney Jeff Taraday to speak to the last bullet. Mr. Taraday r
explained one of the roles the city attorney should play in the community is making sure decision makers w
are informed with regard to their choices and the laws surrounding their choices. He is noticing an
increase in dialogue about City business in the community outside council chambers in a way that is not m
accurate. In the interest of a more informed civil discourse in the community, the city attorney can play a
role with council permission in contributing to that conversation. He currently does not have that
permission. RPC 1.6 states lawyers are not supposed to discuss the representation, a term that is pretty Q
broad. He believed the community would benefit from having the council giving the city attorney
permission from time to time to chime in when it could enhance the civil discourse; it would not be a duty
and the city attorney would not have to answer every question they receive from a citizen. For example,
during public comment tonight it was represented that the proposed contract violates the Rules for
Professional Conduct. Although he disagreed with that assertion, but could not address it unless a
councilmember asked whether the assertion was true or false. Councilmembers could do that at council
meetings, but it takes up a lot of council meeting time. This would allow that to happen outside council
meetings and get a more informed perspective out in the Edmonds community.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 24
Packet Pg. 44
8.1.a
Councilmember Paine advised the original Lighthouse contract included a 9% CPI-U increase; they are
now agreeable to a 7.5% CPI-U increase.
Councilmember Nand referred to Option A, Section 3, Payment for services, and asked if it was a
bargained for term that the working group recommends the council agree to these triggering events in
which if the City attempts to terminate the contract with Lighthouse, there is a surcharge. She asked how
the work group arrived at that in Option A and whether it was a bargained for term that the council can
continue to negotiate with Lighthouse. Councilmember Paine answered the lookback provision has been a
part of the Lighthouse contract for the last three years. Because the City pays a flat fee, it allows
Lighthouse go reassess their fees if the council decides to terminate the contract. It allows Lighthouse to
recover fees in a more typical range. The lookback offers Lighthouse an opportunity to recoup unachieved
income if the council decided to terminate the contract.
Councilmember Nand relayed her concern that this is just a standard contract and the City has a bargained N
for agreement with Lighthouse where they agree to provide services and the City agrees to pay them X. If N
for whatever reason the council decides to terminate, such as hypothetically something unethical N
occurred, she did not see why in normal business practices the City should have to a pay a surcharge if the .0
City agreed to pay the bargained for rate of $58,809/month. The risk that Lighthouse could have made
more working for someone else should have been part of the risk that Lighthouse assumed in making the o
bargain with the City. She suggested trying to drive a better bargain for the City's taxpayers. y
m
Councilmember Paine answered that was Option B. The lookback section was added to the contract three c
years ago. The City is getting a very good deal; last year's functional rate was $185/hour, this year's rate
is $175/hour which is unrealistically low and not even close to market rate. Option B looks at restricting c
some hours and getting closer to what other attorney's fees include and that option still includes
somewhat of a lookback. The lookback was included because the work group felt there was little risk the
contract would be retracted anytime during the coming year and she did not anticipate Lighthouse would
do anything wildly unethical so the work group was comfortable with the lookback in Option A. It was
also a non-negotiable with Lighthouse. vP
0
Councilmember Nand asked for confirmation of understanding that there has been an attempt to negotiate
this term with Lighthouse, but for the 2023 contract, Lighthouse has informed the City that unless they o
are allowed to tack on this surcharge if the City decides to discontinue their services, they would choose a
not to enter into a contract for 2023. Mr. Taraday answered that was essentially correct. Edmonds is the Q
only city he knows of in the State of Washington that contracts for municipal law services on a flat fee N
arrangement and Lighthouse only offers that in the context of a long term agreement. The City has N
already stated they plan to do an RFP in 2023, but that RFP tells Lighthouse it is not possible to see w
beyond 2023 whether Lighthouse will be the city attorney for a long period of time. The flat fee comes at
such a deep discount to their market rates that it does not make sense to do that in what could be their
final year of representing Edmonds. If the council wants the flat fee, they are willing to do that, but only z
with the lookback provision. If, after the RFP process, the council wants to retain Lighthouse on a four-
year contract, they would go back to a flat fee without a lookback provision, but with the City's plans for Q
an RFP, it doesn't make sense to do it this year.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis recommended removing from Option A, "Adds language allowing
Lighthouse Law Group to respond to community commentary from time to time, and within the bounds
of Rules of Professional Conduct." She anticipated this would be a rabbit hole; she probably has more
negative press than any councilmember, there are two sides to every story but she does not care to engage.
She preferred to stay high, if someone says something inaccurate, a councilmember can ask the city
attorney a question during a meeting and the city attorney can respond. She feared this would be very
subjective, recalling she and the city attorney worked with citizens at the direction of council in the past.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 25
Packet Pg. 45
She feared adding that language to the contract would dilute Lighthouse's work and people will get into
fisticuffs because people are not happy, are divisive and are armchair quarterbacks. The city attorney
works for the City and provides advice. If there are questions, it can be handled via an op-ed on the city
attorney's behalf. She feared it would go down a rabbit hole, recalling occasions when she has gone back
and forth with citizens on budgetary questions 12-15 times.
Mr. Taraday said he did not disagree with what Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis was saying in
terms of the risk. It would not be his intention to get into a back and forth with citizens over points on
which they did not see eye to eye. He assured Section 2 was not a deal breaker; he was okay if the council
did not want to include it. He viewed it as something that would help the City due to the amount of
misinformation in the community. This language would allow him for example to contact Teresa Whipple
and inquire about printing a clarification on something. It would not be responding to attacks on the city
attorney but attacks on the City about what the City has allegedly done incorrectly. He would love to be
able to respond to some of those comments and explain that the City is actually doing things right.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis commented there can be two accountants or two attorneys in a
room that think differently. She wanted the city attorney to spend their hours on City business. There will
always be someone who doesn't like what the City is doing. If something substantial is incorrect, a
statement can be made by a councilmember or the mayor. She preferred to utilize the city attorney's hours
effectively and efficiently and this would not be effective or efficient.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
CHEN, TO REMOVE SECTION 2.
Councilmember Tibbott said he liked the provision and the way the city attorney described it makes a lot
of sense. He would like to see how it works and if it is not a useful or efficient way for the city attorney to
provide correction, it could be changed next time. He summarized it was worth trying.
Councilmember Teitzel said he tends to agree with Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis. He was
concerned it would open the door to pandora's box and result in a lot of issues to respond to. There may
be other ways to address it. He was concerned if the council chose an hour by hour billing option, that
time would be billable. The next option will include discussion about how the city attorney's time is used;
the hours are quite high and that is caused by the City. The council will need to think careful about what
they are asking the city attorney to do. He expressed support for the motion.
N
Councilmember Chen had the same concern; 43,000 residents as well as people who live outside the city N
limits can make comments/attacks at council meetings. If the council approved adding that language, he
could not imagine how many hours the city attorney would spend responding. For that reason, he will w
support the motion.
E
Councilmember Nand said Mr. Taraday raises an interesting point in that as the city attorney, there may
be times where it would be beneficial for him or another attorney at Lighthouse to address concerns from Q
the public. The council's concern is that they perceive this as something that might happen on the basis of
email which she felt would be inappropriate. If the city attorney wanted to have an agenda item to address
a public concern he felt rose to a level of importance that it needed to be addressed at a public meeting,
the city attorney should have that ability. However, she did not think it would be helpful or useful to the
public for the city attorney to engage in one-to-one email communications with members of the public.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented there have been problems in past and the council
president delegates authority to a councilmember. The City has very good communication with the city
attorney, if he has concerns, it can be addressed via the legislative or administrative branch. She
summarized it was too subjective to include in the contract.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 26
Packet Pg. 46
8.1.a
Councilmember Paine said she can see both sides; she liked how Councilmember Tibbott framed it.
Edmonds is a lively community and at times information is inaccurate and she wished an explanation
could be inserted. She did not mind including the language in Option A, but not in Option B. Lighthouse
can add an accounting line so the hours spent on that activity could be tracked.
Mayor Pro Tern Olson said one of her overriding goals is building trust; to the extent this would be
helpful, she would like to try it in the one year extension of the contract. She also liked the idea of a
clarification/correction being an agenda item that goes through council and can be reflected in the media
versus a back and forth email.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND CHEN AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine reviewed:
Option B — Retainer fee contract
• Assumptions — the hourly rates are 95% of another long term client of Lighthouse; the hours
allocated are 85% of the average of the past four years of Edmonds usage.
• Hourly rates are divided into two classes; each rate class has a certain number of hours
anticipated to meet the contract budget
o $253/hour for class 1 and $336/hour for class 2
o Hours included in retainer: 2,998/year
o Month payment toward retainer: $69,594
• Removes the need for city attorney attendance at council committee meetings as well as other
board/commissions, unless requested
Includes language allowing Lighthouse Law Group to respond to community commentary from
time to time, and within the bounds of Rules of Professional Conduct.
Councilmember Paine commented this option is closer to market rate. The council should talk about "
hours; the City has gotten used to an abundance of city attorney hours and would need to figure out how o
to dial that back. It will be reduced slightly by the city attorney not attending committee meetings. The a
council may want to try this to see what more of a market rate contract looks like; additional funds would Q
need to be added to the 2023 budget. This options also includes somewhat of a lookback. Mr. Taraday N
advised there is no lookback in Option B. Councilmember Teitzel said there is no lookback; there are a N
certain number of hours included in the retainer amount and the hours are tabulated over the course of a r
year. If the City exceeds those hours, Lighthouse charges for the hours used in excess of the retainer. That w
is a not a lookback like the flat rate option.
m
Councilmember Chen confirmed Councilmember Teitzel's comment that there is no lookback in Option
B. The hours included in Option B are a total of 2,998 hours. If the City did not use all the allotted hours
in a certain month, those hours would carry forward to a future month within the year. Q
Mayor Pro Tern Olson asked Mr. Taraday to speak to a public comment that alleged one or both of the
proposed contracts were illegal. Mr. Taraday recalled during public comment a speaker cited RPC 1.5(f)
which states fees and expenses paid in advance of performance of services shall comply with Rule 1.15(a)
subject to the following exceptions. One of those exceptions, (f)2, says a lawyer may charge a flat fee for
specialized legal services. Lighthouse's contact specifically states the flat fee is paid on the last day that
services are performed. This rule is not applicable to their contract, it applies to circumstances where the
flat fee is paid in advance. This is an example of the type of information he would be able to provide if he
had that permission.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 27
Packet Pg. 47
8.1.a
Councilmember Teitzel said if the council considered the retainer option, it would include approximately
3,000 hours. The run rate for attorney hours in 2022 will be about 3700 hours. Choosing the retainer
option will require going on a pretty extensive city attorney hour diet in 2023, otherwise the City will be
paying by the hour in addition to the retainer. He cautioned the council to keep in mind that the retainer
model will require some discipline. He recalled Councilmember Chen saying the current model with
Lighthouse is a buffet style, all you can eat and go back for seconds and thirds which is attractive, but that
is not the real world in terms of the way contracts typically work. The options before council include the
buffet option and a more real world retainer option. If the council chooses the retainer scale, the number
of hours the city attorney is asked to work will need to be scaled back somehow, otherwise it will be very
expensive.
Mayor Pro Tern Olson said in looking at the remaining items on the agenda, it was unlikely the council
will have time for the council budget discussion and still get home before midnight. The council agreed
that that item would be postponed and staff could plan accordingly.
Councilmember Paine relayed she asked Mayor Nelson if a reduction in hours would work for the
administration and he said absolutely not. There is enough going on, some of it was in the legislative
agenda as well as changes to policing, the code rewrite, etc. and those are things the council needs to keep
in mind. Lawsuits can crop up at any moment and there is no idea how much time they will take.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis said based on her knowledge of 10 years working with Lighthouse,
Ebb Tide took a significant amount of time and lawsuit that has been concluded. She agreed the City
needed to be more conscientious of the city attorney's time. Not having the city attorney attend committee
meetings will reduce his hours by 8-9/month. She hoped to get back to a more even hourly working
relationship with Lighthouse. She was in favor of Option A. To ensure the council was not operating
under any misconceptions, Mr. Taraday advised Ebb Tide has appealed so the appeal will be ongoing in
2023.
Councilmember Chen relayed the financial impact of the two options. o
Option A: Flat rate with a lookback clause
• The 7.5% CPI-U increase to the 2022 rate of $53,953 is $58,000 or $696,000/year
• If the City disengaged with Lighthouse anytime in 2023, the lookback clause kicks in. Q
o Worst case scenario would be if the council decided in December 2023 to disengage, the
maximum lookback would be 8 months of legal services based on the average hours for four N
cm
years for the 2 tiers of services N
■ Tier 1: $266/hour, average hours is 1,624 for a total charge of $431,984 w
■ Tier 2: $354/hour, average hours is 727 for a total charge of $257,358;
■ Added together is a total of $689,342
■ Under that scenario, the City receives a refund for 8 months of the flat rate so the net z
maximum lookback is $225,342
Q
Option B: Retainer
• 85% of average historical hours requires cutting back 15% of the average hours used in prior
years.
• Lighthouse offered 5% discount from the rate they charge Maple Valley
• Class 1: 2,071 hours/year at $253/hour = $523,963
• Class 2: 927 hours/year at $336/hour = $311,472
• Total charge under the retainer option = $835,435.
• Comparing Option B to option A (not including the lookback), is a savings of approximately
$140,000.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 28
Packet Pg. 48
8.1.a
• The $140,000 savings is less than the net lookback payment of $225,342.
Councilmember Chen summarized the work group does not have a recommendation regarding the
options, it is up to the council to decide.
Councilmember Teitzel summarized the work group is asking council for clear direction regarding which
of the two options they want to pursue and depending on that direction, they will take that option back to
Madrona Law group to review it from an independent legal standpoint to ensure everything is proper. The
contract will come back to council for a final vote on December 6.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO APPROVE OPTION A.
Councilmember Paine said she also likes Option A; it is what the City is accustomed to, it is a good
option, and it has ease of use.
Councilmember Chen commented even though Option A is appealing, the City still needs to be cautious
about how much they eat at the buffet, it is not free.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Pro Tern Olson asked Mr. Taraday to speak to Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) requirements
related to three councilmembers meeting outside a council meeting and the need to advertise the meeting.
Mr. Taraday answered there is no requirement for less than a majority of the council to meet openly. It
was his understanding they were meeting in a group no larger than three. The work group did not make a
recommendation to council, but even if they had, committees are allowed to make recommendations to
the council even if they have met privately. That is straight from San Juan County case that stated making
a recommendation is not acting on behalf of the council and therefore is allowed to happen in private.
This work group did not make a recommendation so it is less removed from the facts in the San Juan
County case. From what he knew of the work group, they were on solid ground from an OPMA
standpoint.
4. 2023 COLA FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised this is the recommended COLA adjustment for non- C,
represented employees and recommended benefit changes. She reviewed: N
• Personnel Policies - Chapter 5 Compensation
o Annual Salary Adjustments W
■ Personnel Policy 5.10 NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES' ANNUAL SALARY
ADJUSTMENTS E
- The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary schedule for non -represented
employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process. Q
• 2023 Wage Adjustments for Represented Groups
o Currently the AFSCME, Teamsters, and EPOA Law Support collective bargaining
agreements are not settled for 2023
■ Given current contract language though it could be anticipated that these groups will
receive a wage adjustment of 5.5% for 2023
o The EPOA Commissioned contract is settled for 2023 but as this is a represented group that
has binding arbitration, taking this group's wage adjustments into consideration for the non -
represented employees would not be appropriate.
• 2022 Wage Adjustments
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 29
Packet Pg. 49
8.1.a
o When considering the 2023 wage adjustment for non -represented employees, City Council
should take into account the 2022 Wage Adjustments
o In 2022 City Council approved the implementation of a market study for all City positions.
This was the first time that the internal equity of positions was addressed in addition to the
external compensation data. The intent is to ensure all positions of similar requirements are
aligned internally.
o Going forward, the City will want to address the issue of maintaining some consistency in the
annual wage adjustment between all groups so as to maintain the internal equity.
o EPOA Law Support received a wage adjustment of 3% in 2022. The City has since reopened
that contract for wages to address the inflation rate and has provided an additional 2.5% wage
adjustment. Total adjustment for 2022 will be 5.5%
o The City is currently in bargaining with both the Teamsters and AFSCME for 2022 wages.
■ Given contract language it is most likely that both groups will receive a wage adjustment
of 5.5% for 2022.
o The non -reps received a wage adjustment of 3% in 2022.
■ This places the wages for non -represented positions 2.5% behind other employee groups
for 2022 and are therefore entering 2023 with a deficit.
Other Data points
o Using "comparator" organizations is often the standard in establishing compensation and has
been used by Edmonds for both represented and non- represented employees
o Using the Consumer Price Index for Urban wage earners in the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue area
is also used as data point to establish compensation levels.
Comparator Organization proposed non -rep adjustments for 2023
city
COLA
Bothell
No information
Shoreline
7.76%(considering 9.5% wage adjustment
SeaTac
5%(looking at other ways to provide staff with more money
Olympia
4%
Lacey
Not yet established
Issaquah
6% + 4% lump sum payment
Puyallup
5%
Burien
6%
Lynnwood
No information
Mukilteo
Not yet established
The median wage adjustment of comparators is 5.5%
Using CPI-U (and not CPI-W)
o The CPI is calculated for two population groups: All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The CPI-U represents about 93 percent of the
total U.S. population and is based on the expenditures of all families living in urban areas.
The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U and is based on the expenditures of families living in
urban areas who meet additional requirements related to employment: more than one-half of
the family's income is earned from clerical or hourly -wage occupations. The CPI-W
represents about 29 percent of the total U.S. population.
o Because the CPI-U population coverage is more comprehensive, it is used in most wage
adjustment calculations
How to use the CPI-U
o In order to determine the cost of inflation from one year to the next the year a period is
established be setting a base month between two years. The June to June period is the most
commonly used.
o The 2021 CPI-U, which is used to establish 2022 wages, was 5.5%
o The 2022 CPI-U, which is used to establish 2023 wages, was 10.1%
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 30
Packet Pg. 50
N
N
N
N
w
c
m
E
z
Q
8.1.a
Year June
2018 3.3
2019 2.3
2020 0.9
2021 5.5
2022 10.1
Washington State Minimum Wage Increase for 2022.
o Washington State minimum wage will increase to $15.74 per hour in 2023
o This is an increase of 8.63%
o State law requires an automatic annual inflation adjustment based on the Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the August to August
period.
What was proposed and what has occurred
o At the time the budget was submitted, June to June numbers for the CPI-U was not yet
available.
o The non -rep wage adjustment proposed in the budget was 5.5%
o Since then, the June to June numbers have been released which places the CPI-U at 10.1%
2023 COLA Recommendation
o In order to maintain internal equity of positions it is recommended that the non -represented
wage schedule be increased by 7%
o This will take into account the deficit from 2022
o Represented wage schedules will most likely be increased by 11% in total over the two year
period of 2022 and 2023
o Providing a 7% adjustment to the non -rep schedule in 2023 will provide a total of 10% over
the two year period of 2022 and 2023.
Benefit changes recommended for 2023
o In addition to wage adjustments for 2023 the following benefit changes are being
recommended in order for Edmonds to stay competitive in the labor market so that we may
retain and attract the most qualified staff.
o Health Care Premiums
Currently the City pays 90% of employee health care premiums. It is recommended that o
this be changed to 100% for employees. 90% for spouses and dependents would be a
maintained
Q
Currently, part-time employees are required to pay a pro -rated share of their health care N
premiums. With a part-time salary it is often too costly for the employee to afford the N
premium cost share. Part-time employee demographics are often women and older r
workers. w
- It is recommended that Council consider providing the same health care benefits to
part-time employees as is provided to full-time employees.
E
- This is not a common practice but will address issues of equity and place Edmonds as
a highly desirable employer for part-time positions, which are very hard to fill.
- Edmonds currently has 9 part-time employees. 2 are on the City health care plan with Q
only one of those being non -represented. Should Council approve this, additional
discussion should take place to address represented employees.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:20. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT
VOTING NO.
In response to a question whether a special meeting can be extended, Mr. Taraday advised the council is
allowed to extend a special meeting, a super majority is still required to pass the motion.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 31
Packet Pg. 51
8.1.a
Ms. Neill Hoyson continued.
o Health Care opt -out
■ It is recommended to establish a health care opt -out program that will provide employees
who opt -out of City provided health care with 50% of the premium cost of the City's
lowest cost medical plan.
- The current lowest cost plan is the Kaiser Permanente HMO with a monthly premium
of $712.20 for 2022. Employees who opt out would receive $356.10 per month.
o VEBA Contributions
■ Provide a VEBA contribution of $300 to all non -reps. Non -represented employees
received a $600 contribution in 2022 in order to address that this employee group had not
received a VEBA contribution for multiple years. Cost for this would be approximately
$15,000 in 2023.
o Update to Management Leave Policy
■ Current Policy
- To be more competitive in the market place, the City will provide non -represented
employees who are ineligible for compensatory time with 24 hours of management
leave annually. Management Leave will have no cash -out value and will not be
carried over at the end of the calendar year.
■ Comparator organizations provide, on average, 71 hours of management leave to
qualified positions with the most common amount being 80 hours.
■ Would recommend updating the policy to 80 hours of management leave for qualified
positions.
• Recommendation
o Current proposed COLA in the 2023 budget is for a 5.5% wage adjustment.
■ This will cost $364,955 in wages and $113,603 in benefits for 2023
o Should council approve the 7% wage adjustment this would cost an additional $99,533 in
wages and $30,983 in benefits for 2023 a
o Recommend the following be approved cn
■ 7% COLA for 2023 0
■ Provide 100% employer paid health care premiums for employees
■ Provide part-time employees with the same health care benefits as full-time employees
■ Establish an opt -out program for health care providing a payment of 50% of the premium a
of the lowest cost medical plan that the City offers
■ Increase management leave to 80 hours per year N
N
N
Councilmember Teitzel asked how many cities near Edmonds provide 100% benefits to part-time w
employees. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she was not aware of any that do. Councilmember Teitzel;
observed the City would be a leader on that. He asked the cost per year. Ms. Neill Hoyson displayed the m
current health care rates, advising the rate for employee only for the most expensive plan, Regence E
z
HealthFirst 250, is $834.50. If all nine enrolled, the cost would be $7,510.50/month, multiplied by 12
months is $90,126/year. Q
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to the proposal to provide employees who opt out from
health care $356/month. She asked why 50% of the premium was selected versus a different percentage.
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the comparators cities that have an opt out programs provide 50% of the cost
of their lowest health care plan. The amount paid to employees who opt out will always be 50% of the
lowest cost plan, the HMO which is Kaiser. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested rounding
that to $300/month. Ms. Neill Hoyson said that could be done, but it would not increase when health care
premiums increase every year. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented a flat amount would be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 32
Packet Pg. 52
a better budgeting tool. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, noting information regarding premiums is not received
from AWC until late in the year.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis asked if the 80 hours of management leave would be in addition to
their existing vacation leave, recalling non -represented employees get more vacation. Ms. Neill Hoyson
answered directors get 22 days of vacation. The 80 hours of management leave would be for directors and
division level managers who also do not quality for overtime. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis
observed 80 hours was an additional 2 weeks. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, they currently receive 24 hours
of management reserve.
Councilmember Paine expressed surprise that the City did not offer management leave. Ms. Neill Hoyson
advised they currently get 24 hours of management leave. Councilmember Paine said that is very, very
low. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, advising it is something that has been on her radar since she joined the N
City, but this was the first year she had an opportunity to look at it. N
N
Councilmember Paine loved the equity lens of offering payment in full for health care for part-time `�
employees. She was aware from going through the hiring process in her own personal world that it is .0
brutal and she had no objection to any of the proposals as they support the employees and honor their
work. Everyone knows how much time directors put in every Tuesday; it is a huge lift. She expressed her o
appreciation for the proposed package, indicating she was happy to support all of it. Z
N
d
Councilmember Chen referred to the proposal to pay 100% of health care premium for part-time c
employees and asked if there was any study about the usage of health care services. He wondered if
everything was free, would it have the opposite effect on the use of health care. Ms. Neill Hoyson c
answered it would not change the structure of the health care plan; employees are still signing up for
health care and paying the $83.45/month and are most likely using the health care in the same manner.
There is no change to the deductible, out of pocket max, co -pay, etc. that are built into the health care
plan. The things that drive usage are co -pays, out of pocket max, family deductibles, etc., the City
providing 100% of the premium would not increase an employee's use of the plan. v�
0
Councilmember Nand referred to the wage adjustments for represented groups (packet page 262) and
anticipation of a 5.5% wage adjustment for 2023, CPI-U of 10.1% due to inflation, and the request for a o
7% wage adjustment for non -represented employees. To provide a perception of fairness, she questioned a
whether it would be better to have more lockstep between the represented and non -represented groups. Q
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that is what would be created. The contract for the Teamsters and AFSCME, N
two of the City's biggest employee groups were not settled for 2022, the City has been in bargaining with N
them all year. The AFSCME contract was just settled today and council approved it on the consent
agenda; they received a 5.5% wage adjustment in 2022. Given trends and current contract language, she w
anticipated Teamsters will get no less than a 5.5% wage adjustment in their contract for 2022. The non -
represented employees received a 3% wage adjustment in 2022. The proposal is trying to address r
represented groups who are getting 5.5% plus retroactive pay back to Jan 1, 2022 and even out the wages
for 2023 for the non -represented employees. Councilmember Nand observed the 7% wage adjustment Q
represented more of an average for the 2 years. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, and to catch up to the
represented groups.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO APPROVE A HEALTH CARE OPT OUT OF $300/MONTH.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis suggested trying this since it is a new concept and if there is a lot
of squawking, it can be changed. She anticipated a percentage would be an accounting nightmare. Ms.
Neill Hoyson offered to bring it back to council during the next year's budget process to see if it achieved
the desired result of impacting costs.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 33
Packet Pg. 53
8.1.a
Councilmember Chen expressed support for a flat opt out rate. He asked if there would be different opt
out rates depending on the health care premium level. Ms. Neill Hoyson said if an employee chose to opt
out, they would receive 50% of lowest priced plan or $300 if the motion is approved. The original
proposal was to provide 50% of the lowest cost health care plan; that would not change based on the plan
the employee would have chosen
Councilmember Nand did not object to setting a flat rate to make accounting easier, but questioned why
the amount would be rounded down. If the opt out saves the City money, she did not want to deny
employees the extra amount.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND
SET THE OPT OUT FLAT RATE AT $350.
Councilmember Nand said if the intent was to thank employees for opting out of health care and the City
does not have to pay the premium, she preferred to be slightly more generous instead of less.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5) COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, AND TIBBOTT, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT
VOTING NO.
Mayor Pro Tern Olson said one of the things she was most excited to see was more comp time for staff;
staff put in a lot of hours and that is really warranted. She questioned the amount and offered an
amendment.
MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
BUCKSHNIS, TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT LEAVE FROM 80 HOURS TO 75 HOURS.
Councilmember Paine advised 80 hours of management leave is normal and customary across a lot of
organizations and municipalities and she found it surprising the City only offered 24 hours. When she N
worked for the City of Seattle, management leave was 80 hours. If the City wants to retain its professional N
non -reps, being competitive is certainly important. Those employees work their tails off for the City and
the council so when they need vacation time, they should have what they need. w
c
m
Mayor Pro Tem Olson referred to the comparison of management leave that showed an average of 71 E
hours and asked what the average would be if Edmonds was not included. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised
Edmonds was not included, that was an average of comparator cities. Mayor Pro Tern Olson said it was Q
such a jump from 24 to 75 that that would be a good start and it can always be reevaluated next year.
Councilmember Nand observed management leave is hours that salaried workers basically bank in lieu of
being paid for overtime. This reflects extra work/extra time that management level employees already put
in but are currently not compensated for. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, explaining it does not carry over, it
has to be used in the year it is earned, and it cannot be cashed out. Councilmember Nand asked if 80
hours was the ceiling of the amount that could be earned. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it is not accounted
for in that way. Under current policy, 24 hours of management leave is loaded at the beginning of the year
that can be used throughout that calendar year. That is how all agencies do it because what
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 34
Packet Pg. 54
8.1.a
Councilmember Nand described would be keeping track of comp time for salary exempt employees
which is not appropriate per Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) laws. Management leave takes into account
management employees who have duties outside work hours, but they do not receive overtime; in
recognition, they are provided a bank of management leave at the beginning of the year.
Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding it is allotted to employees with the assumption they
would earn it via extra hours worked. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, and it is only for the FLSA exempt
employees who are not eligible for comp time.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING BE APPROVED: 7% COLA FOR 2023, PROVIDE 100%
EMPLOYER -PAID HEALTH CARE PREMIUM FOR EMPLOYEES, PROVIDE PART-TIME
EMPLOYEES THE SAME HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES,
ESTABLISH AN OPT OUT PROGRAM FOR HEALTH CARE AS AMENDED, PROVIDE A $300
VEBA CONTRIBUTION FOR 2023, AND INCREASE MANAGEMENT LEAVE TO 80 HOURS
PER YEAR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. 2023 HR BUDGET REQUESTS
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained two positions are requested in the HR budget, the first is an
HR assistant which is an existing classification. The HR department does not currently have any
administrative support and in such a heavily papered and operational department, that becomes
everyone's job so the result is paying more highly compensated employees to do administrative type work
which is not the best use of funds and does not make the HR department the most effective. The other
position is an HR manager, a new classification that will provide a direct supervisory position under the
director who can assist with higher level HR functions that she currently performs and prevents her from
looking at more strategic initiatives that make the City more competitive, avoid litigation, etc.
Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the HR department is understaffed, that is evident via comparing HR staff to 0
100 employees. According to SHRM, the rate for an organization Edmonds size, under 150 employees, a
should be approximately 3.4 HR staff, Edmonds' ratio of HR staff to employees is currently .96 - .93 of Q
HR staff. Comparing the professional recommendation of 3.4 and Edmonds' ratio of .96-.93 illustrates the N
understaffing in HR. Additionally if the additional positions requested in the budget are approved, N
increased staff support, recruiting, onboarding, etc. will increase HR's workload. HR is also dealing with
the "great resignation" which has resulted in a lot of recruiting. If the council approves the additional two w
HR positions, the HR ratio would be approximately 1.3, still very low, but at least moving in the right
direction. E
z
Ms. Neill Hoyson continued, another aspect to consider when staffing HR is whether the department has Q
the technology to make systems more automated. The City does not have a very robust human resources
information system, it is a tack on to Eden, the City's financial system which the administrative services
director is looking at changing. The role of HR is to be highly operational, engaged in supporting the
operations, and numerous daily tasks.
With regard to growth and turnover, Ms. Neill Hoyson explained City staff is growing and there is a
massive amount of turnover which increases HR's workload. She referred to a list of items HR has not
been able to get to that would help improve employees' experience, avoid grievances, avoid potential
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 35
Packet Pg. 55
8.1.a
litigation, etc. She offered to email councilmembers her presentation. No action is required tonight, it is
information for a budget decision.
6. COUNCIL BUDGET DISCUSSION
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. ADJOURN
The council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 22, 2022
Page 36
Packet Pg. 56
N
N
N
N
r
W
C
d
E
t
C�
R
r
Q
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #225099 through #255182 dated November 23, 2022 for $1,173,962.07,
checks #255193 through #255271 dated December 1, 2022 for $356,801.70 and wire payments of
$10,880.43, $4,453.88 & $24,860.80.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claims 11-23-22
claims 12-01-22
wire 11-21-22
wire 11-29-22
wire 11-30-22
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 12-01-22
Packet Pg. 57
8.2.a
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255099 11/23/2022 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun N
INV-2-20522
EDMONDS PD - PETTIT
a0i
BLAUER SOFT SHELL FLEECE
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
129.9� a
BLAUER TACSHELL JACKET
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
264.9� 3
SEAM SEAL PATCH
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
2 NAME TAPES
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
18.0( y
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
42.7, E
INV-2-20742
EDMONDS PD - GERRARD
.@
METAL NAME PLATE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
,U
15.0( G
10.1 % Sales Tax
>
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.5E o
INV-2-20743
EDMONDS PD - MCARTHUR
a
METAL NAME PLATE
Q
001.000.41.521.11.24.00
15.0(
Freight
N
001.000.41.521.11.24.00
eM
9.5( N
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.24.00
2.5E
INV-2-21339
EDMONDS PD - SCINKOVEC
@
PATCH INSHALL
z
001.000.41.521.70.24.00
4.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
aD
001.000.41.521.70.24.00
0.4( t
INV-2-21344
EDMONDS PD- DAWKINS
BIANCHI MOLLEE CUFF CASE
Q
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
33.7E
BIANCHI OC SPRAY POUCH
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
27.7E
10.1 % Sales Tax
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 2
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255099 11/23/2022 076040 911 SUPPLY INC (Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
6.2(
INV-2-21346
EDMONDS PD - SNIFFEN
E
BIANCHI MOLLE CUFF CASE
a
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
33.7E y
BIANCHI MOLLE OC POUCH
L
3
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
27.7E
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
6.2( Y
INV-2-21466
EDMONDS PD - TIE BARS
U
TIE BARS - SILVER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
465.0( E
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
_M
17.2E
10.5% Sales Tax
w
G
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
50.6,
INV-2-21623
EDMONDS PD - COLLAR BRASS
o
EPD COLLAR BRASS - RHODIUM
a
Q.
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
284.0( Q
Freight
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.5( N
10.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
31.5E
INV-2-21682
EDMONDS PD - GERRARD
TURTLENECK
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
34.9� 2
10.1 % Sales Tax:
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
3.5<
INV-2-21683
EDMONDS PD - BENNETT
E
NAVY HOODIE
t
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
29.9f Q
CUSTOM EMBROIDERY
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
12.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
4.21
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255099 11/23/2022 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 3
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
INV-2-21685 EDMONDS PD - PETTIT
BALLISTIC VEST
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
960.0( a
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
L
93.0( '3
TRAUMA PLATE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
26.0(
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
Y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
255.0( u
SAFARILAND ID PANEL W/HEATPRI
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
27.0( E
2 NAME TAPES
M
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
18.0( u
2 VELCRO
G
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
12.0( >
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
140.5" a
INV-2-21686 EDMONDS PD - D.SMITH
Q
BALLISTIC VEST
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
960.0( M
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
93.0(
TRAUMA PLATE
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
26.0(
EXTERNAL CARRIER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
255.0(
SAFARILAND ID PANEL W/HEATPRI
a�
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
27.0( t
2 NAME TAPES
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
18.0( Q
2 VELCRO
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
12.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
140.5'
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255099 11/23/2022 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
255100 11/23/2022 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
255101 11/23/2022 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 4
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
INV-2-21689
EDMONDS PD- STANLEY
BALLISTIC VEST
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
960.0( a
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
L
93.0( '3
TRAUMA PLATE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
26.0(
EXTERNAL CARRIER
Y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
255.0( u
SAFARILAND ID PANEL W/HEATPRI
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
31.0( E
2 NAME TAPES
M
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
18.0( u
2 VELCRO
G
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
12.0( >
10.1 % Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
140.9" a
Total :
6,197.71, Q
15-98564
INTERPRETER 2AO597729
N
N
INTERPRETER 2AO597729
N
001.000.23.512.51.41.01
170.0(
15-99012
INTERPRETER 20A597730
INTERPRETER 20A597730
E
001.000.23.512.51.41.01
180.0( u
15-99650
INTERPRETER 2AO580236
INTERPRETER 2AO580236
y
001.000.23.512.51.41.01
170.0( E
Total:
520.0( u
147775538 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL Q
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12'
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 127.4<
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 13.3E
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 5
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255101
11/23/2022 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
(Continued)
147775539
FIRE INSPECTION - CITY HALL
fire inspection CITY HALL 121 5TH A`
E
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
92.5, a
Total :
233.1
L
255102
11/23/2022 065568 ALLWATER INC
111522036
FINANCE DEPT WATER
3
Finance dept water
�a
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
14.5(
10.5% Sales Tax
Y
U
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
1.5, t
111522037
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
U
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
E
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
46.0( Z
10.5% Sales Tax
c
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
4.&< 'R
Total:
66.8° o
L
Q
255103
11/23/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
6560099379
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
Q-
Q
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
60.3" N
10.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.3:
6560103068
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
N
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
E
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
60.3- 2
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.3<
6560103070
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
E
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
27.9-
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
2.91'
Total:
164.1,
255104
11/23/2022 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
125581
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255104 11/23/2022 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
255105 11/23/2022 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
255106 11/23/2022 078358 AUTOZONE STORES LLC
255107 11/23/2022 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 6
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
N
UB Outsourcing area Printing 722
a0i
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
52.8� E
UB Outsourcing area Printing 722
a
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
52.8�
L
UB Outsourcing area Printing 722
3
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
54.5(
UB Outsourcing area Postage 722
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
164.7E Y
UB Outsourcing area Postage 722
y
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
164.7E
10.25% Sales Tax
E
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
5.4, .m
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
5.4, G
10.25% Sales Tax
>
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
5.5� o
Total:
506.21a
a
84169
ROUGH BOX - NORTH
N
ROUGH BOX - NORTH
N
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
844.0( N
Total :
844.0(
4107130419
UNIT 818 - PARTS/ DISK BRAKE RC
E
UNIT 818 - PARTS/ DISK BRAKE RC
@
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
321.9E
10.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
34.1 ' E
Total :
356.05
16911
E22GA/SERVICES THRU 10.21.22
Q
E22GA/SERVICES THRU 10.21.22
423.000.75.594.35.41.00 20,093.4,
Total : 20,093.4,
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 7
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255108
11/23/2022 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC
837078
FLEET - PARTS
N
FLEET - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
310.9E E
10.25% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
31.8, a�
L
Total:
342.8: '3
255109
11/23/2022 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
1381181
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 434.60 GF
�a
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 434.60 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,035.7z .heu
Total :
1,035.7'
255110
11/23/2022 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
24717
E22JA/SERVICES THRU 10.29.22
E
E22JA/SERVICES THRU 10.29.22
2
U
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
8,916.0( 0
24727
CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.22
'R
E22CA/CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.,
>
0
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
1,730.6, a
E22CA/CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.,
Q'
a
126.000.68.542.30.41.00
1,934.2, "
E22CC/CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.;
N
423.000.75.535.80.41.21
175.4< N
E22CA/CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.,
125.000.68.542.30.41.00
2,007.4< N
EOFA/CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.22'
E
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
3,346.2E
E21 FD/CM SERVICES THRU 10.29.E
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
6,105.0E
Total:
24,215.0E E
t
255111
11/23/2022 076233 BRIGHTLY SOFTWARE INC
INV-124200
FAC MAINT - MAINTENANCE EDGE
FAC MAINT - MAINTENANCE EDGE
Q
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
6,828.8"
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
717.0,
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255111 11/23/2022 076233 076233 BRIGHTLY SOFTWARE INC
255112 11/23/2022 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J
255113 11/23/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
255114 11/23/2022 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
255115 11/23/2022 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 8
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
7,545.&
c
11048 TRAINING
11048 PICKLEBALL TRAINING INST
m
E
11048 PICKLEBALL TRAINING INST
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
48.0( y
Total:
48.0( 3
29486825
C2501 F
contract charges 11/2022
f6
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
26.4z
10.5% Sales Tax
t
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.7E
29486834
C/A 572105-1 CONTRACT# 06619
E
Finance dept copier contract charge
2
U
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
227.0z o
10.5% Sales Tax
'R
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
23.8z c
29486848
CONTRACT #06619 SCH #572105-1
a
Contract charge - 11 /01 /22 - 11 /30/22
Q•
Q
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
16.3E
10.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
1.7, m
Total:
298.1f
11
STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 2022
STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 2022
@
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
3,750.0(
Total:
3,750.0(
11103 11104 DRAWING
11103 11104 ADVENTURES IN DRAB
E
t
11103 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING I
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
577.2E Q
11104 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING I
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 496.1(
11107 DRAWING 11107 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 1
11107 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING I
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
255115 11/23/2022 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA (Continued)
255116 11/23/2022 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY CG120055
255117 11/23/2022 067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC 597666
255118 11/23/2022 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
255119 11/23/2022 064369 CODE PUBLISHING LLC
255120 11/23/2022 072746 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC
13615
16423
GC0009159
N223356WA.00-3
N223356WA.00-4
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total :
PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE
PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
DISTRIBUTE RACK CARD - WSF &
DISTRIBUTE RACK CARD - WSF &
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Total
STREET -
2017 TRAFFIC SIGNAL M,
STREET -
2017 TRAFFIC SIGNAL M,
111.000.68.542.64.41.50
STREET -
2019 SIGNAL MAINTENAf
STREET -
2019 SIGNAL MAINTENAf
111.000.68.542.64.41.50
Total
MUNICIPAL CODE WEB UPDATE
MUNICIPAL CODE -WEB UPDATE NI
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
Web hourly rate
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
Total
E22JA/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
E22JA/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
E22JA/SERVICES THRU 10.31.22
8.2.a
Page: 9
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 10
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255120
11/23/2022 072746 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC
(Continued)
E22JA/SERVICES THRU 10.31.22
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
3,162.0(
E,
Total:
5,758.5(
a
255121
11/23/2022 005965 CUES INC
623408
SEWER - POLE ASSEMBLY & REPA
3
SEWER - POLE ASSEMBLY & REPA
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
845.8E
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
24.9'
U
10.5% Sales Tax
t
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
91.4z
Total:
962.2:
•@
U
255122
11/23/2022 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC
5226688
E21 DA/SERVICES THRU 10.29.22
0
E21 DA/SERVICES THRU 10.29.22
'@
126.000.68.595.61.41.00
287.7<
c
E21 DA/SERVICES THRU 10.29.22
a
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
181.6E
Q
Total :
469.3F
"
N
N
255123
11/23/2022 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
22-4193
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
M
11/15/2022 city council meeting min.
N
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
478.8(
Total:
478.8(
E
2
255124
11/23/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
3367
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES/ JOINT TAPE
U
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES/ JOINT TAPE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.5E
10.5% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
0.4E
3370
PM: HOT TUB PARTS
Q
PM: HOT TUB PARTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.9E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.1(
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255124 11/23/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
3373
3378
3380
3381
3394
255125 11/23/2022 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 1002200051
255126 11/23/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025
8.2.a
Page: 11
PO # Description/Account Amoun
N
PM: LEVEL, CUTOFF WHEEL
PM: LEVEL, CUTOFF WHEEL
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.9E a
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
L
PM: REFLECTIVE TAPE
PM: REFLECTIVE TAPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.1 £ Y
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.9E U
PM:BATTERY
E
PM: BATTERY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
_M
6.9�
10.5% Sales Tax
G
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.7; >
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES/ H o
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES/ H a
Q.
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.0 , Q
10.5% Sales Tax N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.8E N
PM: LED LIGHTS N
PM: LED LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 33.9E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.5,
Total : 113.5E
c
SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY PLAYGI E
SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY PLAYGI
125.000.64.576.80.48.00 20,000.0(
Total : 20,000.0( Q
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,092.2E
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255126 11/23/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 12
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,062.6E a
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
y
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
L
3
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
857.5E
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
Y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,573.3, u
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,972.2E
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2,111.3�
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
o
L
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2,079.5' Q
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
N
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
791.3" N
6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2,603.8, .E
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
+;
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
323.51 y
6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
E
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,826.2z
6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� Q
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A�
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 13.5,
6-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 13
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255126 11/23/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
492.4�
6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
E
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
a
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
877.& aD
6-02745
VETERANS PLAZA
L
3
VETERANS PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
304.3,
6-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
Y
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
4,363.6'
6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
E
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
23.7E
6-02885
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
o
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
Ta
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
678.2- o
L
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
a
FAC SPRINKLER
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,762.7, N
6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
N
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
M
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,664.7,
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
N
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
673.9' 2
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
};
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.4, E
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
f°
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
408.2( Q
6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,787.2E
6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 14
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255126 11/23/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
13.5 - E
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
M
a
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
y
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,310.5E '3
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
795.9( Y
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
U
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
658.9z E
6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
w
248.7, G
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
945.3, o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
a
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
945.3, Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
N
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
945.3, N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
N
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
945.3,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
945.3< •E
6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
1.7( (D
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
E
t
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
6.4z
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
Q
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
6.4z
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
6.4z
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255126 11/23/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
6-06040
6-07775
6-08500
6-08525
255127 11/23/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR232069
AR232091
AR232116
A R232134
8.2.a
Page: 15
PO # Description/Account Amoun
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
6.4z
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
E
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
6.4< a
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
y
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
L
3
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
182.7�
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
M
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
Y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
571.1 z
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2,015.2£
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
336.2(
Total:
42,547.71 o
a
ACCT#MK5557 5271F 23D15162 CO
Q'
Q
Meter charges 06/03/22 - 07/02/22 B£
.,
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
04
6.6< N
10.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
0.7(
ACCT#MK5557 527IF 23D15162 CO
N
Meter charges 07/03/22 - 08/02/22 B£
E
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
7.5£ f°
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
0.8(
ACCT#MK5557 527IF 23D15162 CO
E
Meter charges 08/03/22 - 09/02/22 B£
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
5.9E
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.31.514.31.48.00 0.6<
ACCT#MK5557 527IF 23D15162 CO
Meter charges 09/03/22 - 10/02/22 B£
001.000.31.514.31.48.00 7.5£
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 16
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255127 11/23/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
N
10.5% Sales Tax
m
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
0.8( E
AR234659
ACCT#MK5557 5271F 23D15162 CO
a
Meter charges 05/03/22 - 06/02/22 B£
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
7.1 £ '3
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
0.7E
AR234659
ACCT#MK5557 5271F 23D15162 CO
Y
Meter charges 10/03/22 - 11/02/22 BF
U
d
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
9.2£ u
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.31.514.31.48.00
0.9; 'ea
AR234660
ENGINEERING COPIER 10.2022
ENGINEERING COPIER 10.2022
w
0
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
281.9" >
10.5% Sales Tax
o
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
29.6( a
AR234812
CUST# MK5533 C57501 3AP07496 C
Q
Meter charges 10/16/22 - 11/15/22 BF
N
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
23.1 , N
Meter charges 10/16/22 - 11/15/22 C(
N
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
24.2(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
4.9, •@
AR234813
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501: S/N
U
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501: accot
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
83.2" (D
10.5% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
8.7z L)
AR234879
PM COPIER USAGE: C2571F: S/N 3(
Q
PM COPIER USAGE: C2571F: Accou
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
53.0,
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
5.5 1
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
255127 11/23/2022 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINE (Continued)
255128 11/23/2022 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 11116 DANCE
255129 11/23/2022 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 179244
255130 11/23/2022 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
255131 11/23/2022 072634 GCP W W HOLDCO LLC
255132 11/23/2022 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES
255133 11/23/2022 012199 GRAINGER
Description/Account
Total
11116 DANCE INSTRUCTION
11116 DANCE INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
E22FB/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
E22FB/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
Total
EDH966534
ORDINANCE #4280, 4281
City Ordinance #4280, 4281
001.000.31.514.31.41.40
Total
INV2010002851
PM: WHISTLE WORK WEAR - DEBF
PM: WHISTLE WORK WEAR - DEBF
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.9% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
50030
E21 FD/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.30.22
E21 FD/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.30.22
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
E21 FD/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.30.22
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
Total
9501565486
PM SUPPLIES: RESTROOM HARDY'
PM SUPPLIES: RESTROOM HARDY'
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.2.a
Page: 17
Amoun
563.2( 4)
c
m
�a
314.6( y
314.6( 3
c
�a
31,223.1,
31,223.11, (D
E
2
37.8z w
37.81
ea
0
L
Q
Q.
188.9E Q
N
18.7' CV)
207.6< N
E
2,472.2( u
4,527.2( y
6,999.4( E
Q
88.2E
9.2,
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255133 11/23/2022 012199 012199 GRAINGER
255134 11/23/2022 075074 HAGUE, RYAN
255135 11/23/2022 074804 HARLES, JANINE
255136 11/23/2022 012900 HARRIS FORD INC
255137 11/23/2022 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
255138 11/23/2022 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 18
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
97.5:
c
Hague.NWP Conf
HAGUE CONF TRAVEL REIMBURSE
m
E
HAGUE NW PAVING CONF TRAVEL
001.000.67.518.21.43.00
319.5( y
Total:
319.5( 3
284617
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
f6
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
300.0(
Total :
300.0( t
FOCS566052
UNIT 285 - SERVICE & PARTS FOR
E
UNIT 285 - SERVICE & PARTS FOR
2
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
3,916.6� w
10.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
415.1, >
Total:
4,331.8E a
Q.
16269845
WATER - SUPPLIES
Q
WATER - SUPPLIES
N
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
427.5� M
10.5% Sales Tax
N
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
44.&
16269847
WATER - SUPPLIES/ COUPLINGS
N
WATER - SUPPLIES/ COUPLINGS
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
2,388.0E Z
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
c
250.71 aD
Total:
3,111.21 E
51930
E6FD/SERVICES THRU 8.26.22
Q
E6FD/SERVICES THRU 8.26.22
422.000.72.531.90.41.20 1,843.8,
52151 E6FD/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
E6FD/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
422.000.72.531.90.41.20 5,252.8(
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255138 11/23/2022 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
255139 11/23/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET
255140 11/23/2022 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC
255141 11/23/2022 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
52299 E6FD/SERVICES THRU 10.28.22
E6FD/SERVICES THRU 10.28.22
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
Total
0553143513
LIBRARY HONEY BUCKET
LIBRARY HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0553145506
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK
HONEY
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK
HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total:
14809
E20CE/SERVICES THRU 10.25.22
E20CE/SERVICES THRU 10.25.22
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
Total
CD22-06
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
CD22-07
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
CD22-08
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
CD22-09
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY
SERVIC
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
255142 11/23/2022 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC U2216054931
WATER - SUPPLIES/ PARTS
WATER - SUPPLIES/ PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
8.2.a
Page: 19
Amoun
N
c
m
E
8,805.& a
15,902.5E
3
c
�a
333.0E Y
U
a�
t
111.6E
444.71
w
0
Ta
2,608.81 o
2,608.8j a
Q.
Q
N
N
500.0( M
N
500.0(
500.0(
m
E
500.0(
2,000.0( Q
1,506.4�
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255142 11/23/2022 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
255143 11/23/2022 076159 IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT SVCS 50505-4
255144 11/23/2022 078250 KAUFER DMC LLC
255145 11/23/2022 079069 KISHA POST
50505-5
9901
November 21, 2022
255146 11/23/2022 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER December CIGNA
8.2.a
Page: 20
PO # Description/Account Amoun
N
10.5% Sales Tax
m
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
158.1;
E
Total:
1,664.6E
m
CL
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
3
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
2,332.5,1
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
125.000.68.542.30.41.00
2,705.6z
u
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 9.30.22
126.000.68.542.30.41.00
2,607.0-
E
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 10.2022
•@
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 10.2022
U
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
1,152.7�
o
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 10.2022
125.000.68.542.30.41.00
1,337.1 E
o
E22CA/SERVICES THRU 10.2022
a
126.000.68.542.30.41.00
1,288.4<
Q
Total :
11,423.6(
N
N
BUSINESS BOOSTER WEB HOSTIf\
N
BUSINESS BOOSTER WEB HOSTIN
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
300.0(
N
Total:
300.0(
E
2
ARPA GRANTS ADMINISTRATION
U
ARPA Grants Administration 11/05/22
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
3,920.0(
E
Total:
3,920.0(
DECEMBER CIGNA PREMIUMS
Q
December CIGNA Premiums
811.000.231.550 13,716.81
Total : 13,716.8 ,
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255147 11/23/2022 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
255148 11/23/2022 069582 MORRIS WAGNER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
384749
386439
10.1mm
11162022 - LTAC
255149 11/23/2022 064024 NAT'LASSOC FOR COURT MNGMNT 160695
MI-I&I�
255150 11/23/2022 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 6765
PO # Description/Account
PM: FASTENING PART FOR HEDGE
PM: FASTENING PART 0-145 FOR H
001.000.64.576.80.35.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.35.00
PM: EQUIPMENT PARTS
PM: EQUIPMENT PARTS
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
PM: BLOWER TUBE
PM: BLOWER TUBE
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
Total
LOG CABIN EXTERIOR RESTORATI
LOG CABIN EXTERIOR RESTORATI
120.000.31.575.42.41.50
LOG CABIN EXTERIOR RESTORATI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
NACM MEMBERSHIP - JAE
NACM MEMBERSHIP - JAE
001.000.23.512.51.49.00
NACM MEMBERSHIP - UMC
NACM MEMBERSHIP - UMC
001.000.23.512.51.49.00
PM: COBBLE
PM: COBBLE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.6% Sales Tax
Total
8.2.a
Page: 21
Amoun
N
c
m
35.9� E
�a
a
3.7£
3
24.9,
2.6, y
t
E
32.9£
w
3.4E G
103.8( >
0
L
o:
Q
4,500.0( N
N
347.9' N
4,847.91
E
2
135.0( U
c
m
E
135.0(
270.0(
Q
184.0(
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 22
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255150
11/23/2022 075542
NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.5(
6766
PM: WASHED ROCK
PM: WASHED ROCK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
180.9�
10.6% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.1 E
Total :
403.6 j
255151
11/23/2022 066628
NW AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY CO LLC
00731188
FLEET - SUPPLIES/ WINDSHIELD S
FLEET - SUPPLIES/ WINDSHIELD S
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
139.8E
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
14.6�
Tota I :
154.5 ,
255152
11/23/2022 079177
PACIFIC FERN DESIGNS LLC
604963870-001-0001
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
Business license refund
001.000.257.620
100.0(
Tota I :
100.0(
255153
11/23/2022 079180
PARK, KELLY
926351
EDMONDS PD
CONSULTATIONS, POLICY,MIS- CO
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
21,709.7E
Total :
21,709.7;
255154
11/23/2022 062657
REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY
0000056292
STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS
STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
3,253.3,
Total :
3,253.3:
255155
11/23/2022 031500
REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC
2211052
EDMONDS WATERFRONT DEPOSI-
EDMONDS WATERFRONT DEPOSI-
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
9,080.4E
Total:
9,080.4E
255156
11/23/2022 079175
RING, KIM
11042022
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - KSR
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255156 11/23/2022 079175 RING, KIM
255157 11/23/2022 079019 ROOT AND LIMB YOGA
255158 11/23/2022 079182 SAFE RESTRAINTS INC
255159 11/23/2022 079176 SHELLSCAPES
255160 11/23/2022 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 23
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
N
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - KSR
a0i
001.000.23.523.30.43.00
77.8E E,
Total:
77.8f a
11085 YOGA
11085 YOGA CLASS INSTRUCTION
3
11085 YOGA CLASS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
126.0(
Total:
126.0( y)
U
TF101622EPD
EDMONDS PD
7 WRAP RESTRAINTS W/HELMET
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
10,815.0( .�
30 ANKLE STRAPS -DISCOUNT
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
1,540.0( p
Freight
'R
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
367.1 , c
Total:
12,722.1: a
Q.
1423
EOFB/SHELL SIDEWALK REPAIR PF
Q
EOFB/SHELL SIDEWALK REPAIR PF
N
N
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
1,000.0( M
EOFB/SHELL SIDEWALK REPAIR SF
N
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
360.0(
EOFB/SHELL SIDEWALK REPAIR
E
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
1,582.4( 'M
10.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
166.1.E c
Total:
3,108.5° E
t
E21 FD.Pmt 3 E21 FD/JA/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.E
E21 FD/JA/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.E
Q
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
75,065.0E
E21 FD/JA/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.E
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
414,153.1.E
E21 FD/JA/GA/SERVICES THRU 10.E
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
255160 11/23/2022 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO (Continued)
255161 11/23/2022 036955 SKY NURSERY
T-2120656
255162 11/23/2022 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT 1000596111
255163 11/23/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200260271
200714038
200723021
201197084
201236825
201327111
8.2.a
Page: 24
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
221,022.1(
Total:
710,240.1 E,
�a
PM: ORCHARD LADDER
a�
PM: ORCHARD LADDER
3
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
379.9�
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
39.1 z
Total:
419.1; U
d
03-2022 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
t
Quarterly Liquor Board Profits
E
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
1,663.5E u
Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes
c
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
1,626.5z 'R
Total :
3,290.1( c
L
YOST POOL
a
YOST POOL
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,619.3( N
SEAVIEW PARK
M
SEAVIEW PARK
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
21.6 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
@
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
31.3z
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
49.5� s
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
203.5E
PINE ST PARK
PINE ST PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
23.0(
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 25
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255163 11/23/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
201431244
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
E
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
22.2E a
201441755
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
y
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
L
3
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
228.2<
202250627
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED
M
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
Y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
21.5, u
202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
E
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
91.6E
220547574
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
o
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
78.2,
223283185
UPTOWN CITY HALL - 23632 HIGHV
o
Uptown City Hall - 23632 Highway 99
a
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
89.3E Q
Total :
2,479.7' N
N
255164 11/23/2022 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2022-7515
SEPT 2022 - EDMONDS PD
N
82.5 BASE HOUSING @ $187.46EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
15,465.4E N
31.83 BOOKINGS @ $134.70EA
E
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
4,287.5( 2
9 VIDEO CT HRS @ $223.12EA
..
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
2,008.0E
2022-7554
OCT 2022 - EDMONDS PD
E
107.83 BASE HOUSING @ $187.46
s
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
20,213.8"
32 BOOKINGS @ $134.70EA
Q
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
4,310.4(
8 VIDEO CT HRS @ $223.12EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
1,784.9(
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
255164 11/23/2022 063941 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE (Continued)
255165 11/23/2022 037900 SNO ISLE REGIONAL LIBRARY 00001
255166 11/23/2022 072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 6329
6525
255167 11/23/2022 075024 STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOC INV00017316
255168 11/23/2022 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 12035
255169 11/23/2022 079134 SWICKARDTOYOTA
Description/Account
Total ;
DIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT
DIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
Total
GRANT REIMBURSEMENT THRU 6.
E20FC/GRANT REIMBURSEMENT
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
E7FG/GRANT REIMBURSEMENT
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
GRANT REIMBURSEMENT THRU 9.
E20FC/GRANT REIMBURSEMENT T
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
E7FG/GRANT REIMBURSEMENT TF
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
Total
SCA SUMMER EDMONDS COMMUI`
SCA SUMMER EDMONDS COMMUI`
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
Total
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR NO'
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR NO'
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Total
351888 UNIT 15 - PARTS/ BATTERY
UNIT 15 - PARTS/ BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
255170 11/23/2022 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 180052613-00
Total ;
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES/ SCREWS 8
8.2.a
Page: 26
Amoun
48,070.2( 4
c
m
�a
500.0( y
500.0( 3
c
�a
983.3(
d
t
2,943.6, L)
E
2
U
1,311.2E o
�a
747.2" o
5,985.41 a
Q.
Q
N
N
5,000.0( M
5,000.0(
E
M
650.0( Z
650.0(
aD
E
t
285.0( Q
29.9<
314.9:
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 27
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255170
11/23/2022 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
(Continued)
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES/ SCREWS 8
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
43.3,
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
4.5�
180052686-00
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ UPSIDE DOV
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ UPSIDE DOV
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
74.41'
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
7.8,
Total :
130.1'
255171
11/23/2022 068141 TRANSPO GROUP
29201
E22CG/SERVICES THRU 10.28.22
E22CG/SERVICES THRU 10.28.22
112.000.68.595.64.41.00
22,440.3E
E22CG/SERVICES THRU 10.28.22
125.000.68.595.33.41.00
3,502.2E
Total :
25,942.6:
255172
11/23/2022 043670 UNDERWATER SPORTS INC
6026634
CUST 72173 - EDMONDS PD
DIVE TEAM EQUIPMENT
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
28,115.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
2,952.0E
Total:
31,067.01
255173
11/23/2022 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER
294505
STORM - DUMP FEES
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
1,288.4,
295376
STORM - DUMP FEES
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
1,808.3E
Total :
3,096.71,
255174
11/23/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
9920455047
C/A671247844-00001
Cell Service Fac-Maint
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255174 11/23/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
255175 11/23/2022 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE
255176 11/23/2022 075155 WALKER MACY LLC
255177 11/23/2022 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
255178 11/23/2022 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 28
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
103.7� aa)
Cell Service-PD
E
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
40.8, a
Cell Service-PW Sewer
aD
L
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
40.8, '3
Total :
185.4: -o
c
201137197
CRIM JUSTICE TRAINING TLP/UMC
�a
N
CRIM JUSTICE TRAINING TLP/UMC
U
001.000.23.523.30.49.00
416.0( t
Total:
416.0( U
P3282.04-54
EOMA/SERVICES THRU 10.25.22
2
U
EOMA/SERVICES THRU 10.25.22
c
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
7,055.1 < Ta
EOMA/SERVICES THRU 10.25.22
>
0
125.000.64.594.76.41.00
2,107.3 � a
Total :
9,162.5( Q
122-1007
TREE REMOVAL - 1037 MAIN ST 2 1
N
TREE REMOVAL - 1037 MAIN ST 2 1
M
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
780.0( N
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
81.9( E
123-295
PM: TREE REMOVAL: YOST PARK
@
PM: TREE REMOVAL: YOST PARK
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
1,850.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
E
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
194.2E s
Total :
2,906.1
Q
13002580
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.2(
10.5% Sales Tax
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
11/23/2022 9:37:04AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 29
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255178
11/23/2022 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.2,
13012067
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
E
PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,215.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
3
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
127.5E
Total:
1,387.0(
255179
11/23/2022 078302 WEBER, CAROL
22
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
U
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
t
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
500.0( U
Total:
500.0(
255180
11/23/2022 078807 ZACHOR STOCK & KREPPS INC PS
22-EDM-0011
NOV-2022 RETAINER
o
Monthly Retainer
�a
001.000.36.515.41.41.20
23,625.0( c
Total:
23,625.0( a
Q.
255181
11/23/2022 079179 ZHANG, CECILIA
2007276.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
Q
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
N
001.000.239.200
182.0( M
Total :
182.0( N
255182
11/23/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
E
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
6.4z U
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
c
24.4E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
E
E
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
24.4E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE'
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
24.4E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
24.4E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
11 /23/2022 9:37:04AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255182 11/23/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
84 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
84 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.a
Page: 30
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
24.4E
425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
E
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION
a
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
148.9E
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
L
3
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
116.5"
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
Y
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI'
U
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
76.7z
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI
E
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIALACC
M
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.4E
Total:
497.35
o
M
Bank total : 1,173,962.01, c
L
Q
Total vouchers : 1,173,962.01, Q
N
N
M
N
N
E
2
V
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 87
8.2.b
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
12/01/2022
3:44:42PM
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun N
255183
12/1/2022
073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC
326614
DRUG TESTS
a0i
DRUG TEST - GOLSHANARA
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
55.0( a
Total:
55.0(
3
255184
12/1/2022
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
65228
LOG CABIN - 1 BAIT STATION SERV
LOG CABIN - 1 BAIT STATION SERA
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
99.0( Y
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.4(
Total:
109.4( E
255185
12/1/2022
064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
147961754
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
-
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
32.7� �a
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
0
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
32.7� a
147961755
ALARM MONITORING - F.S. #16
Q'
a
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
34.2( N
147961756
ALARM MONITORING - FS #17
c
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
70.9E N
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
7.4E f°
147961757
ALARM MONITORING - HISTORICAI
U
ALARM MONITORING FOR museum
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
121.0, E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
12.7-
147961759
ALARM MONITORING - PUBLIC SAF
Q
ALARM MONITORING FOR public se
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
106.0z
10.5% Sales Tax
00 1. 000. 66.518.30.42. 00 11.1 <
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 2
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255185
12/1/2022
064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
(Continued)
147961760
FIRE INSPECTION - FS #17, PUBLIC
fire inspection FOR FIRE STATION #
E
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
55.4, a
fire inspection - museum, 120 5th AVE
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
fire inspection - public safety 250 5th
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
153.31
14796758
ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT
Y
ALARM MONITORING FOR wastewa
U
aD
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
50.0� u
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
5.2(
Total:
728.2f
w
0
255186
12/1/2022
077610 ALBA PAINTING & COATINGS
11/29/22 F.A.C.
F.A.C. PAINT CLASSROOMS & BAT[
F.A.C. PAINT CLASSROOMS & BATI•
c
L
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
45,150.0( a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
4,740.7.E N
Total :
49,890.7° N
255187
12/1/2022
076696 ALLPLAY SYSTEMS LLC
2021-139F
SEAVIEW PARK SWING
T-
G
N
SEAVIEW PARK SWING
N
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
988.0( E
10.4% Sales Tax
2
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
102.7.E v
Total :
1,090.7° r-
t
255188
12/1/2022
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
650106346
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
27.9" Q
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
2.9E
6560103065
WWTP:11/16/22 UNIFORMS,TOWE
Mats/Towels $52.68 + $5.53 tax @ 11
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 3
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255188 12/1/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
58.2'
Rentals & Prep Charges $48.05 ($48.
E
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
53.0� a
6560104719
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
y
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
L
3
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6-
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1' Y
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
U
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1' u
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
w
6.1' G
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0£ o
10.5% Sales Tax
a
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.3" Q
10.5% Sales Tax
N
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6, N
10.5% Sales Tax
c
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
04
0.6,
10.5% Sales Tax
N
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6, -@
10.5% Sales Tax
z
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6,
10.5% Sales Tax
aD
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.5� t
6560104720
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
Q
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.1 �
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1(
10.5% Sales Tax
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 4
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255188
12/1/2022
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.4E
10.5% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
1.6" a
6560106340
WWTP: 11/23/22 UNIFORMS,TOWE
Mats/Towels $52.68 + $5.53 tax @ 1
3
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
58.2-
Rentals & Prep Charges $53.08
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
53.0� Y
Total:
321.31 u
t
255189
12/1/2022
003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
22006980
MARINA BEACH LEASE FOR FENCI
MARINA BEACH LEASE FOR FENCI
E
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
2,353.2( Z
Total:
2,353.2E o
255190
12/1/2022
078841 BRAUN CONSULTING GROUP
2315
OCTOBER RETAINER
'R
c
OCTOBER CONSULTING
a
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
4,000.0( Q
Total:
4,000.0E
N
N
255191
12/1/2022
003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
349271
STREET SAND FOR SNOW/ ICE
STREET - SAND FOR SNOW/ ICE
c
111.000.68.542.66.31.00
N
2,849.9, —
10.5% Sales Tax
E
111.000.68.542.66.31.00
299.2.' '@
349364
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
1,513.7E E
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i
t
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
1,513.7E
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - i
Q
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1,513.7E
WATER/SEWER/STREET/STORM - 1
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1,513.7E
10.5% Sales Tax
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 91
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 5
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255191
12/1/2022 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
158.9E
10.5% Sales Tax
E
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
158.9E m
CL
10.5% Sales Tax
0
L
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
158.9E '3
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
158.9:
350028
PARKS - CRUSHED ROCK/ CITY YA
Y
PARKS - CRUSHED ROCK/ CITY YA
U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2,193.9, u
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
230.3 , 'ca
Total:
12,264.21 w
0
255192
12/1/2022 073901 CALDWELL SCULPTURE STUDIO
11232022
STAGES #1 MAINTENANCE & REST
STAGES #1 MAINTENANCE & REST
c
L
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
1,342.5E a
Total :
1,342.51 Q
255193
12/1/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
29486826
PW ADMIN COPIER
N
PW Office Copier for 11/01/22-11/30/,
c
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
66.1 E N
PW Office Copier for 11/01/22-11/30/,
N
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
37.4� E
PW Office Copier for 11/01/22-11/30/,
2
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
37.4� U
PW Office Copier for 11/01/22-11/30/,
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
26.4E E
PW Office Copier for 11/01/22-11/30/,
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
26.4E
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
6.9E
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
3.91
10.5% Sales Tax
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 92
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255193 12/1/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 6
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
3.9z
10.5% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
2.7E a
10.5% Sales Tax
W
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
L
2.7E '3
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
2.7E
PW Office Copier for 11/01/22-11/30P
N
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
26.4E y
29486827
EDMONDS PD
11/22 CONTRACT - FAXBOARD
E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.W 'M
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
w
3.7E
29486831
EDMONDS PD
_0
11 /22 CONTRACT- 3AP01257&3APC
o
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
351.9" a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.9E N
29486833
P&R C5750 COPIER: CONTRACT OE
N
P&R C5750 Copier: Contract Number
o
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
227.0z
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
23.8z •@
29486838
EDMONDS PD
U
11 /22 CONTRACT - 38C01511
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
191.7E W
10.5% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
20.1
29486839
FLEET COPIER FOR 11/1/22-11/30/2
Q
Fleet Copier for 11 /1 /22-11 /30/22
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 35.0
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.6�
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 93
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255193 12/1/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
255194 12/1/2022 079183 CHANCAFE, LUIGGI
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 7
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
29486841
RENTAL/LEASE - COPIER
Monthly Contract Charge - Nov 2022-
E
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
35.0, a
10.5% Sales Tax
(D
L
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
3.6' '3
29486842
PM C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE08178
PM C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE08178
M
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
29.0E u)
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
3.Of u
29486843
RENTAL/LEASE-COPIER
E
Planning Copier (SN: 3CE07934)-
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
_M
35.0,
10.5% Sales Tax
w
G
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
3.6� >
29486845 HS C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE09644
0
HS C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE09644
a
Q.
001.000.63.557.20.45.00
31.9E Q
10.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.63.557.20.45.00
3.3E N
29486849 WATER SEWER COPIER
o
Water Sewer Copier
N
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
57.8, u)
Water Sewer Copier
E
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
57.8,
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
6.0, (D
10.5% Sales Tax
E
t
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
6.01 um
Total :
1,446.61 Q
82 MUSIC FOR COMMUNITY OUTREA(
Outdoor jazz performance for
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
200.0(
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 94
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255194
12/1/2022
079183 079183 CHANCAFE, LUIGGI
(Continued)
Total :
200.0(
255195
12/1/2022
063389 CLAY, JON
10052022
JURY DUTY MILEAGE REIMBURSEI
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
001.000.41.521.71.11.00
87.7,
Total :
87.7:
255196
12/1/2022
079151 CM HEATING INC
BLD2022-1444
PERMIT FEE REFUND
Permit Fee Refund BLD2022-1444-
001.000.257.620
64.0(
BLD2022-1520
PERMIT FEE REFUND
Permit Fee Refund BLD2022-1520-
001.000.257.620
64.0(
Total :
128.0(
255197
12/1/2022
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
8498310300732547
PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
2.3,
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
11.1 E
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
11.1 f
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
11.1.E
Public Works - 7110 210th S SW
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
10.6 ,
Tota I :
46.4E
255198
12/1/2022
075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC
0354373-IN
FLEET - SUPPLIES
FLEET - SUPPLIES
511.000.77.548.68.34.21
2,191.8(
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.21
230.1
Total :
2,421.9E
255199
12/1/2022
077437 DASH MEDICAL GLOVES INC
INV1274992
EDMONDS PD
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 95
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 9
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255199
12/1/2022
077437
DASH MEDICAL GLOVES INC
(Continued)
2 CASES - BLACK NITRILE GLOVE
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
198.2z E
2 CASES - BLACK NITRILE GLOVE
a
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
198.2z aD
L
1 CASE BLACK NITRILE GLOVES S
3
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
99.1 ,
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
52.0z Y
INV1274997
EDMONDS PD
U
2 CASES - BLACK NITRILE GLOVE,
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
198.2z E
10.5% Sales Tax
M
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
20.8, ,u
Total:
766.7( G
255200
12/1/2022
074444
DATAQUEST LLC
19709
BACKGROUND CHECKS - OCTOBE
'R
p
BACKGROUND CHECKS
L
a
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
150.0( Q
Total :
150.0( N
N
255201
12/1/2022
006626
DEPT OF ECOLOGY
MDerrickOpl
WWTP: MDERRICK OPERATOR 1 C
c
MDERRICK OPERATOR 1 CERTIFI(
N
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
50.0( N
Total:
50.0( E
2
255202
12/1/2022
007253
DUNN LUMBER
9049296
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES / POST HOL
U
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES / POST HOL
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
121.3( E
10.3% Sales Tax
t
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
U
12.4�
Total:
133.75 Q
255203
12/1/2022
076610
EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
3389
BIYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES
BIYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.9f
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 96
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255203 12/1/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 10
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
10.5% Sales Tax
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.0E E
3396
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES/ F
ca
a
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - SUPPLIES/ F
y
L
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.&
3401
CITY HALL - FLOOR MAT
Y
CITY HALL - FLOOR MAT
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
17.9� u
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.8£ 'ca
3403
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
w
G
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
39.8E >
10.5% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.1 £ a
3410
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
Q
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
21.11 N
10.5% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.2,
3411
F.A.C. - PARTS/ 90 ELBOW
F.A.C. - PARTS/ 90 ELBOW
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.5� U
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
0.9( CD
3415
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
E
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
t
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.1 £ Q
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
0.9(
3417
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 97
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
255203 12/1/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued)
255204 12/1/2022 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 274826
255205 12/1/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
PO # Description/Account
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
EDMONDSPD-HOBBS
11/1 VET VISIT - HOBBS
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
11/7 VET VIST - DISCOUNT
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
Total :
Total
3-01808
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
3-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
3-07490
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
3-09350
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
8.2.b
Page: 11
Amoun
N
5.9f
E
0.6< a
154.35 0
L
3
c
�a
132.7E Y
U
162.0( t
1.3z •@
296.ut U
4-
0
�a
0
61.2z a
Q.
Q
506.3( C4
0
N
114.7, N
E
56.3E U
c
m
E
56.3E u
M
Q
119.6z
61.2z
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 98
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
255205 12/1/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
3-29875
255206 12/1/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR233604
AR234651
AR234658
AR234711
8.2.b
Page: 12
PO # Description/Account Amoun
N
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
61.21 a
Total:
1,037.15
ACCT MK5031 - EDMONDS PD
3
10/22 BW&CLR COPIES 3AP012578
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
214.1
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
22.4E t
ACCT MK5031 - EDMONDS PD
U
10/22 - 38c01511 BW & CLR COPIE;
E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
135.2z Z
10.5% Sales Tax
c
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
14.2( 'R
MK5533 - A12687 WATER SEWER C
c
Water Sewer Copy Use 10/13/22 - 11
a
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
13.9, Q
Water Sewer Copy Use 10/13/22 - 11
N
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
13.9- N
10.5% Sales Tax
c
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1.4E N
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1.4E E
MK5610 - A10013 PW COPIER USAi
f°
PW Copy Use 10/06/22 - 11/05/22
U
+;
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
26.5� y
PW Copy Use 10/06/22 - 11/05/22
E
111.000.68.542.90.31.00
15.0 1
PW Copy Use 10/06/22 - 11/05/22
422.000.72.531.90.31.00
15.0 1 Q
PW Copy Use 10/06/22 - 11/05/22
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.61
PW Copy Use 10/06/22 - 11/05/22
423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.6�
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 99
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
255206 12/1/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
AR234875
AR234878
AR235149
255207 12/1/2022 074437 EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION WA 2022-COED-RTMEDQ4
8.2.b
Page: 13
PO # Description/Account Amoun
N
PW Copy Use 10/06/22 - 11/05/22
m
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.6, E
10.5% Sales Tax
a
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
2.7� aD
L
10.5% Sales Tax
3
111.000.68.542.90.31.00
1.5E c
10.5% Sales Tax
M
422.000.72.531.90.31.00
1.5E Y
10.5% Sales Tax
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1.1, J--
10.5% Sales Tax
E
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1.11 .�
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.1 , _0
LEASE/RENTAL - COPIER
>
Planning copier (SN: 3CE07934)-
c
L
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
17.5, a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
1.8z cq
MK5610 - A11959 FLEET COPY USP
N
Fleet Copy Use 10/19/22 - 11/18/22
c
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
04
16.6z
10.5% Sales Tax
N
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1.7E -@
P&R COPIER USAGE: C257IF: S/N
P&R COPIER USAGE: C257IF: Acco
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
c
34.8E
10.5% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
3.6E um
Total :
591.0: Q
RETIREE MEDICAL DUES - Q4
04 DUES
009.000.39.517.20.23.10 1,530.0(
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 100
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
255207
12/1/2022
074437
074437 EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION N (Continued)
Total
255208
12/1/2022
008975
ENTENMANN ROVIN CO
0169515-IN
ACCT 11847 - EDMONDS PD
3 CPL DOME BADGES
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
2 SGT DOME BADGES
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
RUSH FEE
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
PACKING/HANDLING FEES &INSUF
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
Total:
255209
12/1/2022
076992
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS
22036-02
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
EBB TI
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
EBB TI
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
Total
255210
12/1/2022
009350
EVERETT DAILY HERALD
EDH966970
PLANNING -ADVERTISING
Publication of City Notice-
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
EDH967009
ORDINANCE #4282
City orfdinance #4282
001.000.31.514.31.41.40
EDH967182
PLANNING -ADVERTISING
Publication of City Notice-
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Total:
255211
12/1/2022
009815
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
1148240
WATER - INVENTORY & PARTS
WATER - INVENTORY
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
WATER - PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
8.2.b
Page: 14
Amoun
1,530.0(
c
m
E
�a
354.0( y
L
236.0(
c
�a
295.0( Y
U
18.5( t
U
24.0( •@
927.5( U
4-
0
M
0
1,512.5( a
1,512.5( Q
N
N
r.
43.0( N
E
22.3E '@
c
73.9(
139.3,
Q
5,580.2E
161.6E
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 101
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 15
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
255211 12/1/2022 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued)
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20 585.9,
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00 16.9
255212 12/1/2022 079181 GREENWOOD HEATING & AC BLD2022-1573
255213 12/1/2022 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 1298565
255214 12/1/2022 012560 HACH COMPANY
13340637
255215 12/1/2022 079157 HARDWICK CONSULTING GROUP INC 22.EPD.00921
255216 12/1/2022 079012 HARLOWE & FALK LLP
58801
Total :
PERMIT FEE REFUND
Permit fee refund BLD2022-1573-
001.000.257.620
Total
OLD PW - SECURITY
OLD PW - SECURITY
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total
WWTP: PO 922 IMMERSION PROBE
PO 922 IMMERSION PROBE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
PART 2 - EDMONDS PD
STRATIGIC PLAN PART 2
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
MEBT TRUST LEGAL SERVICES
MEBT TRUST FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 102
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255216 12/1/2022 079012 079012 HARLOW E & FALK LLP
255217 12/1/2022 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
255218 12/1/2022 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT
255219 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 16
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
1,000.0(
c
2019-363
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
m
E
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
2,851.6, y
Total:
2,851.61, 3
50
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
M
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Y)
31.0E hd
REIMBURSEMENT
t
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
31292.8� u
Total :
3,323.8<
1011788
PM: CONCRETE
,-
PM:CONCRETE
G
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.5< >
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
a
0.6, 0
1014322
PM: PARTS, CONCRETE
<
PM: PARTS, CONCRETE
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
15.4( T-
10.3% Sales Tax
c
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
N
1.5�
1084410
PM: IRRIGATION PARTS
PM: IRRIGATION PARTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
_@
12.8,
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.3, E
11895
PM: CONCRETE
t
PM:CONCRETE
M
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.4E Q
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.3�
191833 PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 103
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 17
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255219 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
117.5E
10.3% Sales Tax
E
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.1' a
2014090
PM: STORAGE TOTES
aD
PM: STORAGE TOTES
L
3
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
139.8(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
14.4( Y
4231178
PM: CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM
U
PM: CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
-503.6z E
10.3% Sales Tax
'@
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
-51.8E u
6012341
PM: HARDWARE
w
G
PM: HARDWARE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
47.9( o
10.3% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.9' Q
6013661
PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS
N
PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,221.7z o
10.3% Sales Tax
04
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
125.8z u)
8013367
PM: REBAR, REBAR CHAIR
E
PM: REBAR, REBAR CHAIR
f°
U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
80.9,
10.3% Sales Tax
(D
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.3( E
9013221
PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS
PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
430.0E Q
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
44.3(
Total:
1,745.55
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 104
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255220 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 18
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
1010449
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
N
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
40.0'
E
10.3% Sales Tax
a
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
4.1 ,
a)
L
1083479
WADE JAMES - SUPPLIES
3
WADE JAMES - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
38.61
10.3% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.9£
u
1524559
SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
E
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
53.8<
'M
10.3% Sales Tax
U
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
5.51
w
1971050
LIBRARY & TRUCK 5 - SUPPLIES
_0
LIBRARY & TRUCK 5 - SUPPLIES
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
96.2,
a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.1'
N
2021906
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
N
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
o
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
65.0 1
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
6.7(
•@
22272
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
U
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES;
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
16.1E
(D
10.3% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.6E
um
3011540
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
Q
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
77.2'
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.9E
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 105
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255220 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 19
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
4010178
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
362.3, a
10.3% Sales Tax
aD
L
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4012799
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
115.0( u)
10.3% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
11.8,1 u
4626147
SEWER - SUPPLIES
E
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
_M
29.9E
10.3% Sales Tax
G
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
3.0�
5622814 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ BEE & WASP
o
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ BEE & WASP
a
Q.
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
15.9z Q
10.3% Sales Tax
N
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
1.6z N
5625927 SEWER - SUPPLIES/ EPDXY
o
SEWER - SUPPLIES/ EPDXY
N
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
26.6,
10.3% Sales Tax
E
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
2.7z U
6012402 LIBRARY - SUPPLIES;
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
(D
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
59.7' E
10.3% Sales Tax U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.1 E Q
6016545 TRAFFIC - PAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.4-
TRAFFIC - PAINT TRUCK SUPPLIES
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 106
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 20
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255220 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
110.7z
6016630
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
E
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
24.5"
10.3% Sales Tax
L
3
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.5,
7013604
FAC MAINT - CITYWIDE SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - CITYWIDE SUPPLIES
Y
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
195.4, u
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
20.1 < E
7021313
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
.@
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
w
72.7- G
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.4E o
7022809
WADE JAMES - SUPPLIES
a
Q.
WADE JAMES - SUPPLIES
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
189.0( N
10.3% Sales Tax
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
19.41 o
7075031
STREET - SUPPLIES
N
STREET - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
49.9( .
10.3% Sales Tax
f°
U
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
5.1E +�
7514618
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
m
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
34.2z u
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.5< Q
7523364
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ CONE DRILL
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ CONE DRILL
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
17.0z
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 107
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 21
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255220 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
10.3% Sales Tax
m
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
1.7E E
8013406
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
ca
a
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
aD
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
L
67.6E '3
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.9E
8024074
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Y
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
54.6E u
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5.6i 'm
8083649
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
w
G
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
45.3, >
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.6, a
8250635
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES RETURNEE
Q
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES RETURNEE
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-54.6( N
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
-5.6,
9021035
FISH HATCHERY - SUPPLIES
FISH HATCHERY - SUPPLIES
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
435.2' 2
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
44.& CD
9030476
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
E
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
t
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
23.9E Q
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
2.4 ,
9616222
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 108
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255220 12/1/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
255221 12/1/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 22
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
69.9z
10.3% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
7.2(
a
Total:
2,572.9,
a)
0552966780
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
3
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
443.0E
0552970074
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
Y
U
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
t
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
111.6E
E
0553046437
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
0
0553046438
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONEI
V
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONEI
0
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,514.1 ,
a
0553046439
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
Q
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
240.3E
N
0553046440
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
c
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
ci
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
346.0(
N
0553046441
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
E
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
2
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
644.9�
U
0553046442
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
U
0553046443 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET Q
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 439.6(
0553087971 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.6E
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 109
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255221
12/1/2022
061013 HONEY BUCKET
(Continued)
0553103852
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E m
CL
0553103855
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
L
3
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
346.0(
0553103857
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
Y
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4. u
0553155391
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
279.9E 'M
Total:
4,959.1 , w
0
255222
12/1/2022
072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC
6067825
MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
'R
Monthly 911 database maint
c
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
500.0( a
Total :
500.0( Q
255223
12/1/2022
075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
7324
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
N
N
Dec-2022 Fiber Optics Internet
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
0
590.0( N
10.5% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
U)
61.9E E
Total:
651.9E n
U
255224
12/1/2022
079178 JOHNSTUN, ISABELLA
PLN2022-0083
PERMIT FEE REFUND
Permit fee refund: PLN2022-0083-
a)
t
001.000.257.620
255.0(
Total:
255.0( M
Q
255225
12/1/2022
079069 KISHA POST
November 8, 2022
ARPA GRANTS ADMINISTRATION
ARPA Grants Administration 10/23/22
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
4,200.0(
Total:
4,200.0(
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 110
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
255226
12/1/2022
072566 LEDER II, DAVID
NOV22
DAVID LEDER - CDL PHYSICAL REI
DAVID LEDER - CDL PHYSICAL REI
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
Tota I :
255227
12/1/2022
075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
E0161423
PUBLIC SAFETY - PAINT
PUBLIC SAFETY - PAINT
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
ECO FEES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
E0161424
PUBLIC SAFETY - PAINT
PUBLIC SAFETY - PAINT
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
ECO FEES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
255228
12/1/2022
072136 MANAGERPLUS SOLUTIONS LLC
2020-18683
FLEET - SOFTWARE SUPPORT 9/2
FLEET - SOFTWARE SUPPORT 9/2
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.5% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total
255229
12/1/2022
008410 MINUTEMAN PRESS
179
WATER - DOOR HANGERS
WATER - DOOR HANGERS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.6% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
255230
12/1/2022
070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
10529382
GOCOMMUTER - OCTOBER
8.2.b
Page: 24
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 111
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 25
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255230
12/1/2022
070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
GOCOMMUTER FEE
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
25.0(
10529383
NAVIA - OCTOBER
FSA FEES - OCTOBER
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
219.9E
Tota I :
244.9E
255231
12/1/2022
067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.
PSWO0149433
WWTP: REPAIR GENERATOR
REPAIR GENERATOR
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1,611.7�
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
169.2�
Tota I :
1,781.0:
255232
12/1/2022
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
3368725-00
WWTP REPAIR OVERHEATING COI
REPAIR OVERHEATING COMPRES!
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
459.6(
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
48.2E
Total:
507.8E
255233
12/1/2022
076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA
76951497
DOT RECERTIFICATIONS
GOLSHANARA/ L. JOHNSON
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
220.0(
Total :
220.0(
255234
12/1/2022
077389 OLYMPIC ELEVATOR COMPANY
13707
MUSEUM - INSTALLED NEW BUZZE
MUSEUM - INSTALLED NEW BUZZE
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
366.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
38.4:
Total :
404.4;
255235
12/1/2022
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
3685-240508
FLEET - PARTS/ SILENCER
FLEET - PARTS/ SILENCER
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 112
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255235 12/1/2022 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
255236 12/1/2022 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 26
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
90.6(
10.5% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.5" a
3685-240759
UNIT 66 - PARTS/ AIR FILTER
y
UNIT 66 - PARTS/ AIR FILTER
L
3
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
51.5:
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.4' Y
3685-241905
UNIT 33 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER
U
UNIT 33 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
12.0' E
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
_M
1.2E
3685-242215
UNIT 33 - PARTS/ HYDROLIC OIL
w
G
UNIT 33 - PARTS/ HYDROLIC OIL
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
209.9 � o
10.5% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
22.0f Q
3685-242605 FLEET - PARTS/ WIPER BLADES
N
FLEET - PARTS/ WIPER BLADES
N
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
15.9E o
10.5% Sales Tax
04
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
1.6£
3685-243426 UNIT 818 - PARTS/ BRAKE PADS
UNIT 818 - PARTS/ BRAKE PADS
@
U
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
98.31
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.3, E
Total: 528.6°
00108519 STORM - SUPPLIES Q
STORM - SUPPLIES
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 3,476.5E
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00 351.1 <
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 113
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 27
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255236
12/1/2022
002203
002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued)
Total :
3,827.65
255237
12/1/2022
026830
PACIFIC PLUMBING SUPPLY
51171362
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
522.0
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
54.8'
Total :
576.9(
255238
12/1/2022
065051
PARAMETRIX INC
40468
WWTP: THRU 10/29/22 CONSTRUC
THRU 10/29/22 CONSTRUCTION SE
423.100.76.594.35.41.00
21,832.2E
Total:
21,832.2E
255239
12/1/2022
078808
PINNACLE SCOPES INC
20221011
VIEWER BACK LENSES
VIEWER BACK LENSES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
125.0(
Tota I :
125.0(
255240
12/1/2022
028860
PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
3J59140
LIBRARY - PARTS
LIBRARY - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
460.4E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
48.3E
3K07352
CITY HALL - PARTS
CITY HALL - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
33.8�
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.5E
Total :
546.2E
255241
12/1/2022
030400
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY
20232372
FACILITY FEE/ REGISTRATION FEE
FACILITY FEE/ REGISTRATION FEE
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
140.0(
Tota I :
140.0(
255242
12/1/2022
046900
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
200000704821
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 114
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255242 12/1/2022 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 28
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,101.1 E
200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
a
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
y
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
L
461.9E '3
200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
573.4.E Y
200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
U
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
592.1 ' E
200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
'@
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
w
1,364.0E 0
200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
0
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
878.31 a
200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
Q
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
385.6E N
200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
o
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
N
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
75.5E
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
287.1 u
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
};
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
287.1 � y
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
287.1 � u
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 287.1 Q
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 287.1,
200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 115
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 29
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255242
12/1/2022
046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
(Continued)
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
380.4, E
220027305568
WWTP: 10/20-11/21/22 200 2ND AVI
ca
a
10/20-11/21/22 200 2ND AVE S, #W2
423.000.76.535.80.47.63
Total:
9,005.8° -o
c
255243
12/1/2022
062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY
0000056291
STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS
�a
N
STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS
U
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
3,749.7E t
Total:
3,749.7E U
255244
12/1/2022
078283 REINTEGRATED MEDIA
454
A/V TECH SUPPORT FOR HYBRID (
U
A/V support for Council Meetings on
c
001.000.11.511.60.41.00
4,025.0E -@
Total:
4,025.0( c
L
255245
12/1/2022
066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA
23967
PUBLIC SAFETY - SERVICE TO DO(
a
PUBLIC SAFETY - SERVICE TO DO(
Q
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
357.0( N
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
37.4� N
Total :
394.4E
E
255246
12/1/2022
068657 ROBERT HALF
61003856
TEMP HELP W/E 10/28/22 - OGSTOI
OGSTON
z
001.000.39.518.10.41.00
2,310.0(
61050485
TEMP HELP W/E 11/4/22 - OGSTON
OGSTON
E
001.000.39.518.10.41.00
1,155.0(
61091615
TEMP WORK W/E 11/11/22 - OGSTC
Q
OGSTON
001.000.39.518.10.41.00
924.0(
61121128
TEMP HELP W/E 11/18/22 - OGSTOI
OGSTON
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 116
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255246 12/1/2022 068657 ROBERT HALF
255247 12/1/2022 079186 SAFEWARE INC
255248 12/1/2022 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN
255249 12/1/2022 077069 SEMACONNECT INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
61140782
30024868
3
INVO030837
255250 12/1/2022 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY LLC 10269 SKYHAWKS
255251 12/1/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
10271 SKYHAWKS
200202547
PO # Description/Account
001.000.39.518.10.41.00
TEMPORARY HELP WEEK ENDING
Temp Position at Customer: Bookkee
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
Total
CUST 127997 - EDMONDS PD
BALLISTIC HELMET - SWAT - CEBA
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
Total
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
Total :
FAC MAINT - CHARGING STATIONS
FAC MAINT - CHARGING STATIONS
001.000.66.518.30.35.00
Freight
001.000.66.518.30.35.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.35.00
Total
10269 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTIC
10269 SKYHAWKS SOCCER CAMP
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
10271 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTIC
10271 SKYHAWKS SOCCER CAMP
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Total
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
8.2.b
Page: 30
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 117
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255251 12/1/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 31
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
a0i
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
23.7z E
200348233
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
ca
a
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
y
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
L
43.8E '3
200386456
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
91.0z Y
200398956
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
U
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
929.4' E
200468593
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
'@
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
U
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
w
262.3, G
200493146
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
23.0( a
200611317
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
Q
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
N
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
147.9E N
200638609
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
o
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
N
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
288.6(
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
E
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
2
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
19.2�
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
m
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
66.2.'
201265980
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
Q
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
156.7E
201374964 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 21.6
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 118
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255251 12/1/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 32
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,936.3" a
201572898
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
y
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
L
3
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
49.4�
201594488
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
Y
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
26.3E u
201610276
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT
E
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
8.9(
201611951
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
o
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 38.7E M
201751476 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW o
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW a
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 51.2� Q
201782646 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
N
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / I\
N
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
25.9, o
201907862 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
N
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
N
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
35.8E .
201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
};
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
93.5E y
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
E
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
355.5(
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 355.5( Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 355.5(
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 355.5(
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 119
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255251 12/1/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 33
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
d
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
355.5, E
202087870
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
ca
a
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
y
L
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
202289120
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
62.9, u)
202291662
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1;
U
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
5,732.7f E
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
'@
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
w
2,883.0( G
202620415
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
o
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
23.0( a
202807632
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
Q
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
23.0( N
203652151
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
o
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
N
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
156.1E
204425847
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
E
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
2
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
84.4�
220216386
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
m
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
E
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
86.9'
222704280
WWTP: 10/14-11/16/22 METER 100C
Q
10/14-11/16/22 200 2ND AVE S / ME
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
22,417.0�
223189747 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8326 196-
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8326 196-
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 29.5£
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 120
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
255251 12/1/2022 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
255252 12/1/2022 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 82292
255253 12/1/2022 075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 26669
255254 12/1/2022 072122 SPEER, RYAN K
255255 12/1/2022 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP
(Continued)
NOV 1 2022
NOV 2 2022
PO # Description/Account
Total
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
WWTP: 10/1-10/31/22 HAZARDOUS
3 Hazardous Waste Loads: 10/3, 10/z
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
Total
WWTP: 10/2022 JANITORIAL SERVI
10/2022 JANITORIAL SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
PER DIEM - HONOR GUARD - SPEE
HONOR GUARD TRAINING PER DIE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WSFC CONFERENCE PER DIEM
WSFC CONFERENCE PER DIEM - 1
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Total
139585 INVESTIGATION FEES
INVESTIGATION FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
141531 INVESTIGATION FEES
INVESTIGATION FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
255256 12/1/2022 079185 SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY INC 42477
Total :
E198PO, E199PO, E200PO - PARTS
E198PO, E199PO, E200PO - PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
10.0% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
8.2.b
Page: 34
Amoun
37,795.51 4
c
m
�a
55.0( y
L
3
420.0(
475.0( N
U
d
t
1,165.6, .
1,165.6,
4-
0
M
77.5( a
Q.
Q
162.2E N
239.7E
0
N
426.7E •@
U
7,977.5( (D
8,404.2E E
Q
41,938.0E
4,193.8
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 121
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 35
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
255256
12/1/2022
079185 079185 SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY INC (Continued)
Total :
46,131.81,
255257
12/1/2022
079168 SZAFRAN, MICHELLE
10192022
JURY DUTY MILEAGE REIMBURSEI
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
001.000.62.558.60.11.00
32.5(
Total :
32.5(
255258
12/1/2022
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
97435
EDMONDS PD
CHARGING CABLE W/KEYCHAIN
001.000.41.521.30.31.00
3,040.0(
NEW SCREEN SET UP
001.000.41.521.30.31.00
60.0(
Freight
001.000.41.521.30.31.00
80.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.30.31.00
333.9(
97583
EDMONDS PD
WOVEN LANYARD
001.000.41.521.30.31.00
2,392.5(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.30.31.00
251.2-
Tota l :
6,157.61
255259
12/1/2022
075025 THE BRANDING IRON LLC
16699
DEV SVCS MISC
Edmonds Hwy 99 flyer/mailer
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
45.0'
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
4.7<
Total :
49.7E
255260
12/1/2022
078863 THE LANGUAGE EXCHANGE INC
428321
EDMONDS PD
11/10 INTERPRETATION - TRYKAR
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
289.3,
428368
EDMONDS PD
11/17 INTERPRETATION - TRYKAR
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
315.0(
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 122
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
255260 12/1/2022 078863 078863 THE LANGUAGE EXCHANGE INC (Continued)
255261 12/1/2022 075587 THE UPS STORE #6392 0035
255262 12/1/2022 064423 USA BLUE BOOK
255263 12/1/2022 076821 VAN HOLLEBEKE, TENILLE
255264 12/1/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
177592
11098 CAKE CLASS
Description/Account
WWTP: 10/6/22 SHIP CHG
10/6/22 Ship Charges
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
Total
Total :
WWTP: PO 906 SWING SAMPLER
PO 906 SWING SAMPLER
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
11098 CAKE DECORATING CLASS 1
11098 CAKE DECORATING CLASS 1
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
9921205628 C/A 571242650-0001
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.31.514.31.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc
001.000.61.573.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council
001.000.11.511.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.11.511.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs
001.000.62.524.10.42.00
8.2.b
Page: 36
Amoun
604.3:
c
m
�a
19.7, y
19.7: •3
c
�a
186.9E hd
d
t
14.1'
E
21.1' u
222.1 j o
�a
0
a
172.8( Q-
172.8( Q
N
N
0
04
680.4�
36.2 ,
199.4'
aD
90.3<
636.7£ Q
347.2
132.2E
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 123
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255264 12/1/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 37
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
m
001.000.67.518.21.35.00
397.7� E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
a
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
1,515.6E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
3
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
353.81 -o
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
M
001.000.31.514.20.42.00
36.2, u)
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
U
a�
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
50.3,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
E
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
251.6( .�
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Human Sen
001.000.63.557.20.42.00
w
50.3, _0
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
>
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
468.6E o
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor
a
001.000.21.513.10.35.00
1,436.4� Q
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor
04
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
160.0,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin
c
001.000.64.571.21.42.00
50.3,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec
001.000.64.571.22.35.00
397.7E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec
001.000.64.571.22.42.00
207.7E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD
001.000.41.521.10.35.00
110.4E t
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
2,684.4E Q
Air cards PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1,661.0�
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning
001.000.62.558.60.42.00 402.2(
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 124
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255264 12/1/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 38
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
m
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
5.3( E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
a
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
1.5, aD
L
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
3
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
5.3(
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
1.5, Y
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
U
Q
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
1.5' r-
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street
E
111.000.68.542.90.35.00
276.2z .�
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
w
105.8� _0
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet
>
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
130.3z
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/SeWe
Q.
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
95.4� Q
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewe
c14
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
95.4E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer
e
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
340.7(
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
537.0'
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm
z
422.000.72.531.90.35.00
276.2z
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm
aD
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
156.3( t
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
111.000.68.542.90.35.00
276.2z Q
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
422.000.72.531.90.35.00 276.21
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 285.3(
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 125
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
255264 12/1/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
255265 12/1/2022 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
255266 12/1/2022 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
255267 12/1 /2022 047960 WEAN, GREG
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Disco
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
Total
123002067 OCT-EDMONDS PD
CPL BACKGROUNDS
001.000.237.100
BACKGROUNDS
001.000.41.521.11.41.00
Total
12993541 CR FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
13021247 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
13021248 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
52
REIMBURSEMENT
Total
8.2.b
Page: 39
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 126
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 40
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255267
12/1/2022
047960 WEAN, GREG
(Continued)
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
1,467.3 - E,
Total:
1,467.31, m
CL
255268
12/1/2022
074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH
2694331
SEPT & OCT - EDMONDS PD
3
SEP & OCT RANGE FEES
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
81.4E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
8.5E u
Total :
90.0( t
U
255269
12/1/2022
068693 WHATMORE, JEFF
10192022
JURY DUTY MILEAGE REIMBURSEI
E
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
2
U
001.000.67.518.21.11.00
148.7E p
Total:
148.7E
255270
12/1/2022
079179 ZHANG, YIFAN
2007276.009
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOP
a
REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl'
Q-
001.000.239.200
182.0( Q
Total:
182.0( N
255271
12/1/2022
011900 ZIPLY FIBER
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
G
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
04
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
31.1
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
@
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
z
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
162.8E
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
aD
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
302.4z s
253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
Q
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.8�
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.9z
253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 127
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 41
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
255271 12/1/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
(Continued)
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
47.0E E
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
a
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
87.4; (D
L
425-697-6502
MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH P
3
Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
113.1 ,
425-712-0417
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
Y
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
U
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
38.4E
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
38.4z
425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
w
G
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
18.2E >
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
o
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
91.3, a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
Q
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
76.7' N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
N
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
76.7' c
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
04
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
102.2E
425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
@
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
78.7z +-;
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
44)
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
72.6'
425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL,
Q
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
148.9�
Total:
1,543.4,
89 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
356,801.7(
Page: 41
Packet Pg. 128
vchlist
12/01/2022 3:44:42PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
89 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.b
Page: 42
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
N
Total vouchers : 356,801 M
E
�a
a
a�
L
3
c
U
a�
E
a
U
4-
0
iq
N
N
O
N
N
E
2
V
a+
C
d
E
t
V
r
Q
Page: 42
Packet Pg. 129
8.2.c
vchlist
11/21/2022 9:00:02AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212022 11/21/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page:
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
0747
PW CC - 11/07/2022
c
AWARDS SERVICE - NAME PLATE
E
E
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
159.2 1
MERCHOLOGY - LAPTOP BACK PA,
Q-
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
152.4 1 .L
SEWER EQUIPMENT- SEWER SUF
3
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
751.5�
WA DOH - THOR NELSON TEST FEI
N
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
52.0,
AMAZON - INK FOR TOD MOLES PF
t
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
65.1 £
AMAZON - WATER/ CAR SEAT ORG
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
33.1 z
AMAZON - WALL CALENDARS
o
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
145.8E Fu
AMAZON - WALL & DESK CALENDP
0
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
138.2£ o.
AMAZON - SEWER - PARTS
Q'
a
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
290.2£ .�
AMAZON - WALL CALENDARS
N
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
25.5( N
ITUNES MONTHLY CHARGE FOR IC
r
001.000.65.518.20.49.00
0.9t
GREEN RIVER/ WETRC - CROSS C
3
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
180.0(
2660
CISCO SMF TRANSCEIVER MODUL
FS.com - Cisco SFP-10G-BXU &
a�
E
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
442.0(
2892
AIR PURIFIERS
1°
Amazon - Levoit air purfiers - Qty 3
Q
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
165.7,
2969
COUNCIL VISA- SUPPLIES
Amazon Council Office Supplies - de:
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
11.1 £
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 130
vchlist
11/21/2022 9:00:02AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212022 11/21/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.c
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Awards Services Inc Council Supplies
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
15.4t E
Fred Meyer Council supplies for Cour
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
85.2: Q-
Amazon - Council Office Supplies an(
L_
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
326.9' 3
Amazon - Council Office supplies
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
26.2' N
2985 WWTP: OPS DIARY, MTEKIE CLAS:
Amazon: Operators Diary $58.26+$6.
m
t
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
64.3£ U
Sacremento St University: MTekie Sa
E
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
183.0( 2
Amazon: Circuit Breaker: $7.30 + $0.
o
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
8.0 Fu
Amazon:C Fold Towels $88.13 + $9.2
>
0
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
97.3t 0.
WETRC: Dawson Lawrence - Electric
Q-
a
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
410.0(
WETRC: Devin McClamma - Electric
N
N
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
410.0( N
WEtrc: Tollie Bernstein - Electric
r
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
410.0(
Dick's Sporting Goods: 3 prs of Wade
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
253.5z 3
Amazon: Desk CalendarPads: $53.2E
c
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
58.8( E
4697 CANVA SUBSCRIPTION NOVEMBEF
Amazon - sit/stand desk converter
001.000.21.513.10.35.00 149.1, Q
Amazon - kraft bubble mailers
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 12.1,
Amazon - 2023 wall calendar
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 14.3,1
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 131
vchlist
11/21/2022 9:00:02AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212022 11/21/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.c
Page: 3
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
Amazon - packing tape, post -it notes
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
37.7, E
canva subscription 11/2022
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
12.9'. Q-
5593
SNO CO RECORDING FEES, AIR Pl
L_
Snohomish Co Auditor recordings 101
3
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
80.0( _
Snohomish Co Auditor recordings 10)
0
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
N
80.0( "
Snohomish Co Auditor recordings 10)
m
t
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
206.5( u
Amazon - Levoit air purifier for N Falk
E
001.000.31.514.31.35.00
110.4�
Snohomish Co Auditor recordings 10)
o
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
234.0( Fa
Snohomish Co Auditor recordings 101
>
0
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
234.0( 0.
5639
PAYFLOW PAYMENT PROCESSOR
Q-
Q
Payflow payment processor
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
37.6£ N
Payflow payment processor
N
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
37.6� r
Payflow payment processor
r
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
a�
37.6£ .-
5919
5919 FRANCES CHAPIN CREDIT CI
3
WOTS Shaw Guide
c
117.100.64.573.20.41.40
500.0( E
5923
CS/ECON DEV CREDIT CARD OCT(
Hwy 99 Office - Crystal Water
001.000.60.557.20.49.00
28.5£ Q
Hwy 99 Office - Office Supplies
001.000.60.557.20.49.00
80.7 ,
Hwy 99 Office - Kleenex
001.000.60.557.20.49.00
17.4,1
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 132
vchlist
11/21/2022 9:00:02AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212022 11/21/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.c
Page: 4
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
Computer Speakers
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
16.5E E
8017
ENG CREDIT CARD OCT 2022
Amazon - stylus (JC), keyboard (JS),
Q-
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
105.1( L_
Amazon - pens, iPhone case (GM)
3
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
28.4'.
Amazon - webcam (GM)
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
N
43.7(
Ikea - stool (JS)
t
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
164.6( u
Square Grove LLC - Uplift Desk - NG
E
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
1,444.2,
Airbnb - RH
o
001.000.67.518.21.43.00
268.5t Fu
Amazon - iPad case (GM)
o
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
29.3£ Q.
Fed Ex Office - binding and supplies
Q-
a
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
WFOA-training (ER)
N
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
100.0( N
ITE WA Safety Conference (BH)
r
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
95.0(
2023 ITE Membership dues (BH)
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
327.0( 3
8842
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS WEBINAR
c
WABO - Professional Ethics &
E
E
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
143.0(
9573
GFOAGAAP UPDATE WEBINAR, Bl
1°
Office Depot - Binder covers for 2023
Q
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
13.8'
GFOA- Annual Governmental GAAP
001.000.31.514.20.49.00
180.0(
BID-9798
BID/ED! CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 2
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 133
vchlist
11/21/2022 9:00:02AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212022 11/21/2022 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.c
Page: 5
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
BID/Ed! - ReVitalize WA Conference
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
360.4£
E
BID/Ed! - Facebook Ads
140.000.61.558.70.41.40
568.8'.
Q-
BID/Ed! - Holiday Posters (Branding
L_
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
79.1,
3
BID/Ed! - Zoom Subscription October
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
16.5(
N
Total:
10,880.4'<
m
Bank total :
10,880.4:
U
E
Total vouchers :
10,880.4:
'M
U
w-
0
El
N
N
T-
N
r
N
L
3
c
a�
E
ca
a
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 134
8.2.d
vchlist
11 /29/2022 7:38: 51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
11292022 11/29/2022 078787 FW WAAURORA MARKETPLACE LLC RD07236223
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Page:
PO # Description/Account Amoun
TENANT#861907 LEASE#90097002
c
Hwy 99 Neighborhood City Hall-
E
001.000.60.557.20.45.00
4,453.8f
Total :
4,453.81
L_
Bank total :
4,453.81
3
Total vouchers :
4,453.81
M
N
U
m
t
U
E
2
U
0
El
N
N
6�
N
r
N
L
3
c
a�
E
ca
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 135
8.2.e
vchlist
11 /30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page:
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
1880
ROBINSON CC 1880 11-07-22
c
JULZ ANIMAL HOUZ - DOG FOOD F
E
E
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
236.0(
CHEWY - DOG FOOD FOR K9
Q-
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
75.7, .L
1885
PD 2 CC 1885 11/07/22
3
HOTEL ROOM - HILTON FOR JENS[
_
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
837.1' N
2519
PD 1 CC 2519 11-07-22
Y
U
FED EX - 22-18975
m
t
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
23.4£ u
FED EX SURCHARGE FOR RESIDE
E
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
3.5' 2
GAS FOR PD VEHICLE
o
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
88.0' Fa
TRAINING REGISTRATION - K9 HW,
>
0
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
350.0( 0.
HOME DEPOT- GARAGE STORAGE
Q-
a
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
930.9E "
4286 4286 SHANNON BURLEY CREDIT C
N
AMAZON: ELECTRONIC PROTECTI
o
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
M
5.5' r
BADEN SPORTS: REC SUPPLIES::
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
583.4z •3
QFC: YOUTH COMMISSION SUPPLI
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
122.7(
WALGREENS: YOUTH COMMISSIOI
0
E
001.000.64.571.21.31.00 7.7,
COUNTRY FARMS: SCARECROW C f°
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 9.7� Q
PARTY STORE: SCARECROW COM
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 60.6(
DOLLAR TREE: SCARECROW COM
001.000.64.571.22.31.00 13.8,
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 136
vchlist
11/30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.e
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: SPEAKER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
87.2(
E
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: LAMINA]
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
25.2z
Q-
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: PACKAG
L_
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
20.9'.
3
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: COPY P/
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
16.5(
N
AMAZON: HUMAN SERVICES SUPF
Y
U
001.000.63.557.20.31.00
165.6(
AMAZON: HUMAN SERVICES SUPF
U
001.000.63.557.20.31.00
262.9�
.
HOME DEPOT: DISCOVERY: STOR)
U
001.000.64.571.23.35.00
395.5�
o
AMAZON: HUMAN SERVICES SUPF
001.000.63.557.20.31.00
224.9'
Fa
o
AMAZON: HUMAN SERVICES SUPF
Q.
001.000.63.557.20.31.00
93.8'.
Q
AMAZON: HUMAN SERVICES SUPF
001.000.63.557.20.31.00
331.41
N
AMAZON: HUMAN SERVICES: URG
M
001.000.63.557.20.31.00
1,845.1E
r
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: LABELS
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
17.3.
•3
LLBEAN: DISCOVERY RANGER UN
001.000.64.571.23.24.00
328.1
4286 CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: THI
E
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: THI
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
-35.3(
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: AM
Q
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
-5.5'
g HOME DEPOT: DISCOVERY: STOR)
001.000.64.571.23.35.00
-395.5�
4729 EHLERT CC 4729 11/07/22
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 137
vchlist
11/30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.e
Page: 3
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
AMAZON PENS 1.00MM LOI
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
21.01 E
AMAZON - BASIC SUPPLIES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
14.5£ Q-
AMAZON - TAPE DISPENSER ALLY
L_
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
11.8, 3
AMAZON - CONFERENCE ROOM W
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
19.8 N
AMAZON - PENS LOI
.8MM
U
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
27.7(
AMAZON - BASIC SUPPLIES
U
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
37.5, .
TRANSUNION - REOCCURING CHA
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
82.8£ o
VET SPECIALITY CENTER - HOBBS
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
F0
4,157.3, o
5245
MACHADO CC 5245 11-07-22
Q.
GAS -TRAINER
Q-
a
001.000.41.521.22.43.00
76.81
5336
STANLEY CC 5336 11-07-22
N
N
GAS FOR PD VEHICLE OUT OF ARI
o
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
M
221.5E r
6252
SHOEMAKE CC 6252 11-07-22
r
LOOKOURWAY- CANOPY
L
001.000.41.521.26.35.00
1,313.51 3
AMAZON - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE A
c
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
90.5 j E
6459
6459 ANGIE FESER CREDIT CARD
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARKING G/
001.000.64.571.21.49.00 12.0( Q
6654 SULLIVAN CC - 11/07/2022
LOWES - F.A.C. WASHING MACHIN
001.000.66.518.30.35.00 626.2,
SUPPLY HOUSE - F.A.C. - RADIATO
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 138
vchlist
11/30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.e
Page: 4
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00 282.4E c
NATIONAL BUSINESS FURINTURE
m
E
001.000.66.518.30.35.00
2,647.51
6681
6681 KYLE WOODS CREDIT CARD
Q-
CITY OF EDMONDS: BUILDING PEF
136.100.64.573.30.41.00
923.6( 3
6748
DAWKINS CC 6748 11-07-22
c
GAS - TRAINING
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
40.2 , Y
HOTEL ROOM FOR TRAINING
aUi
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
t
795.2( u
GAS - PD CAR OUT OF AREA
E
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
74.2
7573
SMITH CC 7573 11-07-22
PROPERTY ROOM SUPPLIES
o
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
22.51
o
8111
8111 MICHELE PARKER CREDIT CA
Q.
WALMART: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE:
Q.
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
51.3 1 Q
SCHOOLSIN: PRESCHOOL SUPPLII
N
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
492.4'
N
o
SWANS TRAIL FARMS: PUMPKIN Pi
M
r
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
301.9z
r
TARGET: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
9.8 ,
3
DOLLAR TREE: PRESCHOOL SUPP
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
4.1'.
HOME DEPOT: PRESCHOOL SUPPI
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
12.2'
WALMART: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE:
Q
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
52.4,
WALMART: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
40.1,
DOLLAR TREE: PRESCHOOL SUPP
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 139
vchlist
11/30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.e
Page: 5
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
9.6£
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE;
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
61.0:
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE;
0-
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
487.0( L_
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
3
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
89.3z
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLYI PRE:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
N
84.8£
WALMART: PRESCHOOL SUPPLI:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
77.4( u
DOLLAR TREE: PRESCHOOL SUPP
E
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
6.9' u
PLAY TO LEARN: PRESCHOOL SIGI
o
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
4.0( Fu
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
o
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
79.2( Q.
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
Q-
a
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
8111
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: SCI
N
N
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: SCI
o
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
M
-492.4' r
8559
PECK CC 8559 11-07-2022
r
BOOTS - SNIFFEN
L
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
198.9( 3
CR123A BATTERIES - PATROL
c
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
46.3£ E
PROPERTYAD - HERALD
001.000.41.521.10.41.40
22.3(
BONDI 7 SHOES - MORRISON
Q
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
176.8(
COFFEE TRAVELER - SGTS MEETII
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
22.1(
DOUGHTNUTS - SGTS MEETING
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 140
vchlist
11/30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.e
Page: 6
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 24.9� c
CR123A BATTERIES - PATROL
m
E
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
58.3,
HOKASHOES-SHOEMAKE
Q-
001.000.41.521.30.24.00
221.0( L_
OFFICE SUPPLIES- PECK
3
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
24.8
FILE FOLDERS - PECK
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
N
38.6f
MORRISON SHOES - CORRECT SI2
t
001.000.41.521.11.24.00
176.8( U
8770 8770 JESSE CURRAN CREDIT CAR
E
GAMETIME: PM SUPPLIES: PLAYGF
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
78.2( o
NORTHWEST MEADOWS: SHIPPIN
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
Fa
5.7: o
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: KEYBOAF
Q.
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
20.9£ Q
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: NOTE PA[
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
40.4' N
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HARD HA
o
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
M
52.4f r
ISA: MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FEE:
r
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
a�
210.0( .-
GO NATIVES NURSERY: TREES
3
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
402.6( c
GO NATIVES NURSERY: HOLIDAY
E
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 154.4,
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: FIRSTAIC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.8z Q
GO NATIVES NURSERY: TREES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 238.2f
GO NATIVES NURSERY: HOLIDAY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 620.4z
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 141
vchlist
11 /30/2022 11:45:39AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8.2.e
Page: 7
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
11302022 11/30/2022 062693 US BANK
(Continued)
N
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
48.6, E
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: SPILL KIT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
96.1 z Q-
AMAZON: PLAZA HOLIDAY TREE LI
L_
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
374.4( 3
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: CAUTION
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
95.0, N
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HANDWAI
Y
U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
18.7 ,
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: FOOT WA
U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
26.5( .
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
96.1 o
9010
SPEER CC 9010 11/07/2022
GAS - TRAINING
Fa
o
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
37.5z Q.
HOTEL - CAMPBELLS LODGE FOR
Q-
a
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
9644
WSADCP CON - KXK/SLC/KSR
N
N
WSADCP CON - KXK/SLC/KSR
o
001.000.23.512.51.49.00
M
700.0( r
PASSPORT POSTAGE
r
001.000.23.512.51.42.00
a�
19.8( .-
WSADCP CONF - WMR
3
001.000.23.512.51.49.00
75.0( c
PASSPORT POSTAGE
E
E
001.000.23.512.51.42.00
9.9(
Total:
24,860.8(
Q
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
24,860.8(
1 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
24,860.8(
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 142
8.2.e
vchlist
11/30/2022 11:45:39AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Page:
Amoun
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 143
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
E21 FB
c560
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
EBGA
c516
SWR
2019 MIN
EBFC
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
EBJA
c523
WTR
ffic Calming
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
EBJB
s020
UTILITIES
019 Waterline Overlay
2019 Waterline Replacement
E7JA
c498
WTR
20 Guardrail Installations
2020 Overlay Program
EOCA
i042
STR
R2020 Pedestria
EODB
Sm
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
EODA
s024
STR
affic Calmi
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
EOAB
i047
STR
1020 Waterline Overlay
i053
2021 Guardrail Installations
E21AB
i057
STR
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
E21 DB
i062
STR
a1 Seweriverlay Progra MIMI '
2021 Stormwater
c Calming
2021 Waterline Overlay
rQ22 Guardrail Program
E21CD i061 STM
STR
E21 CB i059 WTR
STR
2022 Overlay Program E22CA i063 STR
n Safety STR
2022 Sewerline
W Signa
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
IF022 Traffic Calming Program '
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
k022 Waterline Overlay Program
2023 Overlay Program
naublic ROW ADA � Plan
2023 Sewer Overlay Program
2023 Stormwater Overlay Program
2023 Transportation Plan
2023 Waterline Overlay Program
E22CC i065 STR
E22AA
E22CD i066 STR
E22AB
E22NB s030 UTILITIES
E22CB —&IOM
E23CA i074 STR
B
E23CC i076 SW R
STM
E23AA s032 STR
1E0WVV—T=
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 144
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
8.2.f
Project Title
220th Adaptive
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OV
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
�6th Ave W at 212th St S1Antersection Improvements
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
FDA Curb Ramps
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
kallinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
-6tected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
Vvic Center Playfield (Design) I
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
Edmonds,Varsh-Vater
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
ay Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
rwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (244th-238th)
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
We Ballinger l Sewer SM
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
EBAB
i028
STR
E20CB
i052
STR
EBCA
i029
STR
E 1 CA
EBCC
i031
STR
c
d
E
E9DA
i040
STR
a
s022
3
EODC
i050
STR
c
Y
E7DC
i026
STR
E
EOMA
c551
PRK
EOMA
c
ESJB
c482
WTR
E41FE
c455
a
E4MB
c443
FAC
a
Q
21FE
S
N
E21JB
c561
WTR
N
L
ESKA
c473
WTR
E
M
z
E22CE
i067
STR
a
a
i068
�
d
E4FD
c436
STM
�B
a=i
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study E4GC c461 SWR
rower Perrinville Creek Restorati E22FB
Minor Sidewalk Program
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
terrinville Creek Recovery Study
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
hase 1 JKnnual Water Utility Replacement Project
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
E6DD
E7FG
EONA
E7FA
E20FC
i017 STR
Vm013
s025
m 105
c552
E22GA c566
c549
E21JA c558
_ GF
STM
STM
►►=
►LTINN.
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 145
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
E22JA
c565 JLWTR_A
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
EOFB
c547
STM
Ose 3 Sto ility Replac =
E21 FD
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
E22FA
c567
STM
nual Sewer Replacement Project
NEOGA
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
E21 GA
c559
SWR
W Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
AC
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
E21 GB
c562
SWR
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
E20CE
i055
STIR
�04 Adaptive System 236th-226
E22CG
Standard Details Updates
ESNA
solo
UTILITIES
tormwater Comp Plan Update
Sunset Walkway Improvements
E1 DA
c354
STIR
Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
s029
UTILITIES
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
E7MA
c544
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496 V
me
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
E7MA
m103
PRK
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
ost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
EOJB s026 WTR
E21 FA c556 PRK
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 146
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering #)
Engineering
Project Title Project
Number
L020 Guardrail Installations
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
2020 Overlay Program
12020 Waterline Ova
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
020 Pedestrian Safety Program
Project
Accounting Funding
Number
i046
EOAB i047 STR
i048
EOCA i042 STR
c
EODA s024 STR
E
Q.
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
EODC
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
EOFB
al Sewer Replace
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
NOR
EOJA
ost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
EOMA
rvic Center Playfield (Design)
EOMA
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update EONA
at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 1C
i05O STR
TM
c
c547 STM
Y
SWR
c549 WTR
E
c551 PRK c
0
s025 GF a
CL
c368 VVSTR Q
Sunset Walkway Improvements E1 DA c354 STR
a Ave Overlay (196
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) E20CE i055 STR
rrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
2021 Traffic Calming
1021 Guardrail Installations
2021 Overlay Program
t021 Waterline Overlay Program
E21 AA
E21 CA
21CB
c552
i056 STR
i051 STR
WTR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
E21 CC
i06O
SW R
j?021 Stormwater Overlay Progra-
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
E21 DA
i058
STR
F-021 Pedestrian Task Force Mop"
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
E21 FA
c556
PRK
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization wow
E21 FB
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
E21 FC
s028
STM
t Replacemel
qW1FD
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
E21 FE
c564
STM
I Sewer Replacement Project
E21GA
c559
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
E21 GB
c562
SW R
12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
E21JA
=MWhase
WT
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 147
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering #)
8.2.f
Project Title
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
2022 Signal Upgrades
2022 Traffic Calming Program
■2 Guardrail Program
2022 Overlay Program
022 Waterline Overlay Program
Engineering
Project
Numher
E21JB
E22AA
Project
Accounting Funding
Number
c561 WTR
i070 STIR
E22AB i071 STIR
E22CA i063 STIR
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
E22CC
i065
STIR
k022 Stormwater Overlay Program
E22CD
STIR
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (244th-238th)
E22CE
i067
STIR
!wy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
SR-104 Adaptive System 236th-226th
E22CG
i069
STIR
j?r022 Pedestrian Safety program
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
E22FA
c567
STM
ro-wer Perrinville Creek Restoration
INEW
a157
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
E22GA
c566
SWR
hase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
E22JB
m160
WTR
e Policies Study
E22NA
s029
UTILITIES
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
E22NB
s030
UTILITIES
Cn'^^
s032
2023 Public ROW ADA Transition Plan
023 Overlay Program
2023 Waterline Overlay Program
IL023 Sewer Overlay Progra
2023 Stormwater Overlay Program
-Creel.,Daylighting/E=nds Marsh Restoration
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
ayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
`Standardketails Updates&.
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
itywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
Minor Sidewalk Program
E23AB
s033
STIR
E23CB
i075
WTR
E23CC""'
E23CD
i077
STM
STM
E4FD
c436
STM
E4GC
c461
SWR
E5GB
E5,113
4.01
s011
c482
c473
E6AA s014
E6DD i017
SWR
WTR
WTR
UTIL
STIR
STIR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 148
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering #)
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
kt-ormwater Comp Plan Update
E6FD
s017
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
E6GB
c488
SWR
ssing En
E7DC
i026
INKM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
E7FA
m105
STM
PDES (Students Saving Salm
E7FG
A m01
2019 Waterline Replacement
E7JA
c498
WTR
c
E
6raterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
RK
a
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
E7MA
c496
PRK
`waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
220th Adaptive
E8AB
i028
STIR
c
Me W tIntersection Improvements
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
E8CC
i031
STR
t
E
FDA Curb Ramps
i033
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
E8FC
c525
STM
0
1019 Sewerline Replacement Project
E8GA
0
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
E8JA
c523
WTR
0.
OEM 8J
s020
UTILITIES
a
Q
2019 Traffic Calming
E9AA
i038
STR
N
Materline
WTR
N
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
E9DA
i040
STR
N
L
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STM
E
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
E9MA
c502
FAC
M
Revised 9/27/2022
Packet Pg. 149
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Accounting #)
8.2.f
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Number
Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration
E22FB
a157
Sunset Walkway Improvements
E1 DA
c354
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
E1 CA
c368
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
E4FC
c435
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
E4FD
c436
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
E4MB
c443
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
E4FE
c455
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
E4GC
c461
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
ESKA
c473
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
ESJB
c482
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
E6GB
c488
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
E7MA
c496
2019 Waterline Replacement
E7JA
c498
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
E9MA
c502
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
EBGA
c516
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
EBJA
c523
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
EBFC
c525
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
EOMA
c536
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
E7MA
c544
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
EOFA
c546
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
EOFB
c547
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
EOGA
c548
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
EOJA
c549
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
EOMA
c551
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
E20FC
c552
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
E21 FA
c556
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
E21JA
c558
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
E21 GA
c559
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
E21 FB
c560
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
E21JB
c561
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
E21 GB
c562
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
E21 FD
c563
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
E21 FE
c564
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
E22JA
c565
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
E22GA
c566
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
E22FA
c567
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
E6AB
i015
Funding
STM
STR
STR
STM
STM
FAC
STM
SWR
WTR
WTR
SWR
PRK
WTR
FAC
SWR
WTR
STM
PRK
PRK
STM
STM
SWR
WTR
PRK
STM
PRK
WTR
SWR
STM
WTR
SWR
STM
STM
WTR
SWR
STM
STR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 150
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Accounting #)
8.2.f
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Number
Minor Sidewalk Program
E6DD
i017
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
E7DC
i026
220th Adaptive
EBAB
i028
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
EBCA
i029
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
EBCC
i031
ADA Curb Ramps
EBDB
i033
2019 Traffic Calming
E9AA
i038
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
E9DA
i040
2020 Overlay Program
EOCA
i042
2019 Waterline Overlay
E9CB
i043
2020 Guardrail Installations
EOAA
i046
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Calming
EOAC
i048
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
EODB
i049
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
EODC
i050
2021 Overlay Program
E21 CA
i051
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
E20CB
i052
2020 Waterline Overlay
EOCC
i053
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
E20CE
i055
2021 Traffic Calming
E21 AA
i056
2021 Guardrail Installations
E21 AB
i057
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
E21 DA
i058
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
E21 CB
i059
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
E21 CC
i060
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
E21 CD
i061
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
E21 DB
i061
2022 Overlay Program
E22CA
i063
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
E22CB
i064
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
E22CC
i065
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
E22CD
i066
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (244th-238th)
E22CE
i067
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
E22CF
i068
SR-104 Adaptive System 236th-226th
E22CG
i069
2022 Signal Upgrades
E22AA
i070
2022 Traffic Calming Program
E22AB
i071
2022 Pedestrian Safety program
E22DA
i072
2022 Guardrail Program
E22AC
i073
Funding
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
WTR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
WTR
SWR
STM
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 151
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Accounting #)
8.2.f
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
2023 Overlay Program
E23CA
i074
STIR
2023 Waterline Overlay Program
E23CB
i075
WTR
2023 Sewer Overlay Program
E23CC
i076
SWR
2023 Stormwater Overlay Program
E23CD
i077
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
E7FG
m013
STM
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
E7MA
m103
PRK
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
E7FA
m105
STM
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
E22JB
m160
WTR
Standard Details Updates
ESNA
solo
UTILITIES
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
ESGB
sol l
SWR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
E6AA
s014
STIR
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
E6FD
s017
STM
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
EBJB
s02O
UTILITIES
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
E9FA
s022
STM
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
EODA
s024
STIR
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
EONA
s025
GF
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
EOJB
s026
WTR
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
E21 FC
s028
STM
Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
E22NA
s029
UTILITIES
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
E22NB
s03O
UTILITIES
2023 Transportation Plan
E23AA
s032
STIR
2023 Public ROW ADA Transition Plan
E23AB
s033
STIR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022
Packet Pg. 152
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
8.2.f
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Number
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
E4MB
c443
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
E9MA
c502
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
EONA
s025
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
E7MA
c496
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
EOMA
c536
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
E7MA
c544
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
EOMA
c551
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
E21 FA
c556
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
E7MA
m103
Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration
E22FB
a157
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
E4FC
c435
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
E4FD
c436
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
E4FE
c455
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
EBFC
c525
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
EOFA
c546
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
EOFB
c547
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
E20FC
c552
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
E21 FB
c560
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
E21 FD
c563
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
E21 FE
c564
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
E22FA
c567
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
E21 CD
i061
2023 Stormwater Overlay Program
E23CD
i077
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
E7FG
m013
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
E7FA
m105
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
E6FD
s017
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
E9FA
s022
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
E21 FC
s028
Sunset Walkway Improvements
E1DA
c354
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
E1CA
c368
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
E6AB
i015
Minor Sidewalk Program
E6DD
i017
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
E7DC
i026
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
EBCA
i029
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
EBCC
i031
ADA Curb Ramps
EBDB
i033
2019 Traffic Calming
E9AA
i038
Funding
FAC
FAC
GF
PRK
PRK
PRK
PRK
PRK
PRK
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
STR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 153
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
8.2.f
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Number
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
E9DA
i040
2020 Overlay Program
EOCA
i042
2020 Guardrail Installations
EOAA
i046
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Calming
EOAC
i048
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
EODB
i049
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
EODC
i050
2021 Overlay Program
E21 CA
i051
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
E20CB
i052
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
E20CE
i055
2021 Traffic Calming
E21 AA
i056
2021 Guardrail Installations
E21 AB
i057
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
E21 DA
i058
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
E21 DB
i061
2022 Overlay Program
E22CA
i063
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
E22CB
i064
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
E22CC
i065
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
E22CD
i066
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (244th-238th)
E22CE
i067
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
E22CF
i068
SR-104 Adaptive System 236th-226th
E22CG
i069
2022 Signal Upgrades
E22AA
i070
2022 Traffic Calming Program
E22AB
i071
2022 Pedestrian Safety program
E22DA
i072
2022 Guardrail Program
E22AC
i073
2023 Overlay Program
E23CA
i074
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
E6AA
s014
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
EODA
s024
2023 Transportation Plan
E23AA
s032
2023 Public ROW ADA Transition Plan
E23AB
s033
220th Adaptive
EBAB
i028
2020 Waterline Overlay
EOCC
i053
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
E4GC
c461
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
E6GB
c488
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
EBGA
c516
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
EOGA
c548
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
E21 GA
c559
Funding
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
Sim
STIR
STIR
STR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
STIR
SWR
SWR
SWR
SWR
SWR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022 Packet Pg. 154
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
8.2.f
Engineering
Project
Project Title
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
E21 GB
c562
SWR
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
E22GA
c566
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
E21CC
i06O
SWR
2023 Sewer Overlay Program
E23CC
i076
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
ESGB
s0l l
SWR
Standard Details Updates
ESNA
solo
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
EBJB
s02O
UTILITIES
Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
E22NA
s029
UTILITIES
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
E22NB
s03O
UTILITIES
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
ESKA
c473
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
ESJB
c482
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
E7JA
c498
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
EBJA
c523
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
EOJA
c549
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
E21JA
c558
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
E21JB
c561
WTR
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
E22JA
c565
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
E9CB
i043
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
E21CB
i059
WTR
2023 Waterline Overlay Program
E23CB
i075
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
E22JB
m160
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
EOJB
s026
WTR
Q
Revised 9/27/2022
Packet Pg. 155
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017. This
work involved extensive public engagement, data and design analysis, scenario evaluation, and
environmental review. Ultimately this process led to the adoption of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 4077), an update to the General Commercial zoning in
Chapter 16.60 ECDC to implement the Subarea Plan (Ord. 4078), and a planned action for the Highway
99 Subarea, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (Ord. 4079).
In August 2022, a required five-year review of the Highway 99 Planned Action EIS was undertaken.
While development in the Planned Action area was found by the SEPA responsible official to be well
under the established mitigation thresholds, the adequacy of the original EIS was questioned by some
members of the public. There was also some public concern about a design review application for a new
261-unit apartment building on the vacant parcel at the southeast corner of 84th Ave. and 236th St. The
concern pertained to step -backs and the interest to require them across the street from single family
zoning.
On October 4, 2022, Council adopted emergency interim Ordinance 4278 regarding step backs for
buildings on sites in the General Commercial (CG) zone that are across the street from single-family (RS)
zoned parcels.
On November 15, 2022, the Council took public testimony regarding the interim ordinance, within 60
days of adoption as required by RCW 36.70A.390.
On November 22, 2022, Council reviewed the resolution in support of retaining the interim ordinance.
Staff provided critical background information learned since the October 4 interim ordinance went into
effect. This information confirmed the Council's consideration of the CG step back language in 2017.
The Council in 2017 discussed step backs for buildings on sites in the CG zone that are across the street
from single-family (RS) zoned parcels but chose to not include that step back language in the code
adopted in Ord. 4078. Staff also confirmed with Council that Staff already has discretion under the
existing code in Chapter 16.60 to require stepbacks, as necessary to mitigate massing.
After reviewing and discussing the new information, Council made a motion to repeal the interim
ordinance and directed the City Attorney to create a repeal ordinance for the December 6 consent
agenda.
Staff Recommendation
Packet Pg. 156
8.3
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance repealing emergency interim Ordinance 4278 in
Exhibit 1.
Narrative
At the time of the interim adoption, staff's understanding was that step backs for buildings on sites in
the CG zone that are across the street from single-family (IRS) zoned parcels had not been discussed by
Council, and therefore the recommendation for the step back referenced in the associated Planned
Action EIS was not included in the revised CG code that was eventually adopted.
However, the CG-street-RS step back was discussed several times by Council in 2017 - the minutes from
the June 20, July 18, and July 31, 2017, meetings are attached. In fact, Council unanimously adopted the
Highway 99 Subarea Plan (Ord. 4077), the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord.
4078), and established the SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a planned action (Ord. 4079)
but ultimately did not include the CG-street-RS step back in the revised CG code in ECDC 16.60.
Also of note, the December 14, 2016 agenda memo to the Planning Board for their public hearing on the
draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan includes the following summary of public outreach up that point:
Public outreach on the current project included:
- Briefings/discussions with Planning Board and City Council at several public meetings
- Meetings with key property owners
- Three public open houses
- Three mailings about the project and input opportunities:
- Flyer # 1 to nearly 2200 addresses
- Flyer # 2 to nearly 2200 addresses
- Postcard to nearly 2200 addresses
- Press releases
- News media articles (Beacon, My Edmonds News, City newsletter)
- At least two sets of email announcements to people signed up for emails
- Meetings with technical advisory committee (including transportation agencies and nearby
local governments)
- Special City website information (updated on ongoing basis)
- Miscellaneous communication with interested parties
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance to repeal of interim Ordinance 4278
Exhibit 2 - Ordinance 4278 - Interim CG Stepbacks
Exhibit 3 - 2022-10-04 CC Minutes - Interim Adopted
Exhibit 4 - 2022-10-18 CC Minutes - 5yr Planned Action Update
Exhibit 5 - 2017-06-20 CC Minutes - CG Step Backs Discussed
Exhibit 6 - 2017-07-18 CC Minutes - CG Step Backs Discussed
Exhibit 7 - 2017-07-31 CC Minutes - Planned Action PH, Step Backs Discussed
Exhibit 8 - 2017-08-15 CC Minutes - Approval of Ords 4077-4079
Exhibit 9 - CG setbacks and street step back sketch
Exhibit 10 - 2022-11-15 CC Minutes - Public Hearing on Interim Ord 4278
Exhibit 11 - Slides for CG Step Back Interim Ord Discussion 11.22.22
Packet Pg. 157
8.3.a
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
REPEALING THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
THE CG ZONE CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE 4278.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway
99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan
(Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and
establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and
WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly
excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned
Action EIS; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an
emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the
street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step
backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and
WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which
indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs
that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from
Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and
WHEREAS, consistent with RCW 36.70A.390, the city council held a public hearing on
November 15, 2022, on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in effect; and
WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278
in effect; and
WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect
on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance
4278; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Interim Site Development Standards Repealed. Ordinance 4278 is hereby
repealed.
w
c
m
E
a
Packet Pg. 158
8.3.a
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
a
Packet Pg. 159
8.3.a
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,
REPEALING THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
THE CG ZONE CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE 4278.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
a
Packet Pg. 160
8.3.b
ORDINANCE NO. 4278
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
THE CG ZONE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING
THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99
corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan (Ord.
4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and
establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and
WHEREAS, the Planned Action EIS included Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative)
which included the following language regarding stepbacks for development adjacent to and
across the street from single-family zoned property:
Upper story stepbacks
Adjacent to single family zones provide 10-foot upper story stepback for
the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 20-foot upper -story stepback from the
lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet.
Across the street from single family zones provide eight -foot stepback for
the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16-foot upper story stepback from the
lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet; and
WHEREAS, while the description of the preferred alternative includes stepbacks for
development across the street from single family zones, this was not discussed in the Subarea
Plan, included in the mitigation measures adopted in Ord. 4079, or in the updated CG zoning
code; and
WHEREAS, only the stepbacks for development adjacent to (or abutting) single family
zones were included in the mitigation measures and the updated CG zoning code; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the city council adopt this emergency interim
ordinance to establish upper floor step backs for development across the street from single family
zones until additional consideration can be given to whether such step backs should be adopted
as a permanent regulation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Interim Site Development Standards. Section 16.60.020 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code, entitled, "Site development standards — General," is hereby
Packet Pg. 161
8.3.b
amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as if fully set forth (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
Section 2. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Section 1. The interim
regulations adopted by section 1 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this
ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and
conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 3 herein), this
ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed
sooner.
Section 3. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on November 15, 2022
unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date.
No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city
council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its
continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 5. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to
referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take
W
Packet Pg. 162
8.3.b
effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the
city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this
ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim standards
described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of
property that is not consistent with the city's values and vision for the Highway 99 subarea.
Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to
other regulations. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights.
Section 6. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take
effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it
is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW
35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after
passage and publication.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
C CLERK, SC TT SSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVED:
l
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
3
Packet Pg. 163
8.3.b
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: September 30, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: October 4, 2022
PUBLISHED: October 7, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. 4278
4
Packet Pg. 164
8.3.b
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4278
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 4th day of October, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4278. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
THE CG ZONE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING
THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORDINANCE, AND
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 41h day of October 4, 2022.
i
[TY CLER ,!5V
PASSEY
Packet Pg. 165
8.3.b
EXHIBIT A
1 16.60.020 Site development standards - General.
A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum
Minimum Lot
Minimum Lot
Minimum
Side/Rear
Maximum
Maximum
Area
Width
Street Setback
Setback
Height
Floor Area
CG
None
None
5710'2
0715"
753
None
Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or IRS zoned property; otherwise no setback is
required by this subsection.
Z The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise
the minimum is 10 feet.
3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the
comprehensive plan map.
B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys,
mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior
livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent
of the building surface area above the maximum height.
C. Pedestrian Area.
1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent
to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no
curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in
subsection (A) of this section.
2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone,
and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to
be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of
development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that
consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10
percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls
that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of
development otherwise exempted under this chapter.
a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the
building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of
the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately
adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity
zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor
Packet Pg. 166
8.3.b
EXHIBIT A
dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in
an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be
constructed in a portion of the activity zone.
b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the
streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and
unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural
projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian
zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is
maintained within the pedestrian zone.
c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement
edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide.
The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for
amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or
pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the
streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches,
bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the
Edmonds Street Tree Plan.
lu
a c
N Y
Y y,
W QJ y 81
W C a) C
v1 tV ri N
rF4
> a
Q 0
-,r— 5'min —r 5'.Iao--.r 18--2'w,[
Note: Numerical Ranges for the pedestrian Zone and the Activity Zone are
typical but do not control over other requirements o/ this chapter.
(Illustration: Pedestrian area)
D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent or Across the Street to RS Zones.
Packet Pg. 167
8.3.b
EXHIBIT A
1. For buildings adjacent to RS zones, tThe portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height
shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required side or rear setback to an adjacent
IRS ZeRe. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than
20 feet from the required side or rear setback to n ojacent RS zeme.
2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet
in height shall step back no less that eight feet from the required street setback. That
portion of building over 55 feet in height shall step back no less than 16 feet from the
required street setback.
32-. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space
may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and
architectural features.
PS
wl� e(wtvip
ivl,l,a,�,awne.
(Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent or Across the Street to RS
zones)
Packet Pg. 168
8.3.b
EXHIBIT A
[Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
Packet Pg. 169
8.3.b
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH964449 ORD 4276, 4277,
4278 as it was published in the regular and
entire issue of said paper and not as a
supplement form thereof for a period of 1
issue(s), such publication commencing on
10/07/2022 and ending on 10/07/2022 and that
said newspaper was regularly distributed to its
subscribers during all of said period.
The amount the fee for s h public
$51.60.
Subscribed and sworn o e me on this
,ram ZL ,
day of
1
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416
SCOMASSEY
Linda Phillips(
Notary Public i(1)
State of
1Nash(netoil
My kppoin,nen; Expires Si%y%2U25
r Cammission NunrUer e,417
Packet Pg. 170
8.3.b
.Classified Proof
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
Of the Cit/ —0 dmands, Washington
On the 4th day Of October, 2022. the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed the following Ordinances, the summaries of sale
Oranances consisting of title* are provided as follows.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF H I ONOS. WASHINGTON,
ESTABLSHING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE
MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE 8132 ZONE AND
REPEALING ORDINANCE 4255
ORQINANCE NO.4277
AN ORDINANCE OFiq I Y M DS. WASHINGTON.
ADOPTING NEW REGULATIONS AND A NEW CHAPTER 17.120
ECDC, ENTITLED-SICYCLE PAR?.GNG FACILITIES'.
AMENDING ECDC SUBSECTION 76.60.030.E ENTfTL--D
'PARKING. ACCESS. AND BICYLE STORAGE STANDAROS-
AND AMENDING ECDC 22.110,090 WESTGATE MIXED USE
HEIGHT BONUS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIN
REGULATIONS
ORDINANCE NO. c278
AN ORDINANCE Or THE CITYOF-b'Oii. UNDS. WASHINGTON.
ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
THE CG ZONE. DECLARING AN EMERGE4CY
NECESSITATING THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTWENESS OF THE
ORDINANCE. AND SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE
PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE.
DATED this 41h Day of October, 2022
CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY
Published: October 7, 2027- EDHWA449
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 10/10/2022 08:40:41 am Page: 2
Packet Pg. 171
8.3.c
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
October 4, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Kernen Lien, Planning Manager
Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection
with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. PRESENTATIONS
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
Council President Olson advised Item 9.1, Updates to Employee Reimbursement Policy, was removed
from the agenda and will be brought back on a future agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO ADD A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE STATE
BUDGET PROVISO FOR THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PRIVILEGE RELATING TO THE
OLD UNOCAL PROPERTY THAT WSDOT WILL ACQUIRE ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS
MARSH ESTUARY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 172
8.3.c
Councilmember Buckshnis explained this is a resolution that will be sent to the State legislature.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described procedures for in -person audience comments.
Becky Chandler, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, expressed
concern that the Highway 99 subarea plan is insufficient in relation to the proposed 261 unit apartment
building proposed in the neighborhood. Passing the emergency ordinance tonight will help address some
of the issues, but it will also be important to consider a supplemental EIS to address the shortcomings of
the FEIS approved in 2017. The Highway 99 subarea plan provides guidance for ensuring aesthetic
appeal; this was identified as particularly important as the Gateway District was expected to incur the
greatest change as a result of the zoning revision from multifamily to commercial general. The Terrace
Place development is larger than any other recent project in the city, its impacts will be significant, and it
is a bigger design challenge since it is not located on SR-104 or Highway 99 like most of the recent
developments in Edmonds. She was not aware of any definition of a unique identity that has approved for
the Gateway Subdistrict so it is impossible to know if the recent proposals are within the guidance of the
subarea plan. A high level of development is occurring that will address housing needs and the Terrace
Place is one of several large projects, but they want the development to align with the intent of the
Highway 99 subarea and hope the council will give their concerns serious consideration as has been done
for other developments in the area. She thanked everyone who has worked on the gateway project,
anticipating there is a great opportunity to make it into something special for the Edmonds community.
She pointed out tonight is the start of Yom Kippur so there may be people unable to attend the meeting.
Shannon Demas, Edmonds, a physician at the Everett Clinic, and a resident of the Gateway District on
the Highway 99, thanked the council for including the emergency ordinance for the CG zone on Highway
99 on tonight's agenda and urged the council to pass it. She also requested a supplemental EIS for the
Highway 99 Subarea be required for the EIS five-year review. This is important because of the 261 unit
apartment building proposed a block away from her single family home and the absence of an opportunity
to address the impacts this size building will have on a residential neighborhood. She was unaware when
the subarea plan was approved in 2017 or the upzoning the plan included; she moved to the area in 2022.
The FEIS for the plan includes assumptions that are no longer relevant or the identified mitigation has not
been undertaken or there may be more appropriate mitigations. One of those is related to parks; the lack
of parks in the Highway 99 Gateway District is noted in the subarea plan and specific actions were
identified to mitigate the deficit. The actions in the plan have not been accomplished to date and the new
Terrace Place development with its 261 units adds urgency to address the problem. She moved from the
Northgate area to Edmonds to start a family. When she moved into her house, she realized her area was a
parks desert and there have been no changes since the plan was approved in 2017 and none in sight. With
the addition of the 192 unit building on Highway 99 at 234ti', the lack of parks will be even more acute,
even before the proposed Terrace Place apartments are constructed. A supplemental EIS is needed to
reexamine the assumptions and conditions in the area and need mitigation.
Jenna Nand, Edmonds, an attorney practicing in Edmonds, encouraged the council to view proposed
changes to the Highway 99 community where she grew up and has lived in Shoreline and in Edmonds
since she was 6 years old through a civil rights lens. This area of town generates the most tax revenue for
the City which is not reflected in the way City funds and services are distributed. As a person of color
who grew up along Highway 99, she believed that had a lot to do with the demographic makeup of the
community and the racial and socioeconomic divide. If the council's posture is that urban sprawl and
overdevelopment should be sequestered to the Highway 99 area even though they generate more revenue
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 173
8.3.c
than the bowl or any other part of Edmonds, she suggested the city attorney may want to consider whether
that is a possible civil rights violation .
Glenn Douglas, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, thanked the
council for including the emergency ordinance regarding the CG zone along Highway 99 on tonight's
agenda and urged the council to pass it. He echoed the previous comments regarding the 261 unit building
proposed at 236' & 84', noting he lives very close to that very dangerous intersection and frequently
hears accidents occur. When the Gateway District was changed to a commercial zone in 2017, the
Highway 99 subarea plan, identified mitigation measures to soften the transition between the CG zone
and adjacent residential units. In particular, the code was to included stepbacks for buildings 75 feet high
when adjacent to or across the street from single family residential buildings. The current code only has
stepbacks for the adjacent side and does not include the mitigation cited in the plan for stepbacks when
located across the street. The proposed Terrace Place apartments on 84t' & 236t' Street will be across the
street from single family residential units and adjacent to 3-story condominiums. The ordinance the
council will consider tonight will remedy the omission in the code to help provide the transition to single
family that was intended in the subarea plan and identified as mitigation measures in the EIS. He was one
of the signatories of the letter sent to council yesterday requesting a moratorium on building permits in
the area until this code is reconciled with the subarea plan. Passing the ordinance tonight will address the
concerns in that letter and avoid the moratorium that would otherwise be needed.
Jack Malek, Shoreline, a realtor with Windermere representing Karen Wiggins in the sale of Sound
View Plaza, referred to the original designated street front map and the extension in the BD2 district from
mid -block 2nd Avenue south to James Street which he did not feel was appropriate for that street. The
buildings in that short segment of the corridor were left off the original design for good reason; the
buildings should not be limiting to just office and retail and the southern end of the block is better suited
for residential. The Sound View Plaza building has been on the market for two years with no sale or lease;
restricting it to office and retail is difficult without extensive tenant improvements. He encouraged the
council to leave that segment off the map of the designated street front.
Mayor Nelson described procedures for virtual audience comments.
Will Magnuson, Edmonds, referred to the development code regarding BD zoning and asked the council
to provide their full support to the Architectural Design Board's recommendation for BD2 zoning and
require the inclusion of commercial space for any new BD2 development. The core areas of Edmonds
including the neighborhoods of downtown, Highway 99, Westgate and elsewhere have evolved to provide
more public amenities including entertainment, recreation as well as goods and services for the
community. An abundance of these treasured assets provide the synergy required to provide a truly,
walkable, vibrant, safe and sustainable community. Slow but steady progress has been made toward the
creation of this synergy and more work needs to be done. He liked the convenience of public and
commercial amenities within convenient walking distance but more businesses and amenities are needed
to provide a sustainable energy in core neighborhoods and communities. The downtown core should
remain focused on the community by requiring any new development parcels to include commercial
space along Main Street inclusive of parcels to Dayton Street and extending from the waterfront up to the
Frances Anderson Center.
Mr. Magnuson continued, any discussion regarding commercial development should focus on clarity and
reliability to the citizens and community of Edmonds and developers will be fine. During his career in
commercial real estate development, he learned to prioritize every development decision toward the user
and property management, creating a place coveted by tenants, visitors and community alike while
offering a quality project designed and built for long term maintenance and sustainability. This
development focus provides a successful project for everyone including developers, bankers, investors,
tenants, visitors and neighbors by providing a project which will be a long term asset to the community.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 174
8.3.c
He urged the council to support the ADB's recommendation and implement immediate zoning for all
BD2 parcels to include commercial space.
Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, said she was unable to be present tonight due to Yom Kippur and appreciated
the opportunity to participate online. A resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, she
expressed her concern about the 261 unit Terrace Place apartment building proposed in her neighborhood.
She urged the council to pass the emergency ordinance on tonight's agenda which will help address some
of the issues the building creates, acknowledging the ordinance would not solve everything. The 261 unit
Terrace Place development is proposed for the corner of 84" & 2361h Street SW; there is an existing
problem with speeding on 84th, a 2-lane very busy road with no sidewalks and 236' is used as the main
road to Madrona School with a traffic light at SR-104 but no sidewalks for the students. There are twice
as many accidents at the intersection of 236th & 84t' as there are at the intersection of 238t' & 84t''. These
transportation issues will be exacerbated by the traffic created by the Terrace Place development. The
Hwy 99 subarea plan relies on the City's transportation plan to provide for infrastructure improvements
that mitigate the impacts of development; however, the subarea plan EIS focuses on impacts to Hwy 99
and the movement of traffic through intersections along the Highway 99.
Ms. Gladstone continued, it is insufficient to address the impacts to the residential neighborhoods in the
district. The assumptions and mitigation regarding transportation and pedestrian safety should be
reconsidered in the FEIS five-year review that the council pulled from the agenda in August. This issue,
along with others, warrant requiring either a supplemental EIS or a change to the mitigation in the subarea
plan. To have any impact on the development, the council must act quickly before the building permit
application is filed. Like many of her neighbors, she was unaware the area was upzoned from multifamily
to general commercial in 2017. If she had been asked then if she wanted a 6-story, 261 unit building
across the street from single family residents, it would have caught her attention. She assured if the
council undertook a review of the plan and EIS, they would surely get more engagement from the
neighborhood.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, recalled a council comment that Item 9.1 had been removed from the agenda. He
was unsure why the council didn't vote to amend the agenda after the council meeting started, noting
there was no 9.1 on the online agenda. He suggested considering that and voting when the agenda is
amended. Chapter 20.70 ECDC establishes the procedure and criteria that the City will use to decide upon
vacations of streets, alleys and public easements. The City code expressly states the City vacates public
easements. ECDC 20.70.060.G states an appraisal is not required if a utility easement only is proposed to
be vacated. Despite this, the City has required an appraisal and can release the utility easement under
State law RCW 35.94 which says nothing about the release of a utility easement, and does not include the
word release or easement. RCW 35.94 talks about releasing or selling public utility works, plants or
systems owned by the City. Resolution 1375 states the City releases all ownership interest in the
stormwater facilities located upon or within the vacated 92" d Avenue Street right-of-way as well as the
stormwater facilities located through the Westgate Chapel property at 22901 Edmonds Way. Westgate
Chapel shall acknowledge in writing that upon vacation it shall assume ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for these facilities.
Mr. Reidy asked whether a private party can assume ownership of public assets, public stormwater
facilities located outside the street that was vacated. It had nothing to do with the street that was vacated
but the City acted as if the applicant could assume ownership of stormwater facilities before the City ever
talked about whether the stormwater facility assets were surplus to the City's needs and comingled two
very different things into one legislative action. There is no denying that Resolution 1375 exists, the 2016
city council adopted the resolution on November 15, 2016 with City Attorney Jeff Taraday in attendance.
He encouraged the council to form a citizen taskforce to review the historical conduct of city attorneys
and recommend how the City should obtain and manage legal advice. He urged the council not to co -
mingle two different legislative outcomes into one vote later tonight. If the council wants to vote on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 175
8.3.c
something as if it is an emergency, the council should vote and if the emergency vote does not pass, there
should be a second motion to pass it as a regular ordinance instead of co -mingling it.
Kevin Smith, Edmonds, Economic Development Commissioner but speaking as a citizen, local business
owner and CPA regarding the BD2 zoning and proposed agenda item, said the joint meeting between the
planning board and EDC overwhelmingly favored extending the designated street front requirements to
the entire BD2 zone and recommended addressing the long term zoning in the 2024 comprehensive plan.
He supported doing that because, first, in his professional capacity as a CPA, he speaks with business
owners daily. A consistent theme he hears in Edmonds is the lack of available retail space in the
downtown core because as soon as retail -oriented space is opened, regardless of the configuration, it is
leased. Businesses want to locate in Edmonds, new businesses and industries move in and the City is
rapidly growing as a result. Second, commercial office buildings such as services are moving at a
different pace. The City needs to be careful and not have a kneejerk reaction to point in time
circumstances. The governor's emergency declaration is still in place and shifts back to in -office work
have been slow to occur. Additional commercial office leases are often 5-10 years old so a combination of
the pandemic and lease -locked businesses has likely led to a lack of mobility in commercial office space.
It would behoove the City to look toward the 2024 comprehensive plan as an ideal time to address the
core long-term strategy as it will allow two years of post -pandemic economic activity to inform decisions.
Mr. Smith continued, third, the downtown core has been rapidly growing over the last decade; his biggest
concern was shutting out business growth through zoning changes. The inevitable consequence of such
action is reducing areas for businesses of all types to locate. Fourth, major attractions will open next year,
Civic Park and Main Street Commons. These will undoubtedly change consumer and commercial patterns
and create new visitors and new desirability for the downtown area. Understanding those impacts needs to
be considered with major changes to the zoning. He summarized major changes to the zoning structure
should not be made in a vacuum and should be address through a broad process with heavy public
involvement and the use of post -pandemic data. The 2024 comprehensive plan is the right move. He
assured this was not an anti -housing position; housing is important and needs to be a focus area. He
personally believed the most vibrant developments were those with a strong mix of commercial and
residential; while it may not be the most profitable to the developer, it [inaudible] pencil out or in the best
interest of the City.
Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Nelson for his speech and expressed appreciation for what
he is doing. She agreed with the previous comments about the downtown zone. She urged the council to
be careful about zoning on the hill; residents are proud of their neighborhoods and do not want 5-story
buildings across the street or in their backyards either. Edmonds does not need to be like other cities; for
example, Seattle is having a lot of problems like the recent shooting in Crown Hill. She urged the City to
keep Edmonds the same as much as possible. She understood progress was inevitable to a point but
attention needs to be paid to the entire City, not just the bowl but everywhere. She noted 84t' isn't the
only place with speeding problems, people drive down 80t' 60 mph day and night and she hasn't seen a
turn signal in five years. There were campers in vans on 80t' last night, but she did not call the police
because she didn't want to bother them.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JEFFREY JOHNSON AND KATHLEEN BARRETT
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 176
8.3.c
Councilmember Tibbott observed 0.75 parking spaces per unit for bicycles sounded like a lot; in a 200
unit complex, that would be 150 spaces for bikes. He asked where staff envisioned those spaces would be,
whether it would be in a parking garage, on the roof, etc., and how much space it would require. Mr.
Clugston answered this requirement is consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. Typically most bike
parking will be internal to the building, probably associated with a parking garage or divided into storage
spaces by floor. There are different ways to meet the standards, but he envisioned it would be primarily
inside the building.
Councilmember Tibbott said he could see this applying to multifamily buildings close to transit and
where there are bike lanes where people can ride a mile to access transit, but it is difficult to bike in other
places in the City. He asked if it would make sense to stratify where to require 0.75 bike storage spaces
per unit. Mr. Clugston answered he did not think so, the benefit is it applies equally everywhere. As bike
infrastructure is extended, more people will be using e-bikes as an option. He acknowledged the Main
Street hill was difficult on a bike, but it is much easier on an e-bike and the use of e-bikes is increasing.
Councilmember Tibbott commented the requirement is forward looking and could be change if the spaces
are not utilized the way they are anticipated to be used. He envisioned it would be very useful for
multifamily close to transit and also a desirable amenity for the residents.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
4. CG EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged the public for bringing this forward.
Staff is in alignment with the sentiments expressed and relayed other interests in the planned action will
be discussed on October 18'. Tonight is an opportunity to talk about the CG zone stepback as discussed
in the subarea plan, EIS and the corresponding planned action ordinance.
Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed the CG Zone Stepback:
• Highway Subarea Planning
o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077)
■ Adopted by reference in the City's comprehensive plan
o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078)
■ CG Zoning
o EIS and Planned Action (Ordinance 4079)
o VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council
• Existing Stepback Regulations - ECDC 16.60.020.1)
o Building Step -Back When Adjacent to RS Zones.
■ 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10
feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. That portion of the building over
55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an
adjacent RS zone.
• Highway 99 Subarea Plan
o Recommendation 6.8
■ Upper Floor Stepback
- Zero upper floor stepback up to 25 feet in height (30 feet is the maximum height in
RM 1.5, which is the predominant zone surrounding the commercial zones on
Highway 99)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 177
8.3.c
- Minimum 10 feet stepback above 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to
single family zones. The portion of the building above 55 feet in height shall be
stepped back at least 20 feet from a residential zone boundary.
- Stepback areas can be used for active outdoor space such as balconies.
Planned Action Mitigation Measures
o ...the Planned Action stepback standards provide for transitions in building height and bulk
between portions of the subarea zoned for the highest intensity uses and adjacent single
family zoned areas.
o ...the Planned Action stepback standards will mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas
where the updated CG zone abuts single family zones
o The proposed Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the proposed stepback
development regulations, which are intended to help mitigate for potential land use conflicts
around the edges of the subarea
Environmental Impact Statement - "adjacent to"
o Proposal: Adoption of amendments to development standards to implement the Subarea Plan,
including...
■ Upper story stepbacks adjacent to single family zone
o Impacts of Alternative 2: The proposed development regulations include new upper story
stepback standards in areas adjacent to single family zones to provide transitions in building
height and scale.
o Mitigation measures: Under Alternative 2, the proposed new stepback standards would
mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone abuts single
family zones, when combined with the City's remaining existing development and design
standards.
Environmental Impact Statement - "across the street"
o Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative: Across the street from single family zones provide
eight -foot stepback for the portion of the building above 25 feet. Provide 16-footupper story
stepback from the lot line for the portion of the building above 55 feet.
o Areawide Rezone: For uses across the street from single family zones, the standards call for
similar setbacks of 8 feet for portions of buildings 25-55 feet in height, and 16 feet for
portions of buildings above 55 feet.
o Comp Plan Consistency: ... the Preferred Alternative would encourage development to the
fullest extent possible while ensuring that design qualities and amenities enhance the overall
character and quality of the Corridor, including upper story stepbacks for buildings adjacent
to or across the street from single family zones.
o Mitigation Measures: The proposed Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the
proposed stepback development regulations, which are intended to help mitigate for potential
land use conflicts around the edges of the subarea.
Proposed Interim Amendment ECDC 16.60
2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet in
height shall step back no less than eight feet from the required street setback. That portion of
building over 55 feet in height shall step back no less than 16 feet from the required street
setback.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 178
8.3.c
VWi en.Na,k
• Recommendation
o Adopt emergency interim ordinance
o Council public hearing within 60 days
o Complete review of Planned Action at October 18 council meeting
Ms. McLaughlin said there was commentary that a mitigation measure was missed. In reviewing this
issue, although it was discussed, mitigation measures in the EIS were not explicit about the across the
street requirement and staff agrees that needs to be fine-tuned. There used to be a transitionary zone that
helped to mitigate the blunt line between CG and single family; the stark transition requires the stepback
across the street from these larger scale buildings.
Councilmember Chen thanked staff for bringing this forward. He agreed there was a disconnect between
the City code and the EIS, the fact the code did not address the stepback requirements for development
across the street from single family zoning.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING
INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE CG ZONE, DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY NECESSITATING THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE
Councilmember Teitzel asked what happens if development occurs west of Highway 99 in Esperance; for
example, would these rules apply if there was a 260 unit building built across the street from a single
family neighborhood in Esperance. Ms. McLaughlin answered the City's zoning code does not apply in
Esperance. If the multifamily building was in Edmonds and Esperance was across the street, the
ordinance would apply. Mr. Lien agreed, it states across the street from single family zones.
Councilmember Paine said she was glad to see this, recalling there were several requests last week and
this week requesting a supplemental EIS be performed. She asked if there would be time to do that,
specifically on the topic of traffic and stormwater impacts. Ms. McLaughlin answered details associated
with the EIS and the validity of requiring additional environmental analysis will be provided on October
18th.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she also has issues with updating the EIS and will wait for the
information to be provided on October 18t1i. She thanked staff for the packet which she found very
informative.
Mr. Lien pointed out the emergency ordinance includes a blank to insert the date for the public hearing. It
was agreed to schedule the public hearing on November 15t1i.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
October 4, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 179
8.3.d
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
October 18, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Whitney Rivera, Municipal Court Judge
Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director
Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Kernen Lien, Planning Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Nand read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original
inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who
since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described procedures for in -person audience comments.
Glenn Douglas, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, said traffic and
pedestrian safety issues were inadequate addressed in the final EIS for the Highway 99 subarea plan. The
area around the largest development ever proposed for Edmonds, 236t1i & 84t'', has serious traffic and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 180
8.3.d
pedestrian issues. In addition, 236t1i is the main road to Madrona School and he anticipated there would be
a lot of children in a 261 unit apartment complex in addition to the complex being built behind the Lutheran
Church. There are no sidewalks; he does not even walk his dog on that road because it is dangerous. The
speed limit is 25 mph but no one goes 25. There is a light at SR-104, but if his child was attending Madrona,
he would not want them crossing a five lane highway to reach the school. Adding 1,000 people in the four
new buildings that are either proposed or completed to their neighborhood of a few hundred people will
have a major impact. He did not feel the subarea plan evaluated the traffic situation, the impact of
pedestrians, lack of space, no curbs, etc. that create a dangerous situation. He recalled voicing his concerns
about 84t'', the street he lives on, to the council in the past. Speeding has been a horrible problem; Traffic
Sergeant Strum was at the end of his driveway recently citing drivers, but that only lasted about two days
because as indicated by the police blotter, another problem in the Highway 99 subarea and neighborhood
is rampant crime.
Becky Chandler, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, requested the
council provide thoughtful consideration of the Highway 99 subarea in the same spirit it has considered
development in other parts of the City such as the Bowl. The Highway 99 subarea plan was developed to
encourage economic growth to benefit from the revenue stream generated via upzoning the area. She
supported having Highway 99 commercial development and the need for more housing in the area;
however, the disproportionate impact is notable. The Growth Management Act has been amended to
specifically require consideration of racial disparity impacts and displacement, specifically areas that may
be at higher risk for displacement from market forces that occur with changes to the zoning and
development regulations and capital investments. Prior to the planned action, the Highway 99 corridor was
identified as a moderate risk for displacement; all other areas of Edmonds are identified as low by the Puget
Sound Regional Council.
Ms. Chandler continued, displacement risks have intensified due to the effects of the pandemic, the light
rail and planned action which significantly increased property values in the area. There is significant new
information with the changes to the GMA and specific to the Highway 99 area that result in probable
significant adverse impact that should be addressed in the supplemental EIS. The vision of the subarea plan
was for 3-4 story apartment buildings and 5-6 story mixed use buildings, yet developments proposed in the
Gateway District are not in keeping with that vision and there is no way for residents in adjacent
neighborhoods to interject in the development process because approval of the subarea plan initially
circumvents that option. Requiring a supplemental EIS at this time or a moratorium on building permits is
a way to bring the Highway 99 communities together such as the moratorium in the BD2 district the council
imposed while considering community input of specific development.
Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor, commented on
the 5-year review of the Highway 99 subarea plan FEIS and the opportunity the council has to address
inadequacies in that document. When the council adopted the FEIS in 2017, the ordinance included a
provision that requires a 5-year review that could result in the council proposing amendments to the
ordinance or requiring a supplement or revision to the planned action EIS. Although staff s review indicates
there is no reason to recommend any council action, there is good reason to do so. The EIS was inadequate
at the outset because it did not include consideration of adequate alternatives. Comparing the no action
alternative is a requirement of SEPA which means the only real alternative was the preferred alternative. In
addition to the alternative to upzone the entire area to commercial general, there could have been alternative
to leave multifamily zoning where it is adjacent or across the street from single family residential zones.
The planned EIS contained mitigations intended to create transitions between the commercial general zone
and single family zones for those portions in the upzone, but those mitigations are insufficient to address
the disparity between building heights and densities allowed in the commercial zones and single family
homes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 181
8.3.d
Ms. Gladstone continued, the action to approve the emergency ordinance two weeks ago that put into place
the stepbacks indicated in the EIS but not included in code was a really good step in remedying the
inadequacies of the mitigations for the upzone, but more is needed to allow development in those areas to
follow the recommendations of the comprehensive plan for developing uses adjacent to single family areas.
She read from page 64 of the comprehensive plan regarding the Highway 99 corridor, "New development
should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design
quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. When intense
development adjoins residential areas, site design and building design should be used to minimize adverse
impacts on residential zoned properties." One of the reasons for adopting an action plan is to streamline
development; but in doing that, the communities most impacted by that development have no avenue for
providing input about how well the development is accomplishing the recommendations of the
comprehensive plan. While she supports the staff recommendation that the City should look at the
development review process for projects within the commercial zone, that will be too late for developments
already proposed that could have long term, significant negative impacts on nearby single family
neighborhoods. Council action is needed now.
Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, a homeowner on 236t' Street SW and parent of two children under the
age of six, wanted to add perspective on existing traffic and pedestrian safety issues which will only be
accelerated by the proposed Terrace Place development unless appropriate measures are taken to mitigate.
In addition to the problem of school -aged children including her own who use their street to access school
bus stops at the east end and Madrona Elementary at the west end and the fact that their road becomes
particularly busy with school buses and parent vehicle during morning drop-offs and afternoon pickups,
there are at least two additional groups impacted by these safety issues. First elderly, low income, and other
carless residents who must regularly access the Aurora Marketplace Safeway and other shopping resources
on foot. Second, commuters and particularly disabled residents who need to access public transit such as
the Swift buses on Highway 99 and the Community Transit 115 bus stops at the intersection of 236t' & 84t'
Avenue West where the development is proposed. Due to narrow or non-existent shoulders, street parking,
drainage ditches and inclines, several segments of these roads cannot be passed without crossing the white
line to literally walk in the street. This is also dangerous for parents with stroller -aged children and even
worse during rainy months when the few existing dirt paths are blocked due to standing water. The
intersection at 236th Street SW & 84t' Avenue W has several low visibility corners, no crosswalks, few
safe places to stand and drivers do not stop for pedestrians. Finally 236t' Street between Highway 99 and
Edmonds Way is regularly used by heavy 18-wheeler trucks as a shortcut to the Safeway loading dock.
These trucks are moving fast to keep on schedule and have limited visibility for close -by pedestrians and
access this road at all hours of the day and night. Pedestrian access in this area is already dangerous and the
risk falls disproportionately onto low income, elderly, and disabled residents and minors. She requested the
council take action to address these deficiencies in the FEIS Highway 99 subarea plan before an already
risky situation becomes even more serious.
Mayor Nelson described procedures for virtual audience comments.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the Highway 99 planned action five year review, commenting she
could talk for hours on the subject. She was frustrated reading the final EIS that reviews the EIS. No action
alternatives were considered other than the planned action, no public involvement in mitigation with only
two comment letters from Community Transit and a real estate agent. She was frustrated that in the cursory
review she could easily identify more than a half dozen ways in which the WAC criteria have been met to
do a supplemental EIS. She was equally frustrated by the certainty that additional impacts are occurring
that could be identified by a scoping process with this community. She was frustrated that park mitigation
commitments made in chapter 1 of the FEIS are negated in Ordinance 4079 and disregarded by the City as
identified in attachment 6. She was frustrated that the FEIS did not conclude that siting any amount of
growth in this area prior to park development would be a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. The level
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 182
8.3.d
of service thresholds used in the FEIS or newly adopted ones in the PROS Plan are both exceeded. This is
incontrovertible, not a matter of opinion, this area is being significantly impacted. On May 25th, she
commented to council asking the City to "please perform outreach and engage the SR-99 community in the
SEPA responsible official review of the EIS and upzone." Outreach did not occur and the City did not
inclusively advertise or meet with the broader community and only agreed to meet with her after the
determination was made.
Ms. Seitz continued, meeting with her or any member of the public does not matter if the City is only willing
to do it after the determination is made. She was frustrated the memo provided by the City does not include
any discussion of the WAC triggers for a supplemental EIS to be performed. The memo and supporting
documents discuss vague concepts of the City's intent and consistency with the FEIS that is wholly
inadequate and does not meet the current code requirements. She was frustrated the memo avoids any
discussion of changes to the significance of impacts which trigger for the SEIS. People will not stop being
displaced; developers will not stop proposing high density, inclusionary housing even though the utilization
clearly demonstrates that the threshold will be exceeded without the commercial redevelopment. She cannot
take her children to the imaginary park of the City's intent. Simply put, the code does not care about the
intent; it cares about impact. A supplemental EIS is required and concrete commitments to community -
driven mitigation are needed now. She supports growth that supports all income levels; this is about people
being displaced and unhoused, about the environment, resources and equity. She urged the City to commit
to undertake a scoping process and a supplemental EIS.
Nate Sugg, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway District near the Highway 99 corridor, encouraged the
council to engage in a supplemental EIS related to the Highway 99 subarea plan. Highway 99 can and will
accommodate much of the population growth coming to Edmonds in the near future and many are fine with
that, but want to ensure that future development's impact on traffic and pedestrian safety, access to safe
places for kids to play, and access to safe drinking water are adequately considered. With regard to park
space, this area is a park desert; there are no parks within walking distance. His 2'/2 year old loves slides,
but there are no public parks they can walk to. The actions identified in the original subarea plan mitigate
that park deficit have not been implemented and since those original considerations were made, the City
adopted a new level of service related to community and neighborhood parks. With regard to the proximity
to park resources, those standards are not included in the EIS because they were adopted since the EIS. The
use of outdated standards is another reason for a supplemental EIS that looks at the adoption of park level
of service. Second, their neighborhood recently learned that Olympic View Water & Sewer District plans
to install a new well on 228' Street and have a wellhead protection area that will span across Highway 99.
Redevelopment on Highway 99 in that area relies on deep underground injection control wells, a specific
type of well for stormwater management, that can impact drinking water for Edmonds residents. That
project is not within the scope of the current EIS, a change in circumstances that would support a
supplemental EIS. He asked the council to take action to allow a supplemental EIS to consider new
information that will assist in determining appropriate mitigation for new development. A supplemental
EIS will appropriately reexamine the assumptions about conditions in the area and needed mitigations for
those conditions.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, acknowledged great audience comments that were being made. Olympic View
Water & Sewer's franchise expired in 2014; he encouraged the council to check if the franchise had ever
been updated and is in place. He encouraged the council to form a citizen taskforce to review the historical
conduct of city attorneys and recommend how the City should obtain and manage legal advice as well as
allow a citizen taskforce to play a role in the update of Chapter 2.05 ECC. The proposed updates to Chapter
2.05 ECC in tonight's packet will once again result in new inconsistencies in city code. Regarding the BID,
a collection letter written by Lighthouse Law Group claims that state statute allows cities to establish a BID
either by petition from business owners within the BID boundaries or by resolution from the legislative
authority of the City. It was his understanding the state statue allows cities to initiate a BID process either
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 183
8.3.d
by petition from business owners within the BID boundaries or by resolution from the legislative authority
of the City. The word "initiate" is very different from establish. Furthermore, the BID of downtown
Edmonds was not established by resolution; it was established under Ordinance 3909.
Mr. Reidy continued, the City of Seattle represents the following, as provided in RCW 35.87A.010, the
City will consider establishing or modifying business improvement areas when presented with a petition
by those who represent 60% or more of the total assessment in the proposed BIA. The 60% approval
threshold represents a super majority in favor of an initiative and indicates rate payer support for an
assessment. A major legal case related to the state statute, City of Seattle v. Rogers Clothing for Men,
included the following: the ordinance was enacted pursuant to authority provided by RCW 35.87A in
accordance with that chapter, RCW 35.87A.0101, a petition has been signed by more than 60% of the
businesses within the designated business improvement area. He questioned whether the Edmonds BID was
legally established and hoped a thorough investigation will be conducted. If BIDs can be established
without a petition, he requested the City inform all in Edmonds that the council has the ability to establish
a special BID assessment without ratepayer support for the assessment.
Liz Brown, Edmonds, a business agent for Teamsters Local 763, the labor union representing the City's
parks and public works employees, explained the labor contract with the City expired December 2020 and
it was agreed to extend the contract another year during the COVID shutdown. The first bargaining session
for a new contract was held on November 18, 2021. Now, almost a year later, there is still no contract. In
fact, only in their last meeting on September 27 did the City finally provide a full proposal on wages. One
issue they continue to struggle with is the lack of internal equity between the City's white collar employees
who work from home and their members, the City's blue collar workers who report to work in person every
day as they have throughout the pandemic except for a brief period in 2020 when the City did not have
enough protective gear in supply. Remote work is an economic benefit; an article on Salary.com estimated
cost savings for employees of about $4,000/year. Another article in August from HR Reporters surveyed
remote workers who estimated their annual savings at around $5,000 or more/year.
Ms. Brown continued, the City's remote workers save money on gas and car maintenance while their
members drive to work. When one of the City's remote employees gets COVID, they work from home and
do not have to use sick leave or vacation. When one of their members tests positive for COVID, they must
stay home and use leave. If the child of a remote worker gets sick and has to stay home from school, the
remote employee is already at home with them; their members must use a day of sick leave to stay a home
with their child. They have urged the City to acknowledge and account for the fact that remote workers
enjoy economic benefits not offered to the employees who tend the City's parks, cemetery, streets, water
and sewer system, and who operate the WWTP seven days a week. They understand remote work will be
part of the workplace moving forward; at the same time, employers must make an effort to address the
inequity between those who can work from home and those who can't. Arguing that it doesn't exist will
only lead to further divisiveness among the workforce and between the City and its employees.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, said she was not speaking as a Olympic View Water & Sewer District
commissioner or a member of the Washington State Public Works Boards but as a citizen of Edmonds who
has way too much knowledge of the effects of PFAS contamination on both humans and fish. She also has
a recently heightened understanding of the need for climate resilience and environmental justice. She
requested the council require a new SEPA for the Highway 99 subarea based on significant changes since
2017 including those mentioned earlier and including, but not limited to, increased knowledge of PFAS
contamination and the effect on people and fish, designation of two wellhead protection areas in the
Highway 99 planning area since the original SEPA in 2017, and recognition that the City's CARA
regulations are not adequate to protect wellhead protection areas or fish. She requested the council overrule
the staff recommendation to do nothing and request a scoping and supplemental EIS for the Highway 99
plans.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 184
8.3.d
for the assistant court administrator position. With regard to workload, it depends on how it is measured.
There has been a lot of work coming out of COVID with the Washington Supreme court emergency order
about to go away and the pause on infraction failures to appear. There are different ways to measure
workload such as number of cases or number of hearings. For example, she had six cases on this afternoon's
docket but it took hours. Once the assistant court administrator position is filled, the court will be properly
staffed to handle the work that comes through Edmonds Municipal Court.
Councilmember Chen recalled Ms. Maylor's response to his email that there were 5,000 new cases in 2021
and 1,000 in 2022, which is a significant drop in the number of cases, yet the department's budget has
doubled. Judge Rivera said case filings is one way of tracking workload. The court processes cases they
get; it is interesting to look at trends, there are peaks and valleys. If someone pled guilty to domestic
violence or driving under the influence today, they potentially would be on probation through 2027. A lot
of what they do in community court is providing services to people on probation who may be struggling, it
is not just pending cases. She agreed the case filings are projected to be lower in 2022 than in 2021.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
4. HIGHWAY 99 PLANNED ACTION FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin explained this plan review was written into the
legislation and anticipated. Staff thoroughly reviewed the planned action mitigation measures and will
report on compliance with the planned action and status of development. She recognized the significant
amount of public comment and she appreciated the diligence about understanding the nature of
development that is occurring, questioning how it fits into the environmental review; staff will review and
offer assurances on each of those aspects from traffic to parks to ensure the initial issues outlined the in EIS
are acknowledged and still moving forward consistent with what was required by the EIS and mitigation
measures, both the private development community as well as public investments.
Ms. McLaughlin explained the intent of a planned action is to offer transparency to the public about what
is anticipated from development along a corridor that was upzoned to a zone that will accept higher levels
of density, particularly housing given the City's housing needs. It also gives developers some assurance, a
level of confidence to make those large scale investment in larger apartment buildings that are being
constructed in the corridor. It is also to leverage public investment, putting private and public investments
in the same area increases livability. Although mitigation measures cannot address existing deficiencies,
they can shape in a beneficial ways the neighborhoods along the Highway 99 corridor. It also leverages
private investment not only in the realm of housing but sidewalks and walkability via frontage
improvements to add to the walkability network, sidewalk network and improves safety at intersections.
That is all in accordance with the anticipated impacts. There has been a negligible amount of development
compared to what was anticipated under the planned action. There are nowhere near the cumulative impacts
anticipated or mitigated against.
Planning Manager Kemen Lien reviewed:
• Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process
o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077)
o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078)
o Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079)
o Won VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council
• What is a Planned Action SEPA?
o Designating specific types of projects shifts environmental review to an earlier phase
o The intent is to provide a more streamlined environmental review process at the project stage
by conducting a more detailed environmental analysis during planning
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 185
8.3.d
o Early environmental review provides more certainty to applicants with respect to what will be
required and to the public with respect to how environmental impacts will be addressed
o Designation of planned action projects does not prohibit the city from placing conditions on a
project; it only addresses procedural SEPA requirements
Planned Action Thresholds and Mitigation Measures
o Development Thresholds
■ Number of Residential Dwelling Units — 3,325 Units
■ Square Footage of Non-residential Uses — 1,634,685 square feet
■ PM Peak Hour Trips — 2,755 Trips
o Mitigation measures are largely a mix of policy, code amendments and specific projects
o Mitigation measures identified in EIS and attached to the Planned Action Ordinance
■ Incorporated Plan Features
■ Regulations and Commitments
■ Other Mitigation Measures
Planned Action Monitoring and Review
o Ongoing: Monitor progress of development to ensure it is consistent with the assumptions of
the planned action, the amount of development and associated impacts and mitigation measures
o August 2022: Five-year review of assumptions and findings with respect to environmental
conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation
measures
Monitoring and Tracking
o Projects reviewed at application with Planned Action Checklist
o Review based on application materials and SEPA Checklist
o All projects tracked in Highway 99 spreadsheet
o Additional SEPA review required if project impacts and/or mitigation not in Planned Action
Planned Action Projects and Thresholds
Planned
Status
Remaining until
BLD
Measure
Action
threshold
Threshold
Issued
Proposed
exceeded
Land Use
New square
1,634,685
14,125
1,389
1,619,171
Non-residential, including office,
footage of
retail, service and
building area
medical/healthcare uses
Residential
Number of new
3,325
319
313
2,693
dwelling units
Transportation
Peak PM Trips
2,755
80
126
2,549
• Enviromnental Conditions Changed?
o Detailed in Subarea Plan
■ Land Use Pattern
■ Housing
■ Transportation
■ Economic and Market Trends
o Changes in existing conditions limited to plan implementation
■ Zoning change
■ Transportation projects
■ New development
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 186
8.3.d
WRRENI2CINlNG
r.G7-cererar Commernal2
CG General Carrm 1
RN -Nelghhorhmd! Buwress
sc•L:ommr Lytiuv—
Asa - single Fanvly_ gmo- sq fi
W RM-3 - M.74.wrty, 3,000 m. It
■ RM-2A Uulafamily, 2,400 sq. F
■ RM-1.5- vultdamdy, 1.5pp sq. ft
■ MIJ • 7vleditw me
. P-PWIIC Vse
R ECO MMEN RE O 2DN1HG
BN • Nci~ood Bus—
. K - DOnxn4nay 1941 ^^
f156 sin*Fa 47,8Ao0cv f'
{� P1d-3-MaiFan•aly-3.=sq r-
■ El,S-2 4 - iluhilarnl!y, 21DOP sq.
■ RKW 5-kounilamily, 1 500 sq. F
■ id0-Medt iuse
■ P R.blic Lh.
Impacts of Development?
o Twelve projects:
■ One expired
■ Four projects completed
■ Three currently under construction
■ Four under application review
o Impacts as envisioned and mitigated
Pwjae[
Project status
Penrod
'I, Add—
Naw square footage of
building area {non-
uses)
',
Number of new ,
dwelling units
Peak PM Trip,residential
Generated
GEE Apartments
:BLD Issued
PLN20180060
'123326 Highway 99
0
192
83
CHC Addition
BLDFneled
PLN20190029',
23320 Highway 99
7,000
0
13
Edmond 5enior Living
;Expired
IPLN20190013
', 212D072nd Ave.W
Boug's Mazda -ice
;BLD Fnaled
BLD20191272
',22133 Highway 99
13,659
0
19.7
Doug's Hyundai showroom addn/remodel
!BLD Finaled
BLD2019C120
22130 High—V 99
12,542
0
1.27
Behar remodel
!BLD reeled
IIBLD20171452
122019 Highway 99
-94
0
-2
Better Bellevue Townhomes
I BLD Applied
PLN20180058
18029 238th St SW
D
3
1
Apoll o Apartments
;BLD Applied
PL1,120200043
i:23601 Highway 99
-26,290
252
76
Anthology Senior Living
;BLDlssued
IPLN2021-MO4
', 2120072nd Ave. W
14,125
127
-3
Terrace Place Apartments
;Proposed
IPLN2022-DG47
', 2362584th Ave. W
0
261
102
Housing Hope
:Proposed
523th St. SW
1,389
52
24
Highway 996ateway Project
4CPpital Project
'll
0
Cl
0
Mitigation Measures
o Specific mitigation measures in agenda packet identifying actions taken
o Mitigation measures expected to occur over time
■ Transportation Projects (Near -term 5 to10 years; Long-term 10 to 20 years)
■ Park Acquisition
■ Development Improvements
o Specific Subdistrict Identities
■ Health District, International District, and Gateway District
Other — Project Review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 187
8.3.d
o Design review in other areas of the city require Architectural Design Board (ADB) review is
SEPA triggered
o In CG zone, only projects that exceed 75 feet required to go to ADB
o With adoption of Planned Action, no notice required
o City's largest projects don't require notice or public design review process
Recommendations
o No amendments to the Planned Action Ordinance 4079 or supplements to the Highway 99
Planned Action EIS are needed at this time
o Implementation of the Planned Action EIS and mitigations should continue to be pursued
o Expand notice and public process for projects in CG zone
o Expand Subdistrict Identities
Ms. McLaughlin emphasized there was a thorough analysis under the planned action, environmental review
and specific measures and staff believes it is in compliance. She recognized the community's concern which
is why changes are suggested related to public notice and design review. Staff has the discretion to require
noticing, but it does not require SEPA noticing. With regard to design review, projects are reviewed by
staff under specific development standards. If there is interest, there could be a higher level of design review
for projects along the Highway 99 corridor. Changes like this do not require a supplemental EIS. She agreed
with continuing to finetune and improve the process and outcomes and address some of the issues the
community raised.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, just like with the emergency ordinance that was brought forward, it was not an
explicit mitigation measure or requirement of the planned action, it was something staff thought was not an
equitable approach and an emergency ordinance was proposed to address it. The City can work with much
more innovation and expedience in resolving some of the issues instead of going through a rigid
environmental process that has very defined methodologies that may not result in the desired outcome. For
example, the transportation methodology relies on vehicular level of service at intersections, it only count
cars. If only cars are counted and impacts are defined by cars at intersections when the community is talking
about impacts to people, walkability, bikeability and livability of their neighborhood, an environmental
document will only expand intersections and add signals. In staff s opinion a supplement EIS is not the
vehicle to make the changes everyone wants to see. An example of that is shifting to a multimodal level of
service, something she hoped was on the near term horizon.
Ms. McLaughlin explained despite the planned action and EIS, staff still goes through an individual project
based analysis which includes traffic. Reviewing those traffic analyses confirmed what she already thought;
there are negligible impacts from the projects at the intersections mentioned this evening during audience
comments such as 236' & 84t''. She reiterated a supplemental EIS may not be the vehicle to get the outcomes
that everyone seeks.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled there used to be a transition zone between a 75' building and a one story
single family. He did not know what happened to that and would like to explore how to reintroduce that..
He appreciated what staff was saying about a multimodal approach to looking at streets; he has often
thought the level of service at intersections does not help much with regard to determining the impact to a
neighborhood. For a long time he and the late Councilmember K. Johnson worked to get walkway crews,
etc. He would like some reassurance that there is something in the TIP that addresses the issue on 236'
His kids attended Madrona; most of the students do not walk because it is a choice school. Having a
walkway system that serves that neighborhood is very important and he wanted assurance the City was
moving in that direction. Ms. McLaughlin referred to her articles regarding the comprehensive plan
visioning process which addressed evaluating a transition zone for this neighborhood as part of the
comprehensive plan process. She acknowledged eliminating nine zones may have homogenized it too
much. That can be done without a supplemental EIS via the comprehensive plan process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 188
8.3.d
Mr. Lien explained the rezoning of the Highway 99 corridor got rid of the transition zones and was part of
the EIS analysis and there were some mitigation measures associated with that including the stepbacks
properties that are adjacent to single family. The ordinance last week addressed specific mitigation for
properties across the street. That was part of analysis in the EIS for removing those transition zones. With
regard to transportation improvements, there are east -west connector sidewalk projects identified in the
EIS, new bike lanes on 236', and pedestrian sidewalk improvements. Pedestrian projects identified in the
EIS will occur over time.
Ms. McLaughlin said while the planned action includes mitigation measures, it is not inclusive of projects
in the CIP/CFP or existing projects. Layering those over the mitigation measures in the EIS provides a more
full picture of the commitment over the years in this neighborhood. Mr. Lien highlighted projects in the
CIP that are in the mitigation measure table in the packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the complete packet. She is environmentally rigid; she is not
a scientist but has spent more than a thousand hours talking to people about this. The EIS talks about
probable adverse environmental impacts. The FEIS talks about the 2014 stormwater code which has been
updated and had a significant impact to stormwater which would be a reason to trigger supplemental EIS.
The City learned from OVWSD about issues with the wellheads that are within this area. Updating the code
regarding the critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) could also trigger a supplemental EIS. In addition to
protecting water quality and the environment, climate change has significant impacts across the world.
Significant geomorphology events where very little rain falls have a tremendous impact on stormwater.
Further, there are sewer treatment plant issues where nitrogen levels have changed and the facility is at
capacity. Citizens' voices need to be part of this supplemental EIS. She was not as worried about traffic as
she was with poor air quality, recalling people wore masks in Oregon when Mount St. Helens erupted and
more recently due to wildfire smoke. The air quality on Highway 99 is another trigger for a supplemental
EIS. Things have drastically changed from 2017 to 2022, even from 2020 to 2022. She planned to make a
motion to have a supplemental EIS performed.
With regard to stormwater regulations, Mr. Lien explained the update resulted in stricter stormwater
regulations so that was not a probable significant environmental impact under SEPA. Implementing the
stormwater regulations will help protect the environment so he disagreed that was a probable significant
probably impact under SEPA. With regard to the CARA, staff is aware of that issue and added OVWSD's
wellhead protection areas to the critical area layers, consider those during reviews and notify OVWSD if
there are any projects in those areas. As part of the SEPA review and SEPA appeal on the stormwater, there
was a lot of discussion on that and the updated stormwater regulations provide protection to the wellhead
protection areas. The City does not have a specific CARA code but it will be part of the comprehensive
plan update. Implementing the stormwater code is not a probably significant adverse impact under SEPA
and was actually litigated before the hearing examiner recently. He talked to WWTP Manager Pam
Randolph about sewer capacity
Councilmember Pained thanked staff and the community for the abundance of information. She anticipated
the planned action absorbed a lot of time in 2017. She noted things should happen sooner and asked whether
transition zones could be implemented more swiftly than the 2024 comprehensive plan update. Duplexes,
triplexes and 4-plexes provide honest transition zones in a fairly narrow area. She also asked if the sidewalk
program and planning could be accelerated to prioritize these routes because sidewalks build communities.
She asked whether Snohomish County could build sidewalks in the Esperance area. She was most
concerned about displacement; this community has the highest level of diversity and is the most
economically vulnerable. She asked what the City could do to avoid displacement. Housing is critical need
and is more critical than it was 5-8 years ago when the earlier analysis was done. Displacement is a critical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 189
8.3.d
issue and is one of the ways the community judges success. She asked what a blight designation meant,
how it benefits Edmonds, and the components of that designation.
With regard to whether transitional zoning could be implemented sooner, Ms. McLaughlin said that type
of analysis lends itself to what will be done with the comprehensive plan update. She was not a fan of
waiting until 2024, but starting on the journey will lend itself to more sensible citywide analysis about
growth, density and housing. Whether some of those policy recommendations can be expedited, she was
not opposed to it. The ability to invest in this network is in the council's hands in terms of approving a
budget that prioritizes investments in this corridor and in this neighborhood. There is a fixed amount of
capital funding and how it is allocated is up to council. Recognizing the importance of private investment
in that equation for building out sidewalk networks is also critical. Without the private investment, the City
does not get the frontage improvements.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, through the reimagining work, street typologies are being explored to inform
the sidewalk code package. The sidewalk code will ensure the City is leveraging as much private investment
from development as possible as well as exploring an in -lieu payment program. Those tools, which are not
currently available, will help further build out the network using private investment. A critical part of that
is shifting to a multimodal level of service. Currently the City cannot prioritize sidewalk expansion using
transportation impact fees because those go toward vehicular capacity improvements. That is a big deal for
this neighborhood in particular who want to prioritize sidewalks. Once the City shifts to a multimodal level
of service, those impact fees can be used where they are needed. The transportation and park impact fees
for one development were over $1 million. She summarized private investment was certainly part of the
equation.
With regard to displacement, McLaughlin said it is thorny and challenging and something cities across the
country are looking at in relation to escalating housing prices. The Department of Commerce under the
GMA has required all cities in Washington to evaluate this as part of the comprehensive plan. A gap analysis
has been done for equity and the analysis will consider housing costs, where costs are escalating the most
and where there is the greatest risk of displacement. Staff is aware this corridor is at risk for displacement,
but it is not disproportionate impacted under the planned action; that will be considered via the
comprehensive plan update.
With regard to a blight designation, Ms. McLaughlin said a Highway 99 community renewal plan is
underway that will consider whether it meets the designation of blight as defined in the RCW. The EIS did
use the terminology of blight so it is irrelevant to this conversation. She asked what the question about
blight was in relation to. Councilmember Paine commented it was a new word that was being applied to
some aspects of the Highway 99 redevelopment; it was her vague understanding that there was a funding
source and she was seeking more information. Ms. McLaughlin responded blight can be defined in a couple
of ways under the community renewal plan as economic or structural such as the way streets are laid out or
land use as it relates to transportation. From an economic standpoint, this corridor is actually a strong
economic engine for the City so from an economic standpoint it would not be characterized as blight.
Councilmember Paine said she was glad to hear that, commenting blight was such a loaded word. Due to
the amount of information, she wanted more time to consider this. She was interested in what could be done
short of an EIS to address the concerns raised by the community. Even though staff determined the triggers
for a supplemental EIS have not been met, there is still a big need.
Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that it would be appropriate to proceed
with a supplemental EIS. She did not find it appropriate to act as though adding hundreds of housing units
to the area of town where she lived and grew up without acknowledging that when people jaywalk on
Highway 99, they are crossing five lanes of traffic. People have been killed crossing Highway 99, something
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 190
8.3.d
that doesn't happen in other areas of the City. She was one of those 12-year old jaywalkers crossing
Highway 99 because there have never been not enough sidewalks or crosswalks. People run across five
lanes of traffic traveling 40-60 mph trying to reach a bus stop, something that does not happen in other parts
of Edmonds. That is the reason for the level of frustration expressed by the Lake Ballinger community. She
was proud to be from the Lake Ballinger and Highway 99 community; it is a lovely place to live and she
was shocked to hear the word blight applied to that area.
Councilmember Nand continued, the incredibly frustrated speakers who addressed council about
supplemental EIS they feel frustrations are falling on deaf ears. Young kids who jaywalk in this area can
be killed; adding hundreds of housing units to this area without addressing that impact is irresponsible. It
is the responsibility of the City, not private development to address that concern. A multitude of concerns
have been eloquently expounded in numerous meetings prior to tonight. She requested staff revise their
position that a supplemental EIS is not necessary or that no amendments are necessary. Conditions that may
have been appropriate in 2017 are not appropriate post -pandemic. It is not appropriate after a heatwave
killed hundreds in Washington last year due to inadequate infrastructure to protect vulnerable populations
including seniors. People died on sidewalks in Washington during 2021 due to the heat when resources
were unable to reach them in time.
Councilmember Nand continued, there is a lot of frustration in her part of the community, an area that has
always been very different than the Bowl. It is not just feeling underserved by City government or feeling
their concerns and frustrations fall on deaf ears, but the fact that they generate the most tax income for the
City, yet their area is treated as a problem. For the first time in 2019 when she ran for council, someone
referred to her part of Edmonds as the ghetto of Edmonds, a term she had never heard before. It is a part of
Edmonds where a lot of people of color live including her family who are members of the Asian -American
community. Before 2019, she did know her area of Edmonds was referred to as the ghetto of Edmonds or
that it was referred to as a blight. She was always proud to be part of Edmonds and did not know that was
how other people viewed that area.
Councilmember Nand continued, she lives in high density housing a few yards from Highway 99. She sees
her neighbor's young kids playing in the common driveway for their townhouse complex because there is
absolutely no green space for them to play. People pull out of their garages and whiz past kids trying to
play ball in the common driveway due to the lack of green space or trees especially compared to other parts
of Edmonds which are very well served and well represented. Issues of cultural competency need to be
addressed when people have been speaking to council for weeks about why they feel the subarea plan is
inappropriate and why they haven't been adequately consulted. She recognized staff worked very hard to
prepare tonight's packet, but did not feel it was adequate to address the concerns of her community and a
supplemental EIS needs to be pursued. She supported looking at transportation issues, reiterating in her
area of Edmonds, someone who is unlucky while jaywalking will die, something that does not happen to
people in the Bowl where people drive 25 mph. She encouraged staff to examine cultural competencies
when dealing with proud residents and taxpayers in her area of Edmonds who address this apparatus that is
supposed to represent them and is funded by taxpayer money.
Ms. McLaughlin appreciated Councilmember Nand's passion and commitment for the corridor. The intent
of tonight's presentation is to find the most effective vehicle to address all the issues that Councilmember
Nand raised. She assured she is passionate about traffic safety and finding ways to get capital investments
into that neighborhood. That is why she wanted to emphasize how ineffective the existing environmental
framework would be to achieve that and recognizing the limitations of that environmental document, the
City could be more effective on the fringes. She is an educated professional completely committed to under -
invested and under -represented neighborhoods like this area. She assured this areas was not blighted and
hoped that word did not get proliferated in that neighborhood. It is not blighted; it is an economic engine
for Edmonds that is only now receiving the investment that it has historically deserved.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 23
Packet Pg. 191
8.3.d
Ms. McLaughlin assured Councilmember Nand that her and the community's concerns have not fallen on
deaf ears. A member of the community wrote a very thorough letter that took a lot of research in addition
to the material staff provided in the packet. It took time to research and respond to her letter and meet with
her, but it did not fall on deaf ears; staff took her comments very seriously. Staff s recommendation to not
pursue a supplemental EIS is absolutely no reflection to their dedication and commitment to investing in
this area, it is because staff feels taking a different strategy would be more successful.
Mayor Nelson expressed appreciation for the work Ms. McLaughlin does and took offense to claims that
she has not been paying attention or listening. He knew she cared deeply about what was happening in that
area and was doing everything she can via the lens she looks through. Her expertise and her staff s expertise
in working through these issues and challenges are undervalued and he appreciated everything they were
doing.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the frustration expressed by residents indicates a need to redouble
efforts to reach out to the community including communities of color. During his first term on council, he
attended open houses, recalling at one held at the hospital, almost everyone in the room looked like him;
there were very few people of color. The problem is not getting enough input from people affected by these
changes and they are shocked and concerned when these large developments start happening and they
realize how big the developments will be and how many people will live there. The City needs to redouble
its efforts and find ways to reach everybody to get input early before things reach the I I' hour.
Councilmember Teitzel continued, there has been a lot of discussion about the lack of open space, green
space and parks in south Edmonds. The City is trying to acquire open space and parks in conjunction with
the subarea plan. He referred to page 842 of the packet, Parks and Open Space in the 2017 subarea plan
states, "provide onsite open space as a residential amenity through new development." He asked if that
could be interpreted as developers would be expected to provide the open space or is that action that the
City would take in concert with development. Mr. Lien answered that is one of the design review standards
that were adopted in 16.60 to require amenity space and open space with development, but does not replace
the need for parks in the area. Ms. McLaughlin said there have been conversations recently with both private
development and the parks department about private investment solely providing those investments as well
as public -private partnership opportunities.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to page 840 of the packet Parks and Open Space in the 2017 subarea plan
which refers to possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and
redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens, picnic shelters, etc. He asked
why it would be beneficial for the City to acquire the park from Snohomish County when south Edmonds
residents already use it. Ms. McLaughlin was unsure of the status of that effort and offered to circle back
to Councilmember Teitzel on that question. She observed his point was not to take credit for space that
already exists. Councilmember Teitzel clarified since south Edmonds residents already use that park and
actually own it because they also pay taxes to the County, if the City acquires it, it will also take on the
maintenance costs. He did not see the benefit to the City as part of the subarea plan to consider acquiring
the park at this time.
Mr. Lien said since the subarea plan was done, the Snohomish County Esperance Park has been developed
and made available for public use. It includes sports fields, a dog park, playground trails and other recreation
facilities. The City has not acquired the park, but Edmonds citizens do use it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 24
Packet Pg. 192
8.3.d
Councilmember Teitzel said he was interested in considering an SEIS especially with the passion expressed
about why the City should pursue an EIS. He asked the cost in terms of time and investment to conduct an
SEIS. Ms. McLaughlin answered that body of work has not been scoped, but depending on the scope and
amount of community outreach, she estimated the cost at $200,0004250,000 based on a range in other
local jurisdictions. She pointed out staff resources for that work would also need to be considered as the
City begins the update of the comprehensive plan. That workload would be unanticipated and almost
duplicative as it will consider the same policy issues, code issues, displacement issues, and will culminate
in an EIS.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested staff provide council the response to the citizen's letter. The council
needs to understand if an EIS is not done, how the City can respond to those concerns. Ms. McLaughlin
said these are valid issues that are mentioned in various planning documents whether it is an adopted
document of and EIS or planned projects associated with the CIP or comprehensive plan policies, all well
intended and adopted by council that are not all in one place. The community renewal plan provides an
opportunity to include an action plan to combine all the current and planned actions in one location so it
does not feel so disparate or unintentional. It would be helpful to see all the investments outlined in one
place along with a time horizon.
With regard to impacts of doing an SEIS, Mr. Lien explained if an SEIS is initiated on the subarea plan, the
planned action is not in place during that interim period. If any project applications are submitted while an
SEIS is underway, they would need to go through the entire SEPA process which includes a new threshold
determination, etc.
To reinforce what other councilmembers are saying, Council President Olson suggested some type of work
plan approved by council may be workable if it included dates and deadlines. There is a sense of urgency
about some of these things, specifically related to the aquifer. She was confused by staff saying there were
no changes in the environment; it was not that the changes have happened while the planned action was in
place, but questioned whether the fact that this environmental condition was unknown at the time it was
implemented would be considered a change. Mr. Lien explained for the SEPA analysis, the threshold is a
probable significant environmental impact. The City became aware of the wellhead protection areas by
OVWSD and there is a stormwater code that address development within wellhead protection areas that
protects the aquifer recharge area. Knowing they exist now does not necessarily mean it is a probable
significant adverse impact. This was a big part of the discussion when the SEPA review was done on the
stormwater code.
Council President Olson asked if there was anything in the documents about true protections for ensuring
development does not occur in that area. Mr. Lien answered it is not that development does not occur in the
wellhead protection areas, it is how development occurs. For example, to protect the aquifer, one of the
problems is injection wells. He first became aware of this during the Madrona School project that proposed
deep injection wells for stormwater which could potentially put stormwater into the aquifer. That is one of
the things that should not be done as part of development in an wellhead protection area. When development
is proposed within a wellhead protection area, OVWSD is notified so they can review the project and the
city stormwater code also helps project those areas. He summarized it is not that no development can occur
in those areas, it is how development occurs to avoid impacting the aquifer.
Council President Olson said she did not want to take action tonight; she wanted time to talk with citizens
and staff. One of the early concerns was the transportation impacts in the original EIS focused on Highway
99 and SR-104. As soon as those buildings (84') are constructed, they will obviously have a traffic impact.
If the original EIS did not look closely at that street and address those impact, it seems like that needs to
happen now. If there is no requirement for a traffic impact study because it is part of the subarea plan, that
seems like a miss. Whether that is handled by a council action plan or something else, she felt there should
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 25
Packet Pg. 193
8.3.d
be something that is documented, tracked and made a sense of urgency and a priority. Mr. Lien explained
applicants for projects within the planned area still prepare a project -level traffic impact analysis that looks
at the impacts of that specific project. Even if it qualifies as a planned action, conditions and mitigations
can be added for specific projects if warranted. He summarized additional traffic impact analysis is required
at the project level when applications are made.
Council President Olson referred to staff s comments about having public notice and involvement, and
asked if the developer would expect something had changed based on public input. Ms. McLaughlin asked
if Council President Olson's question was whether the developer would be aware the public notice had
changed. Council President Olson clarified staff mentioned adding a step for public notice for some
projects, but if nothing is required in terms of the subarea plan or the way the City typically does business,
how would the public input be used and would it change what happens. Ms. McLaughlin answered the
developer would definitely be aware of it coming into the application process and it likely would require
an ordinance change. In terms of how to be most effective with public notice, frankly a SEPA notice may
not be effective at reaching people, speak in layman's terms, and have a community conversation. The
public notice staff has been thinking about is in advance of a design review, to require a community meeting
with the developer to talk about project. That is something other jurisdictions do and it is highly effective
to have community members meet the developer and talk about the project in advance of a design review
so they understand what's valuable to the community versus just notice of a public hearing. Council
President Olson suggested she and staff talk offline about what that ordinance needs to look like.
Councilmember Chen acknowledged staff s hard work putting the packet together and all the information
provided. He also acknowledged staff listens to the community's input and thinks about what's best for the
community as evidenced by the moratorium two weeks ago. He shared the concerns of other
councilmembers' and the community about the lack of green space, lack of a transition zone, and
displacement for low income and people of color living in this community. Many of them work multiple
jobs to make ends meet and when their property values increase due to development, their property taxes
increase which diminishes their ability to pay. He was very concerned about displacement due to
development.
Councilmember Chen referred to Councilmember Teitzel's comment that people at community events look
like him, commenting it is because people of color work 2-3 jobs and are at work when those event are held
and do not have time to attend. He complimented staffs efforts to reach out, noting it is hard to reach them.
With the community's input and concerns, he supports conducting a supplemental EIS. The estimated cost
of $250,000 is a worthy investment to get the community's input and get the best development for this
community.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS CONDUCTED.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for all the work they are doing, but she is jaded after 12 years.
Highway 99 residents deserve this SEIS. So much change has occurred and the citizens deserve to have a
voice. She preferred conducting a SEIS rather than a work around such as updating the code, including it
in the comprehensive plan, conducting a charrette, etc. She reiterated the climate will continue to get worse.
The Lake Ballinger Forum, which consists of Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and
Edmonds, is intent on keeping the lake clean and pristine. The City has $240 million from the state and
should just bite the bullet and do it.
Councilmember Paine said she was not in support of the motion at this time. The council needs to learn
more about implementing fixes that can happen right away. She wanted to explore other options before
reaching the conclusion that a SEIS is needed. She was excited about the light rail, anticipating south
Edmonds residents were not saying no housing or were supportive of the delays that a SEIS would create.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 26
Packet Pg. 194
8.3.d
She was hopeful things like transition zones could be implemented right away and consideration given to
things that could be done short of a SEIS. Adding more housing options throughout Edmonds would be
ideal rather than building it all in this corridor, but this corridor has the greatest opportunity with the light
rail, additional transportation services on Highway 99, and the Highway 99 renewal project which will
result in a lot of changes.
Councilmember Paine continued, she would like to adopt guidelines for all neighborhoods so there is shared
vision and opportunities for Highway 99, Lake Ballinger, the Gateway District, etc. and do it in a way that
includes public outreach. There are two mobile home parks in Edmonds; those are the areas she worries
about displacing and having more housing options is great way to avoid that. Housing is a human right and
honors people who have been here for a long time. She thanked staff for all the information and summarized
she preferred to look at options before doing a SEIS.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the council is hearing from its constituents tonight and for the past
several weeks that they want action taken on issues that concern them such as displacement, open space
acquisition, partnership with other entities on parks, traffic safety, pedestrian safety, etc. The key thing the
council should consider is how to best address those concerns. If it is a SEIS so be it; if there is a better,
more efficient, effective way to do that, that was fine too. The council needs to get to the point where it can
make a decision whether to invest the money in a SEIS or not. He observed Ms. McLaughlin has said there
may be better ways to ensure those concerns are addressed and was willing to entertain those ideas, but
needed to see the responses to the concerns raised in the letter and the concern the council heard tonight.
He would like to consider that before taking action on conducting a SEIS. For that reason he will not support
proceeding with a SEIS at this time.
Councilmember Nand said she was full throated in support of the motion to authorize a SEIS tonight. The
political process exists for a reason and the engaged citizenry has let the council know through the political
process that they have concerns about some of the proposed changes, the oversights they feel emanate from
City government and affect their community. A SEIS is the bare minimum of an appropriate response to
the level of outage coming from her community at some of the changes imbedded in the five-year plan. She
will take endless amounts of verbal smacks to continue verbalizing the wholly appropriate engagement in
the political process that is coming from her part of Edmonds.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed that moving forward with a SEIS at this time is premature. A SEIS may
need to be done, but he preferred to see a work plan from the development services department about how
it would integrate with the comprehensive plan which will include a great deal of public input. He hated to
circumvent a process that is already in motion to insert another process when resources could be expedited
via a process that is already in motion.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine asked when the emergency ordinance expires. Mr. Lien explained the emergency
interim ordinance is good for six months. A public hearing schedule is scheduled for November 15 and the
ordinance should go through the planning Board and back through council before the 6 months expires.
Councilmember Paine observed the effect of the emergency ordinance was no new permits were accepted
during emergency interim ordinance period. Mr. Lien explained the interim ordinance passed two weeks
ago was related to stepbacks for properties across the street and is good for six months with the possibility
of an extension with a work plan. A public hearing before council is scheduled on the interim ordinance for
November 15; the council makes findings whether to continue the interim ordinance or modify the interim
ordinance. The next step in the interim ordinance process is planning board review and recommendation to
council and then council would adopt another ordinance (or not) to make it permanent. The interim
ordinance is only related to stepbacks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 27
Packet Pg. 195
8.3.d
Council President Olson said she would support the motion with the thought that a motion to reconsider
could be done next week. The council will learn during the coming week whether it was the right move or
have something in the packet next week to consider as an alternative.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, AND
NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL,
TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO.
Ms. McLaughlin asked what the one week reconsideration mentioned by Council President Olson meant.
Council President Olson offered to follow up with Ms. McLaughlin tomorrow, explaining councilmembers
on the prevailing side have the option to reconsider. If there was a convincing reason or an agenda memo
regarding a different approach next week, there could be a motion to reconsider the motion passed tonight.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISIONING SUMMARY
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
6. APPROVAL OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.10)
Mr. Taraday said he had an opportunity to compare the committee packet to tonight's packet and understood
the question about the resolution. The resolution in tonight's packet meets the typical Edmonds resolution
format and appropriately adopts the Snohomish County Solid Waste Plan so he saw no legal reason not to
adopt it.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED, TO APPROVE
THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson welcomed Councilmember Nand. He reported on the Great Shakeout, an annual earthquake
preparedness exercise that will include testing of the tsunami siren on Thursday, October 20 at 10:20 a.m.
for 3 minutes. The siren is only a test and is for people who are outside, not inside a building, to seek higher
shelter. The City's disaster coordinator will be at the exercise to answer questions about disaster
preparedness.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nand said she was incredibly honored and privileged to be on council. She was tweeting
with the former council student rep Brook yesterday and told him it was important that the council model
democracy and the democratic values of the U.S. Constitution at all levels of government down to the city
council. In working with City staff, she has established Councilmember Nand office hours every week on
Thursday from 4 to 5 pm. She also plans to have Councilmember Nand office hours on the weekend in the
Highway 99 community. She is wholly committed to being a public servant and she was thankful for the
opportunity.
Councilmember Paine welcomed Councilmember Nand, commenting she has been an active part of the
community and it was great to have her voice and experience. She thanked all the applicants for their interest
in council position #7. There is an amazing body of talent in Edmonds and she encouraged the applicants
to stay involved. She looked forward to the community renewal project open house on Thursday evening.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 18, 2022
Page 28
Packet Pg. 196
8.3.e
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 20, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember*
(*participated by phone)
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
T. Dreyer, Police Officer
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present or participating by phone with the
exception of Councilmember Buckshnis.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
PULL ITEM 6.8, TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IN PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MOVE IT TO ACTION ITEM 9.3
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. PARK AND RECREATION MONTH PROCLAMATION
Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming July 2017 as Parks and Recreation Month in the City of
Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. Ms. Hite thanked the
community and Council for their support of the City's beloved parks system, commenting there are a lot of
projects coming up. She recognized the Parks Department team for their work.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 197
8.3.e
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to incentives for smaller units and lower rents for those units and
asked how the lower cost could be guaranteed. She asked whether the incentive included putting a cap on
the rent. Chair Nordling Rubenkonig relayed the development team indicated there are ways of reducing
the cost of the construction. With regard to the Westgate project, it will be subsidized and 19% of the units
will be at the affordable housing rate. Vice Chair Monroe recalled the team indicating it was market driven;
a certain amount can be charged per square foot for apartments in the area, less square footage equals a
lower price. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas concluded the rents would be market rate but lower due to
the size.
Council President Mesaros asked what the developers of the Westgate characterized as incentives. Vice
Chair Monroe said they suggested starting with a 2-story box as the base and then providing items such as
public meeting areas, artwork or other features could quality for additional stories.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the comment about long term investor and the importance of that
distinction. This is the first time the developer has done a project outside of Seattle but they are referencing
standard incentives. He wanted to be certain the developer's first project in Snohomish County had
Edmonds appeal and not Seattle's. Vice Chair Monroe asked if Councilmember Nelson was interested in
ensuing the project was not cookie cutter, commenting the City's Planning Department will work with the
development team. At the meeting the Planning Board had, he felt they were very vested in the project and
the area. Chair Nordling Rubenkonig said the development team praised City staff for working with them
to create a project they are proud of. She noted Edmonds is urban and the Westgate project is similar to
projects in Seattle.
Councilmember Teitzel said he reads the Planning Board minutes and is impressed with the work they do.
He relayed the Council hears from the public at Council meetings, emails, phone calls, etc. and asked how
the Planning Board engages with citizens. Chair Nordling Rubenkonig commented the tree ordinance
generated significant public input; there was also a good turnout for the sign code. Planning Board meetings
are televised. The Council setup is very formal; the Planning Board is more relaxed. She acknowledged the
Planning Board did not have the amount of public participation the members would like. Councilmember
Teitzel commented it would be great to see more people engaged at the Planning Board level before issues
come to the City Council.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON HIGHWAY 99 AREA-: CG REZONE (MAP) & DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced John Fregonese, Principal, Fregonese Associates,
explained tonight's public hearing follows public open houses, news releases, meetings by the Planning
Board and City Council and other outreach. He displayed a map of the project area, primarily the
commercial zones around Highway 99 in Edmonds. The City Council last discussed Highway 99 Area Zone
and Code Changes on June 6: Discussion included:
• Comparison with existing zone map and development ode
• Review of proposed CG site and building design standards
• Question about additional incentives for "green buildings"
• Question about vehicle parking within buildings at street level
The focus of tonight's public hearing is the Planning Board's recommendation for Zoning Map and
Development Code. No action is requested at this time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 4
Packet Pg. 198
8.3.e
He displayed the proposed Zoning Map and explained the proposal:
• Change these zones to the consolidated CG Zone
• Incorporate design standards directly into zones to ensure scale transition into neighborhoods
• More predicable outcomes for community
He displayed the Comprehensive Plan Map, advising the new zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan map. He reviewed:
• Draft Zoning and Development Recommendations
o Strengthen current design standards
o Incorporate them directly into the zoning code
o Consideration of special circumstances within the corridor will be made to ensure the standards
are feasible, such as large parcels that would have multiple buildings if redeveloped and parcels
with unique access or transportation challenges.
• Site development standards General 16.60.020
o The pedestrian area adjacent to the street is composed of three zones: the streetscape zone, the
pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone (Section 16.60.020.C.2)
■ Changed "amenity zone" to "streetscape zone"
■ Added dimensions
o Additional building stepback when adjacent to RS zones
■ Upper stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height
• Site development standards —design standards 16.60.030.A. LE
o 15' setback with 10' landscape buffer
• A minimum five feet wide type IV landscaping is required along all street frontages where parking
lots about the street. Section 16.60.030.A.1
• Access and vehicle parking
o All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building, except
as otherwise specifically allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from the sidewalk by a
wall or plantings between 2 to 4 feet in height.
o Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage area within 100
feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at the corner.
The requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses.
• Required electric vehicle charging stations (Section 16.60.030.B.5)
o One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development that
includes housing.
• Bicycle storage spaces (Section 16.60.030.B.6)
o Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or other
specialized facilities, shall be provided for residents
0 1 bicycle storage space for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage
spaces for each residential unit greater than 700 square feet
• Paths within parking lots (Section 16.60.030.B.8)
o Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet
federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may
include landscape barriers and landscape islands
• Pedestrian and transit access (Section 16.60.030.B.11)
o Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian
connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required.
o Pedestrians routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other
• Site Development Standards — Site Design and Layout 16.60.030.0
1. Pedestrian Oriented Design (Section 16.60.030.C.1)
■ At least 50% of a building's fagade facing the primary public street shall be located within
20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 5
Packet Pg. 199
8.3.e
■ Building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage
■ Vehicle parking shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage,
other than as allowed for vehicle sales use.
2. Alternative Walkable Design Area Option
■ For sites with unique constraints.
■ At least 50% of the building's fagade facing the primary street shall be located within 60
feet of the front property line
3. Exceptions Process for Pedestrian and Walkable Design Options
■ Exemptions may be allowed by hearing examiner to provide for design flexibility that still
encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under following criteria:
- Property is located within 300 feet of highway interchange or has unique pedestrian
access constraints
- One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage
- The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street
frontage and likely to be active through the day/evening.
- At least 25% of required amenity space is located to connect building to the street
- Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between
buildings to allow shared use
- One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of usable space
o Amenity space (Section 16.60.030.C.4)
■ An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity
space.
■ If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of
a building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least
5% of the additional parking area.
■ Example of amenity space in Costa Mesa, California
o Building Design and Massing (Section 16.60.030.D.2)
■ On the primary frontage, 50% of the building fagade between two and 10 feet in height
shall be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent
Mr. Fregonese reviewed examples of amenity space and building design and massing:
• New Seasons building on N Williams Street in Portland
• Safeway on Hawthorne Boulevard in Portland
• Safeway on Hwy 99Barbur Boulevard in Portland
• Fred Meyer on Interstate Avenue,
• Auto dealers
Mr. Fregonese reviewed photographs illustrating the Health District Gateway and SW 234th today and with
corresponding private investment. He reviewed the proposed changes to the sign code
• Revisions to 20.65.045:
o Limit freestanding signs (such as monument signs) to maximum height of 14 feet in this district
o Require freestanding signs to be counted as part of total maximum sign area for this district
Mr. Fregonese described next steps:
• Council's next meeting on this topic - July 18
• Council action scheduled - August 15
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the use of stepbacks to preclude a large wall facing a neighbor, providing
a friendly transition. He asked if the use of the stepback would be restricted, for example would decks, tall
trees, awnings, etc. be allowed, commenting allowing a 20-foot tree in the stepback would defeat the
purpose of the stepback. Mr. Fregonese answered stepbacks are typically used for outdoor areas that would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 6
Packet Pg. 200
8.3.e
include furniture, trees in pots, etc. The intent would be for the stepbacks to be used as outdoor space, an
amenity for the building. If desired, tree height could be limited to 10-12 feet. Councilmember Teitzel
concluded there would not be a restriction on what was allowed in the stepback. Mr. Fregonese agreed it is
typically patio furniture and trees in pots.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the amenity space was private or public. Mr. Fregonese answered
it is privately owned intended to be open for public use as part of the pedestrian environment. Ms. Hope
commented there is also opportunity for an internal plaza or courtyard for the tenants/residents/owners in
addition to the required public space that is typically at the sidewalk level. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
recalled at least one project where the interpretation was it was not for the public's use but for the tenants'
use. Ms. Hope anticipated it could be a mixture, some public space near the sidewalk as well as some private
space for residents; the mix will depend on the use. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas concluded the plans
for each project would specify whether the space was public or private use. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Tibbott said he liked the architectural features in the renderings but there is a minimal list
of suggested building items. He asked whether more detail, perhaps pictures or illustration to help
developers understand what the City is looking for with regard to architectural design standards. Mr.
Fregonese answered there is typically a brochure or illustrations of how to implement the design standards.
Compared to other codes implemented at the staff level, this code has both building transparency and
building facade requirements. With creativity, that will lead to the type of buildings in the illustrations.
Quality can never be guaranteed via the code but it can guarantee it won't be a white elephant. Ms. Hope
said the draft code includes some illustrations which may be supplemented. Typically, commercial projects
include professionals who are used to these design terms, but the intent is for the code to be understandable
to the average person.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled the Westgate plan included an adaptation of form based code, recalling
the intent was to lower the risk to a developer by illustrating what the City was looking for which saves
time for the developer and for the City. Ms. Hope said this is a type of form based code as well, it addresses
uses that are allowed/not allowed uses but focuses on the building shape, bulk, glazing, as well as the site
design and building articulation.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled he expressed concern during the last presentation about the possibility of
a 75-foot building across the street from single family residences. In areas of city where that would be
allowed, it may not pencil out but it could happen. If a proposal like that were submitted to the City, he
how it would be handled. Ms. Hope answered the code currently allows a 75-foot height next to single
family housing in some instances with no requirement for stepback or building setback. This code
strengthens and respects the neighborhood more than the existing zoning.
Councilmember Tibbott expressed concern that the proposed zoning eliminates the transition areas. When
driving around Shoreline and Edmonds today, he saw taller buildings on Hwy 99 with nearby residential
areas. In one location, there was the interurban trail and vegetation between single family and the 75-foot
tall building. He appreciated there would be landscaping between the curb and the building, but that does
not breakup the bulk of the building. He asked what would be done when a use adjacent to another use
may not be compatible. Mr. Fregonese answered there would be 15-foot side and rear yards setback in
addition to the stepback. In the case of across the street, there is a 10-20-foot setback in front, the 60-foot
right-of-way, and the 20-foot single family setback, providing approximately a 100-foot separation between
the structures. Although stepback could be required, a 75-foot tall building 100 feet away is beyond the
ratio where it would be beneficial. Councilmember Tibbott commented parking would provide additional
distance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 201
8.3.e
Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Fregonese for the requirement for electrical vehicle charging station
and the description of amenity space. He referred to the sample photograph of the car dealership, remarking
when he thought of amenity space, he was not thinking it would look like that. Mr. Fregonese recalled the
Council's concern with retaining car dealerships. He reviewed the car dealership examples, and the intent
to do something useful with the space in front that is not just parking. Councilmember Nelson suggested
not using that photograph as an example.
Councilmember Nelson asked if the amenity spaces for multiple properties could be combined and
collectively create a park. Ms. Hope answered that was possible. Mr. Fregonese said he lives next to a Fred
Meyer whose amenity space ended up being a corner park.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Dean Phillips, Council President, Edmonds Lutheran Church, referred to the church's letter expressing
support for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan.
Ann Wermus, Edmonds recognized the work the City has accomplished in the plan for Highway 99. It
promises to be a greatly revitalized area. She expressed support for the concept in the plan and stressed the
need for continued work on providing permanent low income housing. Under the current plan, if a developer
took advantage of the tax exemption option, a limited amount of low income housing could be supplied. In
the GMA, the goal is to encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the
population and encourages the use of innovative techniques to meet the housing needs of all economic
segments of the population and requires the city to provide opportunity for a range of housing types. The
Highway 99 subarea plan offers a unique opportunity for housing that could be affordable for workforce
housing as well as low income, potentially relieving the pressure on low income families. She urged the
Council to develop and employ innovative strategies to promote all efforts as way to increase housing
opportunity for all economic segments of the population.
Bea Wilson, Edmonds, representing herself and her son who owns property on 225th Place SW. She
thanked the City Council and Planning Board for the proposed plan. She asked the definition of affordable
housing. Mayor Earling suggested she speak with Ms. Hope. Ms. Wilson concluded the plan looks great.
Robert Sieu, Edmonds, property owner on Highway 99, said he spoke at the Planning Board May 10
public hearing regarding the exception on design standards. He also spoke with Ms. Hope and the consultant
and both agreed some language needed to be change. The Planning Board approved the plan on the
condition those changes would be made but at the June 6 Council meeting, the language had not been
changed. The changes are related to exceptions for car dealerships and property 300 feet from an
interchange.
Seth Hale, Seattle, also representing Stan Piha, Edmonds, expressed their support for the Planning
Board's recommendation to approve the ordinance as proposed. The consultant has made the appropriate
recommendations regarding setbacks, stepbacks and activity zones to ensure protection for properties
adjacent to and across from CG zoned parcels within the corridor. Speaking as an architected, he
commended the City on the flexibility in the code, providing a unique opportunity for great design in the
corridor instead of code driven design.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, asked about the affect the zoning changes would have on adult entertainment.
He recalled a Snohomish County levy in 1995-1999 that did not pass.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said the plan works well on Highway 99 frontage where none of the parcels
are across street or abut single family residences but more attention needs to be paid to the transition zone.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 202
8.3.e
Single family residences in close proximity to the Highway 99 corridor represent some of the least
expensive housing in the City. Among the purposes of the CG zone in 16.60.005, it recognizes the evolving
identity and sense of place including distinctions between different parts of the district and to be sensitive
to adjacent resident zones. He suggested using "adjacent and neighboring" instead of "adjacent" to clarify
consideration of residents next to and across the street from CG zones. The table in 16.60.020.A is not
sympathetic to adjacent and neighboring residential zones. The minimum street, side and rear setback of
10-15 feet may be more adequately sensitive to neighboring residential zones if each was increased by a
minimum of 10 feet. With regard to 16.60.020.D regarding stepbacks adjacent to RS zones, he suggested
using "adjacent to and across the street from RS zones" instead of "adjacent." He recommended surface
parking lots adjacent to or across the street from residential zones be prohibited and that residential parking
requirements in 16.60.030.1 be further reduced from a minimum of .75 cars for units 700 square feet or less
and 1.75 cars for units above 750 square feet to encourage use of public transportation. Adopting these
recommendations would more clearly demonstrate the Council's commitment to being sensitive to
neighboring RS zones while allowing for needed development.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing. He relayed staff is seeking Council
input for consideration on July 18.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification whether the zoning change would allow adult
entertainment. Ms. Hope answered nothing had changed with regard to adult entertainment.
Councilmember Tibbott expressed interest in staff s suggestions to address the issue he raised regarding
multi -family directly across street from single family. Admittedly those streets were quieter and there would
be parking on the street, yet the possibility existed for a 75-foot tall building across the street. He was open
to considering options such as a parking buffer, reduced heights, stepback, etc.
Councilmember Johnson commented TOD is very conducive to bicycles. She expressed interest in ways to
accommodate bicycles in the Highway 99 corridor and consider the corridor as whole as a linear park as
there are not a lot of parks in the area.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how to ensure people are not parking in the neighborhoods.
Although the hope is fewer cars in a TOD, parking could be an issue if residents of the TOD parked in
residential neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor. Ms. Hope said that is a legitimate issue and it is a
balancing act. If too much parking is required, the result will not be TOD, yet enough parking needs to be
required. The code tries to strike that balance between what is enough so there is some required parking but
not so much that the TOD is lost or development of the site is so expensive that nothing happens. She
described a development in Redmond where initially the city had fairly hefty parking standards and after
the project was built, they found only about half the parking was being used because residents were using
transit due to the location. If the need arose, parking programs could be considered.
9. ACTION ITEMS
1. PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is in response to the current need which will continue
so staff is recommending a change to the code. He reviewed:
• Current Noise Ordinance ECC 5.30
o Written 1981 — last modified 1985 (32 years ago)
o Sets standards for noise generation by limiting sound pressure levels at receiving property lines
o Establishes two standards
■ Daytime (7 am— 10 pm)
■ Night time (10 pm — 7 am)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 9
Packet Pg. 203
8.3.f
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 18, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 95TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FLORETUM
CLUB
Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming July 16 — 22, 2017 as Edmonds Floretum Garden Club
Week in Edmonds and urging all citizens to recognize and applaud their invaluable service. He presented
the proclamation to Past President Sally Wassal & current President Tia Scarce. Ms. Scarce said she joined
the Floretum Garden Club after moving to Edmonds three years ago due to their part in the way Edmonds
looks, particularly in the summer which draws visitors. The proclamation acknowledges the Club's close
working relationship with the City as well as their 95t' anniversary. Ms. Wassal thanked Councilmember
Buckshnis and Executive Assistant Carolyne LaFave for their efforts related to the proclamation. She
commented on her enjoyment of gardening and vegetables she grows along with the flowers in her yard on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 204
8.3.f
14 Decision Packages Total $281,880
0 9 are new items for Council to consider expenditures
0 5 have been previously discussed by Council
o $136,070 in new revenues
New amendments:
o Annual software maintenance for the Government Access Channel programming
o Additional consultant plan review of building permits due to increases in permitting activity
and complexity of permits, partially funded by new permit revenues
o Additional $1,000 in 2017 Diversity Commission staff budget to cover delayed invoice
o Use of $6,000 in vendor fee receipts for 2017 Holiday Market professional services
o Use of $1,500 sponsorship receipts for 2017 Puget Sound Bird Fest professional services
o Transfer of funds from Non -departmental to Parks & Recreation for payout of retiring
employee
o Insurance reimbursement for traffic controller damaged in a vehicle accident
o Preliminary design of a replacement retaining wall within right-of-way on 89" Place West -
$16,400
o Stormwater educational programs for K-12 students and businesses as part of the City's
Stormwater Permit compliance efforts
Amendments previously discussed by Council:
o Fund temporary Administrative Assistant position while employee on maternity leave -
$16,500
o Corrections to Lodging Tax Fund line item for professional services - $4,500
o Additional expenditure for Frances Anderson Center Bandshell - $32,000
o Additional $71,000 spending authority for Veterans Plaza
o Budget correction related to transfers from the Utility Operating Funds to the Bond Fund
Exhibit D (change in fund balance)
Summary:
o Revenues are increased by $136,070
o Expenditures are Increased by $281,880
o Ending Fund Balance is Decreased by $145,810
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the amendment for additional consultant plan review, recalling Mr.
James stated it would be partially offset by new revenue but the amendment states it will be more than
offset by increased revenue. Mr. James agreed.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about the revenue sources for the $136,070. Mr. James answered it varies,
permit revenues, ending fund balance, vendor fee receipts, sponsorships, etc.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4075, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4063 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND PLANNED
ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed the City Council last reviewed the Highway 99 Area
zone and code changes at the June 20 public hearing. At that time discussion included, comparison with
existing zone map & development code, review of proposed CG site & building design standards and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 12
Packet Pg. 205
8.3.f
specific questions & comments. The focus of tonight's meeting is review of the Draft Zone Map and Code
and questions, comments and direction. No formal action is requested at this time.
Ms. Hope reviewed:
• Proposed Zoning Map
o The proposal is to change CG2 zones and multifamily parcels in the area to the consolidated
CG zone
o Incorporate design standards that will increase vitality & ensure transition into neighborhoods
o More predictable outcomes for community
• Comprehensive Plan map
o New zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map
• Zoning Map and Development Regulations - Goals
o Vitality and livability'
o Sustainability
o Consistent with subarea plan
o Reasonable balance of requirements and options
• Site development standards - General 16.60.020
o Pedestrian area - required adjacent to street
■ Composed of three zones: streetscape zone, pedestrian zone and activity zone
■ Comparison of pedestrian area requirements
- Required in existing CG regulations? - no
- Required in proposed CG regulations? - yes
o Comparison of dimensional requirements
Existing CG Chapter
Proposed CG Chapter
Height
60-75'
75' ft max*
Street setback
4' max
5'110'
Side/rear setback
0115
0115
Stepback
No additional stepback
required for upper stories
Additional stepback required for upper
stories adjacent to single family
o Additional building stepback when adjacent to RS zones
■ Upper Stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height
Site development standards -design standards 16.60.030.A. LE
o Photo of across -the -street transition illustrating separation provided by the street
o A minimum 5 feet wide Type IV landscaping is required along all street frontages where
parking lots abut the street
o Access and vehicle parking
■ All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building,
except as otherwise specifically allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from
sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 to 4 feet in height
■ Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage area within
100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at
the corner. Requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses
■ High parking requirements can impede development
■ Proposed regulations aimed to encourage transit -oriented development options
- 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit less than 700 sq. ft.
- 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit of 700-1100 sq. ft.
- 1.75 parking spaces per residential units greater than 1100 sq. ft.
■ Guest parking: 1 space/per 20 units
■ Possible limitations/options on parking on first floor of building
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 13
Packet Pg. 206
8.3.f
- Option A: Allow no vehicle parking within first 20 feet of a building where the
building faces a primary street unless the parking is underground. (Ms. Hope preferred
this option.)
- Option B: Allow no more than 60% of the first floor of a building to include vehicle
parking where the building is less than 50 feet from the primary street
o Required Electric vehicle charging stations
■ One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development
that includes housing
■ 1 station/10 required residential stalls plus planned capacity to double that amount in the
future
o Required bicycle storage spaces
■ Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or
other specialized facilities, shall be provided for residents
■ 1 bicycle storage space for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage
spaces for each residential unit greater than 700 square feet
o Paths within parking lots
■ Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet
federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may
include landscape barriers and landscape islands
o Pedestrian and transit access
■ Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian
connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required.
■ Pedestrians routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other
Site Development Standards — Site Design and Layout 16.60.030.0
1) Pedestrian Oriented Design
■ At least 50% of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within
20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists.
■ Building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage
■ Vehicle parking shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage,
other than as allowed for vehicle sales use.
2) Alternative walkable design area option
■ For sites with unique constraints.
■ At least 50% of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within 60
feet of the front property line
3) Exceptions process for pedestrian and walkable design options
■ Exemptions may be allowed by hearing examiner to provide for design flexibility that still
encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under following criteria:
- Property is located within 300 feet of highway interchange or has unique pedestrian
access constraints
- One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage
- The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street
frontage and likely to be active through the day/evening.
- At least 25% of required amenity space is located to connect building to the street
- Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between
buildings to allow shared use
- One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of usable space
o Amenity Space
An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity
space.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 14
Packet Pg. 207
8.3.f
■ If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without the concurrent development of
a building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least
5% of the additional parking area.
o Building Design and Massing
- On the primary frontage, 50% of the building fagade between 2 and 10 feet in height shall
be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent
- Photograph of concept illustration of possible redevelopment
How do proposed regulations encourage sustainable development?
o Examples:
■ Bicycle storage
■ Electric vehicle charging wider pedestrian areas
■ Not excessive vehicle parking (transit friendly)
■ Amenity space
■ Stormwater mgmt.
■ Compact development
■ Landscaping and street trees
Proposed change to sign code
o Revision to 20.65.045
- Limit freestanding signs (such as monument signs) to maximum height of 14 feet in this
district
- Require freestanding signs to be counted as part of total maximum sign area for this district
Ms. Hope reviewed the Planned Action Code:
• Preliminary Draft
o Planned Actions are allowed under GMA and SEPA
■ Based on EIS that has analyzed impact of subarea plan or development regulations
■ Ensures environmental impacts have been considered in establishing plans and regulations
■ Streamlines SEPA review process for projects that have already been covered by EIS for a
subarea
■ Proposed planned action code for Edmonds
- Is based on Hwy 99 Subarea EIS
- Sets limits on amount and type of projects to be covered by Planned Action
- Requires all other applicable codes and standards to be applied
o Planned Action Code
- Is based on EIS process underway
- Establishes mitigation measures
- Applies to development in CG district, in addition to other codes and standards
- Details to be completed next week
o Planning Board
■ Had introduction in June
■ To hold public hearing July 26 & make recommendation to Council
Ms. Hope reviewed next steps:
• Tonight: Council consideration of proposed zoning map update and code items
• Next review July 31
• Potential Action August 15
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was excited about the future of the Hwy 99 corridor and was pleased to
hear clarification about the space between a residential development and an existing neighborhood. It was
her understanding there would be 5 feet for streetscape, 10 feet for a pedestrian zone and 25 feet for an
activity zone. Ms. Hope clarified there is a 5-foot streetscape zone, 5-10 feet for a pedestrian zone and 1.5
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 15
Packet Pg. 208
8.3.f
— 2 and up to 10 feet for an activity zone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about development across
the street from a residential neighborhood. Ms. Hope answered there would be a 15-foot setback, 10 feet of
which has to be landscaped and if buildings are above 25 feet, each segment must have a 10-foot stepback.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to a single family residential across the street from development
and asked the typical width of a street. Ms. Hope answered streets would typically be 60 feet plus the 10-
20 foot setback. The street in the photograph she displayed as an example is 30 feet; Highway 99 is 100
feet wide. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this gives the opportunity for residents to not live
in the shadow of a building. She asked if a 75-foot high building would be 6 or 7 stories. Ms. Hope answered
it would typically six. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has researched 4-6 story buildings in the
area and found the setback was important for single family neighborhoods.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the options for parking, agreeing that Option A would be more
beneficial. Ms. Hope agreed, pointing out it addressed the appearance and avoids visible vehicle parking.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented regardless of the location of the parking, the primary frontage
of the building would be glass. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the windows on the primary frontage would be transparent windows. Ms.
Hope answered they must be transparent. Councilmember Tibbott commented on the value of not having
parking behind the transparent windows. He asked if it would be possible to have a storefront with parking
behind. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott observed charging stations and bicycle storage
are requirements not incentives. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out the reference to primary roads and suggested using the functional
classification system such as principle arterial, collector street, etc. Ms. Hope said the terms used in the
plan were more user friends and they were defined. Councilmember Johnson suggested it would be better
to use the functional classification to be consistent with Transportation Element. Ms. Hope said the intent
was to be descriptive.
Councilmember Johnson asked how the alternative walkable parking designed works with a new dealership,
recalling two dealerships have expanded in the past year. Ms. Hope answered the consultant was very
cognizant that auto dealerships were an important source of revenue balanced with having the standards
apply equally; there is a practical reason for having something different for vehicle sales facilities. Several
areas in the code state, "other than as allowed for vehicle sales use."
Councilmember Johnson asked if there were any incentives for energy efficiency such as LEED or Build
Green buildings. Ms. Hope said there was interest in that for this area and throughout the City and staff has
been working with regional partners on options for incentives but it was not ready to be included in this
plan. Often the incentive is it saves money in the development long term or makes it a more attractive
development for tenants. To promote LEED, the City would include that information in the building notice,
etc. Providing a break in the permit fees is also something the Council could consider separately.
Councilmember Teitzel observed the draft regulations require amenity space equally at least 5% of the
building footprint but there is no requirement that that space be publicly accessible. Ms. Hope answered a
developer wants areas that are private for the tenants; there is also a requirement for the first 10-20 feet in
open pedestrian space. Councilmember Teitzel asked if a portion of the 5% of amenity space could be
publicly accessible. Ms. Hope said that may have been necessary if there was not a requirement for public
space in front of the building.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was important to provide incentives for energy efficient and
LEED such as a break on permit fees and/or fast -tracking the permitting process. To get buildings of future
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 16
Packet Pg. 209
8.3.f
in Edmonds, the City needs to provide accolades and breaks for developers who are willing to do that. Ms.
Hope said staff will bring that to Council in the next few months.
Mayor Earling said there would be another opportunity for Council review prior to adoption.
3. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO DESIGNATE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA AS A
RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREA
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty advised the resolution establishes
the Council's intent to designate the Highway 99 Subarea as Residential Targeted Area for implementation
of the Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program and set a public hearing on August 15. The
Council has already implemented MFTE in Westgate following approval of the subarea plan. The purpose
of MFTE is principally to encourage development that is planning for in areas that have not seen or may be
lacking in development of that nature. Multifamily or mixed use development would be incentivized by
this program. The extra benefit of MFTE is it provides for affordable housing at 20% of the units. The State
allows two options, an 8-year tax exemption for the residential portion with no affordable housing and a
12-year exemption if the project provides 20% of the units affordable. The Council previously approved
the 12-year exemption with affordable housing for Westgate.
If the resolution is approved by Council, at the August 15 public hearing, Mr. Doherty said he will present
details of the program, adding this subarea and minor amendments to the code language. At that time, the
Council could officially designate Highway 99 and approve the revised code language. He offered to
provide the draft code language to committee prior to the August 15 public hearing.
Mr. Doherty relayed the Economic Development Commission has indicated its desire to co-sponsor with
City staff a redevelopment forum/event in fall that developers throughout the region would be invited to
attend, present the new plan, expectations for the corridor, etc. MFTE would be one of the items highlighted
at that event.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1390, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OF ITS INTENT TO DESIGNATE THE
HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA AS A RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING A MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM AND SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING ON AUGUST 15, 2017 AT 7:00 P.M.
Council President Mesaros requested the revisions to the code language be reviewed by committee.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the boundaries of the Highway 99 Subarea Mr. Doherty
answered it is the entire Highway 99 corridor within Edmonds and properties adjacent to Highway 99
particularly to the west. The MFTE program would apply to all properties that allow residential and/or
mixed use.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. HISTORIC INFORMATIONAL PANELS FOR YOST PARK AND WATERFRONT
MILLS
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO REFER THIS TO THE PARKS, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND TAKEN UP AT A SUBSEQUENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2017
Page 17
Packet Pg. 210
8.3.g
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 31, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
David Huneke, Edmonds, expressed frustration with the continued delay installing street lights on Pine
Street. The lights were approved last year and scheduled to be install in the spring. The Council put the
project on hold in May and three months later, the project is still on hold. The Parks, Planning & Public
Works Committee discussed the lights and when no opposition was expressed, he anticipated the lights
would be on the Council's agenda tonight. Continually delaying the lights puts the safety of pedestrians at
risk. Beginning this week or next, Chevron will begin cleanup, 10-15 trucks will make 2-3 trips per day for
2 months. He hoped this issue would be addressed during committee reports including the reason for the
delay.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he has been on athletic field boards for the State, King County,
and Seattle. Seattle raised $198 million via a levy in the past for fields. He relayed past interest in movies
at Civic Fields.
Farrell Fleming, Edmonds, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, expressed appreciation for City
workers' repair of the senior center's sewer issues. The senior center had to be evacuated and closed the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 211
8.3.g
afternoon of July 18 due to a blockage that caused a sewer backup. The center remained closed the next
day and porta-potties were delivered for planned weekend events. The center has a combination of many
old sewer lines, some cement, some cast iron and the blockage occurred where those join. The center was
able to reopen with porta-potties and two operating restrooms. A City team arrived at 6 a.m. July 25,
determined the problem by 9 a.m., were laying gravel by 2 p.m. and the system was again operational by
the next morning, hopefully for an extended period or at least another year. He commended the effective,
hardworking, good-natured City staff, particularly Facilities Manager Tom Sullivan, Facilities Maintenance
Worker Patrick Cleveland, Sewer Lead Worker Tim Harris, Senior Sewer Maintenance Workers Jim
Clemens, Don Crofton and Rick Wickers. He requested staff be recognized for their work.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM AND PAYROLL CHECKS.
3. ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RICHARD
MILLER ($169.99).
4. ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE TIMING OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S ANNUAL
REPORT
5. HISTORIC INFORMATIONAL PANELS FOR YOST PARK AND WATERFRONT
MILLS
6. SOCIAL WORKER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
6. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON HIGHWAY 99 PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Anna Snyder Kelly, 3 Square Blocks, who worked
on the environmental impact statement (EIS) as well as the Planned Action Ordinance. Ms. Snyder Kelly
explained a Planned Action Ordinance regulates the projects covered by the environment analysis done in
an EIS, deemed to be "planned actions" under the Planned Action Ordinance. A Planned Action Ordinance
also regulates what must be done to mitigate the environmental impacts. The Planned Action Ordinance
does not just permit developments because they are within the EIS; it requires environmental impacts
created by a project to be mitigated. The benefit of a Planned Action Ordinance is it speeds up the SEPA
process for developers which encourages the kind of growth and economic development the City has stated
it desires, creating benefit for all parties.
Ms. Snyder Kelly explained there are three basic steps in preparing a Planned Action Ordinance, 1) prepare
an EIS that analyzes the environment impacts that various types of development might have on an area, 2)
develop and adopt a Planned Action Ordinance, and 3) review individual development projects to determine
if they are a planned action under the Planned Action Ordinance. She provided an analogy; if a development
process is a trip on a plane, a Planned Action Ordinance is the equivalent of TSA precheck. A Planned
Action Ordinance does not just let development occur because it happened to have been described in the
EIS, but it speeds up the line and requires development to mitigate for the environmental impacts it has on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 2
Packet Pg. 212
8.3.g
an area. More specifically, a Planned Action Ordinance is procedural in the sense that it does not change
the underlying codes and standards; each development considered under a Planned Action Ordinance still
must follow the underlying plans and codes. The City determines if a project is a planned action and can be
considered under the Planned Action Ordinance.
Ms. Snyder Kelly explained the proposed Planned Action Ordinance outlines five thresholds used to
determine if a project qualifies:
1. Land Use
• Meets land uses allowed by the code and described in the EIS
2. Development threshold (for entire study area)
• 3,325 dwelling units
• 1,634,685 square feet of building area
3. Transportation
• Not more than 2,755 new evening peak hour trips (for entire study area).
4. Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts
• A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to
any of the elements of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS would not qualify
as a planned action
Changed Conditions
• Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned
Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned Action
designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted.
Council President Mesaros asked how the thresholds were determined. Ms. Snyder Kelly responded the
transportation thresholds were calculated based on level of service (LOS) in the City's code and
requirements for concurrence. The development thresholds are also related to concurrency. Council
President Mesaros relayed his understanding there was no change to those. Ms. Snyder Kelly agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this was the first time the City has considered a Planned Action
Ordinance. Ms. Hope answered yes, this is the first time the City has undertaken a Planned Action
Ordinance and an EIS for a subarea. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the City wanted to speed up the
SEPA process, observing SEPA is extremely important. Ms. Hope clarified the real value is not that it
makes the SEPA process a few days faster; the value is having an EIS that has assessed the impacts of
development which helps assure the community that impacts of development have been considered and the
Planned Action Ordinance memorializes that. A SEPA Checklist is still required for each project.
Councilmember Nelson asked how much time is saved. Ms. Hope answered for a developer it may be a
few days or a couple weeks, it is not a huge amount of time unless a huge project is proposed which could
potentially save a developer several weeks. Councilmember Nelson observed the time savings was also a
cost savings. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether the EIS had been published. Ms. Hope advised the draft EIS is
available online and the final EIS will be posted tomorrow; there was little change between the two. Ms.
Snyder Kelly advised the final EIS incorporates a number of public comments which were used to make a
few tweaks such as incorporating things Community Transit is doing.
Councilmember Johnson referred to G5 in the Planned Action Ordinance related to development
agreements which states the City or an applicant may request consideration and execution of a development
agreement as allowed in Chapter 20.08 ECDC for a Planned Action project. She recalled the Council had
a robust discussion regarding development agreements 3-5 years ago but the discussion was never
concluded. That discussion included types of incentives and tradeoffs for development agreements. She
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 3
Packet Pg. 213
8.3.g
asked the status of the development agreement process. Ms. Hope answered development agreements are
allowed under the existing code; if a project doesn't meet certain aspect of the code but meets the intent,
the Council can consider a development agreement that binds the developer to certain conditions. A
development agreement requires a decision by the City Council. A number of cities allow for development
agreements and Ms. Hope acknowledged there are pros and cons to their use but there are occasions when
they are useful. She felt it was worthwhile to again consider the chapter related to development agreements,
but that was a different process; this ordinance simply references the existing code regarding development
agreements and does not change anything.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the Council would work with a developer on case -by -
case basis. Ms. Hope answered yes. She was not expecting requests for a development agreement and she
has not heard anything that would likely lead to a development agreement; the ordinance simply leaves that
option open.
Councilmember Johnson observed the Development Services Director or designee determines if an
application is complete and that the decision of the SEPA Responsible Official regarding qualification as a
planned action shall be final. She asked who is the SEPA Responsible Official Ms. Hope advised the
Planning Manager is the SEPA Responsible Official, currently Rob Chave. Councilmember Johnson
observed there was no way to challenge that decision. Ms. Hope answered that is typically considered an
administrative decision. Councilmember Johnson observed the Planned Action Ordinance would be
reviewed in five years. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Johnson observed the ordinances takes effect 5 days after passage and asked whether the
Planned Action Ordinance could be adopted prior to the Comprehensive Plan when it was related to the
Hwy 99 subarea plan. Ms. Hope answered subarea plans can be adopted outside the normal Comprehensive
Plan amendment process. Once the Council approves the Hwy 99 subarea plan, which is considered part of
the Comprehensive Plan, the Planned Action Ordinance could go forward.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that development could go forward unless there were
significant impacts and asked for examples of impacts that would disallow development. Ms. Hope
answered an obvious example would be the traffic proposed at an intersection would cause the intersection's
LOS to fail; specific mitigation and additional study would be required. Councilmember Tibbott asked for
other examples. Ms. Hope answered traffic would be the mostly likely as there are no wetlands in this area.
Ms. Snyder Kelly pointed out if a project does not meet the qualifications to be considered a planned action,
it automatically reverts to the original SEPA process.
Councilmember Tibbott asked for an example of changed conditions. Ms. Hope answered the most likely
would be if traffic patterns did not occur in the way the modeling indicates. Ms. Snyder Kelly answered
another example would be an unexpected increase in population and the utilities no longer support the
development that would allowed, the environmental impact of the project would need to be considered.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding there were conditions that could require further study or
deeper analysis. He asked who decides when the impact or changed conditions required further analysis.
Ms. Hope answered that would typically be the SEPA official or it could be raised by others.
Councilmember Tibbott concluded the involvement of the SEPA Official provides additional objectivity.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the public hearing was being held tonight when the Council has not
seen the EIS which should have been included in the packet and it had not been reviewed by the Planning
Board. Ms. Hope clarified it did go through the Planning Board; the Planning Board held at least two
meetings including a public hearing and recommended adoption. The Planning Board minutes were sent to
Council today.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 4
Packet Pg. 214
8.3.g
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Johnson's concern that the Council never completed
its discussion about development agreements and according to the 20.08.050, the attorney does everything
and the Council is not involved. Ms. Hope assured a development agreement requires Council approval.
Mr. Taraday pointed out 20.08.040 states a development agreement is a Type V development project permit
application which is a Council decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for Hwy 99 but she had not received all the documents
necessary to fully understand. Ms. Hope said the development agreement reference is not essential to this
Planned Action Ordinance; it simply references the existing chapter. If the Council chose not to include
that provision, that would be okay.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation of the public hearing.
Seth Hale, Seattle, offered suggestions to enhance the goals of the proposed code language with regard to
required parking and alternative transportation modes for transit oriented development (TOD) within '/4
mile of BRT stations. Characteristics of TODs include multiple transportation choices and reduced parking.
Studies have shown that increased transportation choices and reduced parking benefit the environment and
reduce auto congestion. Incentivizing development to provide additional transportation choices in exchange
for reduced parking only increases these benefits. Examples of incentives include charging stations.
Incentivizing charging stations within TODs would provide a higher number of charging stations or
capacity. For example, for every 4 additional charging stations or capacity, the number of standard vehicle
stalls could be reduced by 1 stall, up to a maximum of 5% of required parking. This is a good trade with
regard to cost, each charging station costs $4,000 to $6,000; structured parking stalls range from $10,000
to $30,000. Reducing one parking stall offsets the cost of an EV station. Under the proposed code, a
charging station shall be installed to serve at least 10% of the required residential parking stalls. While
Washington is a leader in the number of electrical vehicles they account for less than 1% of the registered
vehicles.
Mr. Hale relayed concern that as technology advances, charging stations will also likely advance and
today's equipment may become obsolete. He suggested an initial lower percentage of functioning charging
stations with a potential for increasing or exceeding capacity. Another example is car sharing; car sharing
users tend to be millennials and there are significantly more renters under 30 than homeowners. He has
seen car sharing used successfully in Seattle where car sharing spaces reduced the required parking by 3
stalls to a maximum of 15% of the required parking stalls. He acknowledged the cost to provide additional
transportation modes such as bicycle parking charging stations, car sharing, subsidized transit passes, etc.
adds to the overall project costs. A reduction in required parking stalls helps offset these costs and ensures
TODs can compete with typical development to provide affordable housing with alternative transportation
modes close to BRT stations.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to casinos in neighboring cities and adult entertainment in Shoreline
that are used by Edmonds residents. As more businesses locate on Highway 99, the traffic increases. He
questioned the existing zoning and the proposed zoning, recalling the reason development has not occurred
in Edmonds is the cost. He provided a Seattle Times article from 1987 regarding the Council considering a
topless -bar law.
Mark Tekin and Dominic Rambes, Tekin & Associates, owners of the Denny's property on Highway
99, explained a year ago they got the space back as it was no longer financial feasible for Denny's. They
have proposed a project with 4 tenants, 2 restaurants tenants and 2 retail tenants that would provide daytime
and evening services to the community. They submitted a land use application which was approved on July
14, 2017. Five days after approval, they were informed by City staff it was no longer valid due to the new
development guidelines under consideration. He relayed they spent a lot of time and energy on the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 5
Packet Pg. 215
8.3.g
redevelopment project and although they had interest from fast food, they have proposed a nice, modern
redevelopment with no drive throughs.
Eric Nielsen, Area Architecture, representing the project on 212th St SW & 72ndAve W, referred to the
proposed increase in the building setback from 4 feet to 10 feet, relaying a preference for more flexibility
in the code language to allow for site specific solutions as a blanket 10-foot setback may not provide the
desired solution on every site. He referred to images he provided the Council, first an example of a 4-foot
setback or other minimal dimension that allows the developer opportunity to setback the building higher
up, essentially transition the building to the street level. He referred to sections in the images, an example
of an elevation with a 10-foot setback and a vertical building along the sidewalk. The second elevation
provides a more pedestrian scale on the sidewalk with setback above and opportunity for landscaping above
the street. He recommended the Council consider more flexible in the code with two options, 1) the 10 foot
setback and 2) reduced setbacks as long as the building is setback above by 10 feet. With regard to the
proposal to not allow parking within 20 feet of the building wall, he pointed out this pressures building
owners to provide commercial and residential uses on the ground floor; however, not all sites are suitable
for residential or commercial uses, potentially resulting in vacant space on the ground floor.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Ms. Hope to comment on the Denny's site. Ms. Hope said she
would need to research the particulars of the site. It was her understanding if a building permit was
approved, it would not be invalidated based on a code that was not yet adopted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
relayed he was contacted by their attorney; the issue is they have approved design review but not an
approved building permit so the project is not yet vested. The attorney's request was for the Council to
consider a delayed effective date that would allow the applicant to submit a building permit application
before the ordinance is effective.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the new code would prohibit the owners of the Denny's site
from developing. Ms. Hope answered it was related to the specifics of development, not whether they could
develop. For example, the setbacks may be different; basically, the design standards would change for the
site and the building. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested if they were interested in developing with
their original plan, they should apply for a permit sooner rather than later. Ms. Hope agreed, advising the
other option, if City Council wanted to permit this project, specific language could be included in the code
or the effective date could be changed. If a building permit is submitted as a complete application prior to
a new code taking effect, the project is vested. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed that corner has
had its challenges and it would be nice to see it redeveloped.
Councilmember Johnson asked about the effective date of new ordinance. Ms. Hope said their concern was
not related to the Planned Action Ordinance but rather the underlying development regulations. If the
development regulations were adopted on August 15, they are effective 5 days after publication. If the
Council chose to forward approval to the Consent Agenda, there would be a slight delay. Another option
would be for her to research and provide more information at the Council's next meeting and determine if
the Council wants to craft language related to that project given that a lot of work has been done it.
7. STUDY ITEMS
REVIEW OF PROPOSED HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council last reviewed Highway 99 Area zone and
code changes on July 18. At that time discussion included comparison with existing zone map and
development code, review of proposed CG site & building design standards and specific questions and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 6
Packet Pg. 216
8.3.g
comments. The focus of tonight's meeting is next steps for draft plan, zone map and development code.
She sought Council direction to proceed with draft ordinances for the August 15 Council meeting. She
displayed an aerial view of the project area (Highway 99 corridor and surrounding area) and reviewed:
• Planning process and timeline
o Understanding existing conditions: March - April 2016
o Develop land use and transportation scenarios: April - June 2016
o SEPA & Planned Action Environmental Impact Assessment: April - November 2017
o Develop subarea Draft Plan: October - December 2016
o Final Subarea Plan: January - June 2017
• Community Values
o Connectivity
o Designations
o Beautification
o Safety
o Walkability
o Affordable housing
o Healthy businesses
• Distinct Subdistricts
o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99
■ International District
- Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; major Korean business cluster
■ Health District
- Swedish Hospital and medical offices
■ Gateway District
- Identified by the community during workshop
- Desire for "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds
• Subarea Plan: implementation strategies, policy recommendations and actions
o Zoning and development recommendations
o Affordable housing recommendations
o Signage and wayfinding recommendations
o Transit recommendations
o Transportation infrastructure recommendations
■ Map: Planned Transportation Improvements
• Current Zoning Map
o The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75')
o Many current zones are remnants from the county's antiquated zoning
o Some zones do not match with the parcel boundaries
• Proposed Zoning Map
o The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone
o Incorporate design standards that will increase vitality and ensure transition into neighborhoods
o More predictable outcomes for community
• Zoning Map & Development Regulations - Goals
o Vitality and livability
o Sustainability
o Consistency with subarea plan
o Reasonable balance of requirements and options
• Site development standards - General 16.60.020
o Pedestrian area - required adjacent to street
■ Composed of three zones: streetscape zone, pedestrian zone and activity zone
■ Comparison of pedestrian area requirements
- Required in existing CG regulations? - no
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 217
8.3.g
- Required in proposed CG regulations? - yes
o Comparison of dimensional requirements
Existing CG Chapter
Proposed CG Chapter
Height
60-75'
75' max*
Street setback
4' min.
5'110'
Side/rear setback
0115
0115
Stepback
No additional stepback
required for upper stories
Additional stepback required for upper
stories adjacent to single family
o Additional building stepback when adjacent to RS zones
■ Upper Stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building height
Site development standards -design standards 16.60.030.A. LE
o Illustration of 15' setback with 10' landscape buffer
o Additional building stepback with adjacent to RS zones
o Illustration of upper stories stepback 10' for 25' of building height; and 20' for 55' of building
height
o Photo example of across -the -street transition illustrating streetscape zone separation provided
by street and
o Minimum 5 feet wide type IV landscaping is required along all street frontages where parking
lots abut the street
o Access and vehicle parking
■ All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building,
except as otherwise specifically allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from
sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 to 4 feet in height
■ Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage area within
100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at
the corner. Requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses
■ High parking requirements can impede development
■ Proposed regulations aimed to encourage transit -oriented development options
- 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit less than 700 sq. ft.
- 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit of 700-1100 sq. ft.
- 1.75 parking spaces per residential units greater than 1100 sq. ft.
- Guest parking: 1 space/per 20 units
o Required electric vehicle charging stations
■ One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development
that includes housing (to serve 10% of required parking spaces)
■ Each electric vehicle charging station typically serves two vehicles
■ 1 station/10 required residential stalls plus planned capacity to double that amount in the
future
o Required bicycle storage spaces
■ Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or
other specialized facilities, shall be provided for residents
■ 1 bicycle storage space for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage
spaces for each residential unit greater than 700 square feet
- With 50% reduction for bikes stored in common spaces if additional racks are available
for guests
o Paths within parking lots
■ Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that meet
federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors and may
include landscape barriers and landscape islands
o Pedestrian and transit access
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 218
8.3.g
■ Where a transit station or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian
connections linking the station or stop directly to the development are required.
■ Pedestrians routes shall connect buildings on the same site to each other
Site Development Standards — Site Design and Layout 16.60.030.0
1) Pedestrian Oriented Design
■ At least 50% of a building's facade facing the primary public street shall be located within
20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists.
■ Building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage
■ Vehicle parking shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage,
other than as allowed for vehicle sales use.
2) Alternative walkable design area option
■ For sites with unique constraints.
■ At least 50% of the building's facade facing the primary street shall be located within 60
feet of the front property line
3) Exceptions process for pedestrian and walkable design options
■ Exemptions may be allowed by hearing examiner to provide for design flexibility that still
encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under following criteria:
- Property is located within 300 feet of highway interchange or has unique pedestrian
access constraints
- One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage
- The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street
frontage and likely to be active through the day/evening.
- Not more than 50% of required parking within first 20 feet of property
- At least 25% of required amenity space is located to connect building to the street
- Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between
buildings to allow shared use
- One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of usable space
o Amenity Space
■ An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity
space.
■ If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without concurrent development of a
building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least 5%
of additional parking area.
o Building Design and Massing
- On the primary frontage, 50% of the building facade between 2 and 10 feet in height shall
be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent
o New standard for vehicle parking within buildings
■ On primary frontage, no vehicle parking within first 20 feet of building facing street
How do proposed regulations encourage sustainable development?
o Examples:
■ Bicycle storage
■ Electric vehicle charging
■ Wider pedestrian areas
■ Not excessive vehicle parking (transit friendly)
■ Amenity space
■ Stormwater mgmt.
■ Compact development
■ Landscaping and street trees
o Concept illustration of possible redevelopment
Proposed change to sign code
o Revision to 20.65.045
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 9
Packet Pg. 219
8.3.g
- Limit freestanding signs (such as monument signs) to maximum height of 14 feet in this
district
- Require freestanding signs to be counted as part of total maximum sign area for this district
Ms. Hope relayed tonight was an opportunity for Council review and direction to proceed with draft
ordinances and final presentation and adoption of the ordinances on August 15.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled public comment tonight about the code, not the Planned Action
Ordinance. She asked if the public hearings had been completed. Ms. Hope explained several public
meetings and hearings have been held and there were no plans for more. There will be another presentation
on August 15 and opportunity for public comment during Audience Comments. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked whether the Planned Action Ordinance and the code had to be approved at the same time. Ms. Hope
answered no, it would be ideal to approve the subarea plan and the code amendments at the same time. The
Planned Action Ordinance can be adopted at the same time or a little later. Councilmember Buckshnis
relayed her interest in reviewing the Planning Board minutes and the EIS.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council also approved a resolution of intent to designate the Hwy
99 subarea as a Residential Targeted Area on July 18 and asked how that fit with these other regulations.
Ms. Hope answered one of the recommendations in the subarea plan was to allow the Multifamily Tax
Exemption (MFTE) in this area. The Council approved a resolution of intent to designate the Highway 99
Subarea as Residential Targeted Area for implementation of the MFTE program and will hold a public
hearing on August 15.
Councilmember Teitzel commended staff and the consultant on the Hwy 99 subarea plan, an excellent
example of involving the public. He referred to Esperance on the west side of Hwy 99 which comprises
approximately 10% of the Hwy 99 frontage and asked if Hwy 99 is rezoned to CG, will the zoning of
Esperance be inconsistent if the City annexes it in the future. He asked if it would behoove the City to work
with Snohomish County now to modify the zoning to be more consistent with the intent for that area. Ms.
Hope answered staff has involved Snohomish County in the development of the plan and they have been
very supportive. It may be some time before Esperance is annexed by the City but staff will continue
working with Snohomish County. Councilmember Teitzel asked if Snohomish County was interested in
CG-type zoning in that area. Ms. Hope said Snohomish County has had no objections but they would have
to take action. Snohomish County has many unincorporated areas and have not looked at them individually;
they expect cities to annex them and then it becomes a city issue.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the new development on 196t' in Lynnwood near the convention center,
relaying her objection to the six -story flat wall. She hoped something more architecturally interesting and
less oppressive for pedestrians would be built on Hwy 99. Ms. Hope said she would consider that and
address it at the next meeting.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there was a roadway or profile design beyond the pedestrian area. Ms.
Hope said a detailed corridor design is planned using State funds. The $1 million allocated by the State has
been delayed due to delays at the legislature in approving the capital budget. Councilmember Johnson said
in her conversations with WSDOT, bicycles are not excluded from Hwy 99 or SR-104. She expressed
interested in not necessarily a bicycle lane but an opportunity to protect bicycle riders. She recalled this was
an issue of right-of-way width on SR-104 but Hwy 99 is wider. Ms. Hope answered Hwy 99 is 100 feet
wide. Councilmember Johnson suggested future planning include how to accommodate bicycles. She
relayed her continued concern that the bicycle route on 212t' did not extend to the Interurban Trail.
Councilmember Johnson suggested another issue she wants addressed in the Hwy 99 subarea plan is
whether an urban interchange is needed for SR-104/Hwy 99 which is currently incomplete for all
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 10
Packet Pg. 220
8.3.g
movements. As this will be expensive, she suggested it be included in the plan so it can get on a list. That
interchange would improve access to adjacent properties and improve movement on SR-104, a highway of
statewide significance. She appreciated that the plan did not allow vehicle parking on the first level but
pointed out the Everett Clinic has parking on the first and second levels that is visible from the street. She
suggested consideration be given to how to better screen or eliminate visibility of parking. Ms. Hope agreed
vehicle parking could occur on the second level, not just the first level, and the proposed code does not
address that.
Councilmember Johnson suggested consideration be given to expanding Park & Rides within the corridor.
There are three Swift transit stations and it is assumed people will walk'/4 mile. She uses the Swift line but
lives more than a '/4 mile away and typically parks in a Park & Ride lot. There is no parking for the Swift
line, yet if Edmonds residents utilize it, they may need parking. Ms. Hope advised that was not in the current
scope; Community Transit's policy is to not build Park & Ride lots on that valuable land. Councilmember
Johnson suggested consideration be given to increasing size of existing Park & Ride lots or other options.
To encourage people to ride the bus, the amount of parking is reduced; however, there is not a lot of on -
street parking in the surrounding area. For example, she currently parks at Safeway but that extra parking
may not exist in the future.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled Ms. Hope stating two electrical vehicles could be charged in one parking
space. Ms. Hope clarified each charging station has two outlets. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the
requirement to provide future capacity for charging stations. Ms. Hope explained the wiring would be
installed but not the stations themselves. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the percentage. Ms. Hope
answered the requirement for future capacity is doubling the currently requirement. For example, if five
stations are required, the developer would have to rough -in an additional five.
Councilmember Tibbott was intrigued by parking for vehicle sharing or drop off zones. He asked what
capacity could be added or provided in a residential development. Ms. Hope said that is identified in the
code as one of the ways to offset some of the parking requirements; the developer would be required to
demonstrate how that would be provided and the amount of parking it would offset. Councilmember Tibbott
recognized not all future transportation forms could be anticipated and he was interested in providing some
flexibility.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Hwy 99 has no bike lanes, not in Seattle, Shoreline or
Lynnwood, likely because it was deemed to be unsafe. Ms. Hope said given that Hwy 99 is a highway as
well as the amount of traffic, alternative parallel routes have been provided. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas observed there are often bikes on 76t' Avenue and on the Interurban Trail.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Park & Ride lots,
pointing out the purpose of TOD is to increase the number of people using transit but they do not need a
Park & Ride lot. Ms. Hope agreed residents in new development on Hwy 99 could walk to transit and they
have parking on site. People who do not live in the Hwy 99 area who want to use transit may want a Park
& Ride lot; however, that is not related to the Hwy 99 plan. The Swift line is the highest performing line
Community Transit has, even without a Park & Ride lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there
is only one Park & Ride lot on the corridor in Edmonds. She questioned where Swift riders park now. Ms.
Hope said she could check with Community Transit.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MESAROS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ORDINANCE FORMAT FOR COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION ON AUGUST 15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
July 31, 2017
Page 11
Packet Pg. 221
8.3.h
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 15, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. He announced audience comment would be limited to 2
minutes per person. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. LEGISLATIVE SESSION WRAP-UP 2017
Jennifer Ziegler, the City's lobbyist/government affairs specialist, reported:
Session overview
o Continue to have close margins between republicans and democrats in both chambers
o Final biennium to fulfill state funding obligations for basic education most estimates are
between $3 and $3.5 billion
o Significant disagreement on funding for collective bargaining agreements
o Disagreement on major policy issues, including paid family leave, the Hirst decision and the
1 % property tax cap
o Concerns regarding Sound Transit motor vehicle excise tax rates
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 222
8.3.h
members and a broad and flexible representation from elected officials and emergency professionals. As
someone who has had to be transferred after calling, he assured it was an awful experience. He
wholeheartedly supported consolidation.
Councilmember Johnson said although the presentation indicated there would elected officials on the
Board, it appears they are not elected officials but fire and police. Mr. Peterson answered there would be
representation from fire and police agencies; there is a requirement for a mix of elected and operational
personnel on the Board. Councilmember Johnson asked how elected officials would be selected. Mr.
Peterson answered there will be a caucusing process; Edmonds is in the third caucus which is shared with
Marysville and Lynnwood and is based on the percentage of population as it relates to the entire County.
Those three agencies will collectively share three seats, at least one of the three be an operational person.
The caucusing processing would occur in April every year with two-year appointments. The initial
caucusing process will occur January 15, 2018 should consolidation move forward; the initial
representatives will serve 2+ year terms until April 2020.
Councilmember Johnson observed only one operational person was required from the three cities. Mr.
Peterson agreed. Councilmember Johnson asked how the other caucuses worked. Mr. Peterson explained
there are 3 other caucuses, one dedicated to the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office and because the
unincorporated portion of Snohomish County represents 40% of the population, SCSO has 2 seats; of the 2
seats, one is operational staff or SCSO. The second caucus is Everett who has 2 seats, 1 must be operational.
The third caucus is Edmonds, Lynnwood, Marysville with 3 seats. The fourth caucus is the remaining 8
smaller cities who share 3 seats; 1 of which must be operational.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. ADOPTION OF SUBAREA PLAN ZONE MAP AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, AND PLANNED ACTION FOR HIGHWAY 99 AREA
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced John Fregonese, Principal, Fregonese Associates.
Mr. Fregonese explained the City Council last reviewed the Highway 99 Area Plan and proposed code
updates on July 31. The focus of tonight's meeting is adoption of the Plan, Development Code/Map and
Planned Action.
Mr. Fregonese described:
• Planning process and timelines
• Extensive Public Outreach
o Numerous meetings with Planning Board & City Council
o Meetings with key property owners
0 3 public open houses
0 4-5 mailings about the project, each to nearly 2200 addresses
o Press releases
o News media articles
o Announcements via email list
o Technical advisory committee meetings
o Ongoing website info
o Facebook posts
0 5 Public hearings
o Misc. communication with interested parties
• March 2016 public workshop
• November 2016 open house
• Community Values
• Distinct Subdistricts
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 14
Packet Pg. 223
8.3.h
o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99
o International District
o Health District
o Gateway District
• Subarea Plan: implementation strategies, policy recommendations and actions
o Planned Transportation Improvements
• Current Zoning Map
o The only difference between CG and CG2 is the height limit (CG = 60' and CG2 = 75')
o Many current zones are remnants from the county's antiquated zoning
o Some zones do not match with the parcel boundaries
• Proposed Zoning Map
o The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone
o Incorporate design standards that will increase vitality and ensure transition into neighborhoods
o More predictable outcomes for community
• Zoning Map & Development Regulations - Goals
o Vitality and livability
o Sustainability
o Consistency with subarea plan
o Reasonable balance of requirements and options
• Site development standards - General 16.60.020
o Pedestrian area - required adjacent to street and composed of three zones: streetscape zone,
pedestrian zone and activity zone
o Comparison of pedestrian area requirements
■ Required in existing CG regulations? - no
■ Required in proposed CG regulations? - yes
o Comparison of dimensional requirements
Existing CG Chapter
Proposed CG Chapter
Height
60-75'
75' max*
Street setback
4' min.
5'110'
Side/rear setback
0115
0115
Stepback
No additional stepback
required for upper stories
Additional stepback required for upper
stories adjacent to single family
Site development standards -design standards 16.60.030.A. LE
o Illustration of 15' setback with 10' landscape buffer
o Additional building stepback with adjacent to RS zones
o Photo example of across -the -street transition illustrating streetscape zone separation provided
by street and
o Minimum 5 feet wide type IV landscaping is required along all street frontages where parking
lots abut the street
o Access and vehicle parking
■ All off-street surface parking shall be located to the side or rear of the primary building,
except as otherwise specifically allowed by this chapter, and shall be screened from
sidewalk by a wall or plantings between 2 to 4 feet in height
■ Outdoor parking areas shall comprise 40% or less of the public street frontage area within
100 feet of the primary street for the lot or tract and, on corner lots, may not be located at
the corner. Requirements of this subsection do not apply to permitted auto sales uses
■ High parking requirements can impede development
■ Proposed regulations aimed to encourage transit -oriented development options
- 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit less than 700 sq. ft.
- 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit of 700-1100 sq. ft.
- 1.75 parking spaces per residential units greater than 1100 sq. ft.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 15
Packet Pg. 224
8.3.h
- Guest parking: 1 space/per 20 units
o Required electric vehicle charging stations
■ One or more electric vehicle charging stations must be provided for all new development
that includes housing (to serve 10% of required parking spaces)
■ Each electric vehicle charging station typically serves two vehicles
■ 1 station/10 required residential stalls plus planned capacity to double that amount in the
future
o Required bicycle storage spaces
■ Bicycle storage spaces for multifamily housing, excluding housing for assisted living or
other specialized facilities, shall be provided for residents
■ 1 bicycle storage space for each residential unit under 700 square feet and 2 bicycle storage
spaces for each residential unit greater than 700 square feet
- 50% reduction for bikes stored in common spaces if additional racks are available for
guests
o Paths within parking lots
o Pedestrian and transit access
Site Development Standards — Site Design and Layout 16.60.030.0
1) Pedestrian Oriented Design
■ At least 50% of a building's fagade facing the primary public street shall be located within
20 feet of the property line where the primary street frontage exists.
■ Building must include a prominent pedestrian entry on the primary frontage
■ Vehicle parking shall not be located within the first 20 feet of the primary street frontage,
other than as allowed for vehicle sales use.
2) Alternative walkable design area option
■ For sites with unique constraints.
■ At least 50% of the building's fagade facing the primary street shall be located within 60
feet of the front property line
3) Exceptions process for pedestrian and walkable design options
■ Exemptions may be allowed by hearing examiner to provide for design flexibility that still
encourages pedestrian orientation and efficient land uses under following criteria:
- Property is located within 300 feet of highway interchange or has unique pedestrian
access constraints
- One or more buildings are located facing the primary street frontage
- The development provides business and pedestrian areas near the primary street
frontage and likely to be active through the day/evening.
- Not more than 50% of required parking within first 20 feet of property
- At least 25% of required amenity space is located to connect building to the street
- Where a site has multiple buildings, amenity space should be located between
buildings to allow shared use
- One or more buildings on the site must have at least two stories of usable space
o Amenity Space
■ An area equivalent to at least 5% of the building footprint shall be provided as amenity
space.
■ If a vehicle parking area is being added to the site without concurrent development of a
building of at least 2,000 square feet, amenity space must be provided to equal at least 5%
of additional parking area.
o Building Design and Massing
■ On the primary frontage, 50% of the building fagade between 2 and 10 feet in height shall
be comprised of windows or doors that are transparent
o New standard for vehicle parking within buildings
■ On primary frontage, no vehicle parking within first 20 feet of building facing street
How do proposed regulations encourage sustainable development?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 16
Packet Pg. 225
8.3.h
o Examples:
■ Bicycle storage
■ Electric vehicle charging
■ Wider pedestrian areas
■ Not excessive vehicle parking (transit friendly)
■ Amenity space
■ Stormwater management
■ Compact development
■ Landscaping and street trees
o Concept illustration of possible redevelopment
Mr. Fregonese reviewed a proposed change to sign code
• Revision to 20.65.045
o Limit freestanding signs (such as monument signs) to maximum height of 14 feet in this district
o Require freestanding signs to be counted as part of total maximum sign area for this district
Mr. Fregonese reviewed the Planned Action Ordinance (PAO):
• EIS, analyzing environmental impacts was issued for Highway 99 area plan.
• To make future project review easier, a draft Planned Action Ordinance has been prepared. It
reflects the EIS assumptions & mitigation
• Planning Board held public hearing & recommended Council adoption of PAO
• City Council held public hearing on PAO on July 31
Mr. Fregonese recommended the Council adopt ordinances for the Subarea Plan, Zone Map and
Development Regulations, and Planned Action.
Ms. Hope explained there are two versions of the Zone Map and Development Regulations in the Council
packet; the only difference is Attachment 2 provides for the normal process of adopting development
regulations; following adoption and publication, the regulations are effective in 5 days. The regulations in
the ordinance in Attachment 3 are the same but it states any project that had design review approval within
a certain timeframe, they are grandfathered under the older regulations if building permits are submitted by
September 30. She acknowledged there were pros and cons to the ordinance in Attachment 3; if the Council
wants the vision to happen, it would be preferable to adopt the regulations with minimal delay but there is
one project with unique circumstances where the applicant is pretty far down the path of a project although
they knew several months ago this process was occurring.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if that much bike space, one space for each unit, was warranted.
Ms. Hope answered more spaces are required for 2-bedroom units, and the spaces can be reduced by 50%
if common area for bike storage and bike racks for visitors are provided. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
commented it seemed like a lot of space for bike storage given that people will not ride on Highway 99.
Ms. Hope said the intent was to allow for the possibility to store bikes. Bike storage can be design in
multiple ways such as storage space for each unit that could accommodate a bike.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the applicant already down the path and asked if that was only
Mr. Rambes' project. Ms. Hope said others are thinking about projects but theirs is the only project with
initial design review approval and as far as staff knows, that is the only project affected. The ordinance in
Attachment 3 would allow them until September 30 to submit a building permit and the ordinance in
Attachment 2 contains the standard timeframe. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that area is
the gateway to Edmonds and it will be important for it to look nice/appropriate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the PAO as a blanket SEPA for the Highway 99 corridor and
asked if the SEPA was only for the Highway 99 subarea. Ms. Hope answered the EIS done under SEPA
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 17
Packet Pg. 226
8.3.h
looked at the Highway 99 subarea and made assumptions about what could be developed and potential
environmental issues. There are few critical areas so the EIS looked primarily at traffic and aesthetics,
transit, pedestrian opportunities, etc. The EIS found if certain mitigations are done such as transportation
safety improvements and continued transit, many of the issues will be mitigated. In addition, new design
standards provide stronger standards than the current code. The EIS also considered police, fire and utility
services and determined that could be met in ordinary ways.
Ms. Hope explained the EIS determined it was possible to do X amount of housing, commerce, facilities,
etc. and mitigate for traffic and other issues. The ordinance states if the code is followed and development
is allowed at the scale envisioned, there will be sufficient mitigation. A significant project may have
separate requirements. Rather than a piecemeal approach to SEPA where each project does an EIS, this was
an effort to look at the area in a holistic way. She acknowledged not every city is able to do a Planned
Action and this is a big step for Edmonds. Mr. Fregonese advised the EIS considers not only residential
units but also development of medical facilities.
Council President Mesaros relayed his understanding of the September 30 effective date in the ordinance
in Attachment 3. Ms. Hope says the ordinance is effective in the standard timeline; any development project
in the Highway 99 corridor that received design review approval July to August would have until September
30 to submit a building permit. Council President Mesaros asked why September 30 was selected and if it
could be September 15. Ms. Hope said September 15 would be acceptable; the applicant advised staff they
would submit this week but September 15 or 30 would provide them additional time.
With regard to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comments about bicycle storage, Council President
Mesaros relayed when using light rail in Seattle, he often sees people taking their bikes on light rail as well
as on Sounder. He pointed out the ability to take the new 228' to the new light rail transit center opening
in 2019. Ms. Hope remarked the Swift route is Community Transit's highest route for travel as well as for
bicycles.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she still has concerns with the PAO, remarking it is very new to Edmonds
and the Council only had one meeting to discuss it and it did not go through committee. Further, the Council
never completed its discussion regarding development agreements. She asked if all three ordinances needed
to be approved at the same time. Ms. Hope answered the Council could adopt the Highway 99 Subarea Plan
and the development regulations and put the PAO on Consent Agenda or remove the reference to
development agreements from the PAO.
Councilmember Johnson referred to a letter the Council received today from Arca, a planning and
architectural firm, that raised a concern about building fagades and included a photograph of the new
development on 196' in Lynnwood. She previously mentioned her concerns with that massive fagade and
staff offered to investigate. Ms. Hope said that issue was addressed in the Q&A in the agenda memo; the
proposed code requires articulation and breakup of the fagade.
Councilmember Johnson said the building on 196' has minimal articulation or breakup of the fagade; the
building appears massive from the sidewalk. Ms. Hope agreed the City does not want a massive wall; the
regulations require a top and base, articulation, choice of building elements, as well as fagade articulation.
She assured Edmonds' regulations are different than Lynnwood's. Mr. Fregonese pointed out the setback
would be larger, there would be a pedestrian area in the setback and landscaping, as well as amenity space.
Councilmember Johnson said it was not difficult to drive around and see examples of architecture she liked
and did not like. She expressed concern with a new sidewalk amenity at the corner of 212t1i & Highway 99,
basically a brick semicircle with benches and a garbage can where she has never seen a pedestrian. Another
example is the basalt sculpture garden on 196t1i & Highway 99 where she has never seen anyone. She
summarized those were amenity spaces no one wanted to use and wanted to ensure Edmonds was not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 18
Packet Pg. 227
8.3.h
creating that type of requirement in the code. Ms. Hope answered it is a balance; the City Council wants
amenity space associated with development. The code requires 5% of the building footprint be amenity
space but it does not all need to be in front of the building; some of it can be located wherever it make sense
for the development. For example, a mixed -use building may want some amenity space near the entry
conductive to pedestrian activity but other amenity space may be for use by residents/tenants.
Councilmember Johnson referred to a study on the use of public spaces by William Whyte in NYC. Mr.
Fregonese recalled it included sun, water, people watching, food, etc. and has been influential in design.
The code requires green in the amenity space, seating areas; in between buildings in an appropriate location.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out in the medical district, the Swift station is called the gateway station;
however, the plan has the gateway station at Safeway. Ms. Hope offered to work with Community Transit
on that.
Councilmember Johnson referred to a suggestion that large projects include pathways between the building
and the sidewalk network. She suggested going further; as there will be bicycle storage and bicycles on
transit routes, having a parallel bike route and connections between bicycle routes/paths. Although bicycles
are not encouraged on Highway 99, people do ride bicycles on Highway 99 and there is nothing to prevent
it. Ms. Hope said she will continue working with engineering as plans are updated.
Councilmember Johnson referred to screening parking in buildings and whether second floor parking would
be visible from street. Ms. Hope said no revision was proposed to the code. Parking generally occurs on the
first level; the second stories are required to have glazing and it was unlikely there would be parking. She
concluded that change could be made but she felt it was an unnecessary step at this point. Councilmember
Johnson referred to the Everett Clinic near the Edmonds Park & Ride where the first two floors are parking
and the top floor is glazed. Ms. Hope advised the glazing requirement at the first and second level would
help avoid that.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Highway 99 Subarea Plan
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MESAROS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.4077, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ATTACHMENT 1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Development Code Changes
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4078, ATTACHMENT 3, AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 ENTITLED "CG —
GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE," AND ECDC 20.60.045 ENTITLED "FREESTANDING SIGNS
— REGULATIONS," REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY TO CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL
ZONE.
Councilmember Johnson asked what would be different if the proposal occurred under the new code. Ms.
Hope answered it likely could not be built in the same place, it is proposed to be built 90 feet from the street
with parking in front. The building would have to be moved forward and amenity space and pedestrian
frontage provided. Councilmember Johnson asked if it would be an expense to the property owners to meet
the new code. Ms. Hope answered yes, they would be required to redesign to submit under the new code.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 19
Packet Pg. 228
8.3.h
City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out they would also have to obtain another design review approval; they
already have design review approval.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planned Action
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
MESAROS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.4079, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE
HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT,
REMOVING THE SECTION RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the impact of removing the section related to development
agreements. Ms. Hope answered there is a section of the code related to development agreements, this
would remove reference in the Planned Action to development agreements. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked if staff planned to return to Council with an amendment related to development agreements.
Ms. Hope answered at some point but not immediately. She concluded development agreements were a
rarely used tool.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. AMENDMENTS TO MULTI -FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION CODE PROVISIONS
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty reviewed:
• History
o 1995 - State Legislature created the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) program
o RCW 84.14
o To help spur redevelopment in lagging urban centers
o Fulfill GMA goals to encourage in -fill development in existing urban centers, thereby reducing
sprawl and promoting "smart growth"
How it works:
o MFTE provides incentive to developers to invest in "residential targeted areas"
o Residential targeted areas - mixed -use centers designated by cities in Comp Plans or Subarea
Plans to receive greater density of multifamily and commercial development
Residential targeted areas
o Often called "urban villages" or "urban centers" -
■ Walkable
■ Amenity -rich
■ Transit -supportive
■ Mixed -use areas
o Intended to accommodate future growth in housing and employment
o Designated by cities through Comp Plans or Subarea Plans per GMA
Barriers to development
o Notwithstanding a city's plans, transformation to "urban village" can be fraught with
challenges
o Challenges include:
■ Competition from higher -rent locales (e.g., Seattle, Bellevue)
■ Complications with urban redevelopment
- Unwilling property sellers
- Need to aggregate multiple properties
- Existing long term leases
- Environmental remediation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 15, 2017
Page 20
Packet Pg. 229
Height Limit: 75'
7
8' 6
U
C 5
4
V)
8 3
2
1
\\\\N:
RS
Zone
5'-10' street setback
1
N
O
W
O
N
Ul
8.3.j
1. PUBLIC HEARING - CG STEP BACK INTERIM ORDINANCE
Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this item is before the council as a
result of discussion with the community, staff and council about the Highway 99 subarea plan and 5-year
action. Subsequent to that community members researched materials in the EIS, recognizing that step
backs were discussed in the draft EIS, but were not included in the subsequent final EIS mitigation
measures or in the development code update to Chapter 16.60.
Ms. McLaughlin explained the subarea plan was adopted in August 2017 and was the result of a
significant amount of public engagement and mobilizing around goals for the corridor which included
fostering revitalization on the corridor. One of key points at that time was recognizing that adjacent cities
were yielding good benefits from development along the corridor including not only housing but also
public improvements. Recognizing that interest and the need, the City engaged in the subarea plan. At the
end of that process, chapter 16.60 was updated and some of those development regulations included more
stringent development regulations for the CG zone such as ground level transparency, streetscape
requirements, step backs adjacent to residential, and fostering transit oriented development. In parallel
with those recommendations, a draft EIS was created which was a planned action, basically recognizing
the cumulative impacts of upzoning the area and mitigating against those impacts in the draft EIS and
subsequently in the final adopted EIS. There are discussions in the draft EIS about step backs adjacent to
and across the street. At the last council hearing, staff recognized the concern from the neighborhood and
wanted to support quick action similar to what was done in the BD2 zone. She commented the City
received a VISION 2040 award from the Puget Sound Regional Council for this plan.
Ms. McLaughlin acknowledged there was some confusion about the draft EIS as it relates to step backs
across the street from single family residences which resulted in:
• Interim Ordinance process
o Council adopted emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) on October 4, 2022 to put in
place step backs across the street
o Council public hearing within 60 days (November 15)
o Council must issue findings to retain or vacate interim ordinance.
• Interim CG Step back across from RS zone
2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet in
height shall step back no less than 8 feet from the required street setback. That portion of
building over 55 feet in height shall step back no less than 16 feet from the required street
setback.
o Diagram of step back
Height Limit 7S I— —I
F5ght
5' ]]street Sel6ack
• Critical information discovered since emergency interim ordinance
o Step backs across the street from RS zones were considered and dismissed in 2017
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a
November 15, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 231
8.3.j
■ Council discussed on June 20, July 18, and July 31, 2017
- July 18 staff agenda memo offered step back options of an even lesser extent of 5';
Council did not include step backs in their recommended draft language although it
was discussed at hearing and staff made explanation of why they were not
recommended.
■ Council unanimously approved CG code without step backs across the street from RS on
August 15, 2017 (along with unanimous approval of Subarea Plan and Planned Action
SEPA FEIS)
■ Step backs adjacent to RS zones were included in the CG code in revised ECDC 16.60,
those across the street were not included
Ms. McLaughlin explained most rights -of -way are 60' wide. When adding 10-20 feet setbacks on either
side for residential or the new CG zone requirements, results in a 80' separation across the street from a
single family residence. It was concluded via consultant analysis and review and discussion with council
that 80' of separation provides sunlight, respect of privacy, etc. The council also confirmed the
importance of a robust streetscape design to beautify the street edge which was subsequently adopted in
chapter 16.60.
Staff has learned a lot since October 4t' and she talked to some of the neighborhood stakeholders today.
She validated that change is difficult, especially the transition between single family and seven stories
allowed in the CG zone. She was not negating that concern, but wanted to pinpoint a solution that did not
go back on robust conversations and decisions made with developers and the neighboring communities
along with staff and consultant analysis because it is important to have developer confidence and
partnerships with developers to get public improvements in this neighborhood.
Ms. McLaughlin reviewed:
• Permanent ordinance process
o Emergency ordinance valid through April 6, 2023
o Council must issue findings to retain or vacate interim ordinance.
■ Direct staff to draft findings for discussion at December council meeting
o Based on new information, staff recommends vacating the interim ordinance
■ Recognizing benefit of early collaboration with neighborhood, staff recommends
neighborhood meeting requirements at the onset of projects as part of the minor code
amendment package anticipated to go to Council in early Q 1
o If retained, staff will take project through the planning board to consider modifications, and
back to council in early 2023
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was helpful to see the minutes of the council vote. That
planning process took a long time and she did not recall the step back issue in this area. She recalled
discussing it ad nauseum for the downtown business area. She recommended continuing with this
ordinance and expressed her support for step backs. Ms. McLaughlin advised the minutes were circulated
to council today, recognizing that was a critical part of staff s recommendation tonight.
Councilmember Nand recalled Ms. McLaughlin mentioned at previous meetings concerns with developer
confidence about proceeding with projects if there are zoning changes or if the community and planning
board recommend changes to the subarea plan approved in 2017. She asked if any developers have
expressed qualms or a desire to pull back if the neighborhood and planning board process recommends
significant changes to the subarea plan reflective of the considerable pushback council has received from
the community. Ms. McLaughlin answered one of unfortunate things about an emergency ordinance is it
does not go through the required notification process. Staff has heard concerns from the development
community who already have projects in pipeline; however, there has not been a large scale notification
to the other affected parcels, a total of 39.3 acres of development potential. She would love to have an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a
November 15, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 232
8.3.j
opportunity to do that depending on the council discussion tonight. She anticipated the council would
likely hear from the development community during the public hearing testimony.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was very interested in the public testimony. He asked staff to review the
decision the council is being asked to make and the timeline. Ms. McLaughlin answered tonight is a
public hearing; typically on public hearing evenings, council listens to the community and staff,
deliberates and ask questions, but does not make a decision. Staff will come back to the council in
December if council decides tonight to move forward with an emergency ordinance. Staff will also come
back to council after taking this through the planning board in early 2023. Councilmember Tibbott
relayed his understanding of the process: the council will be listening tonight, forming opinions over the
next couple weeks and sometime in December, make a decision whether to retain the interim ordinance or
abandon it. Senior Planner Mike Clugston responded the council's decision will be whether to uphold the
interim ordinance and send to the planning board for further review/recommendation or to
vacate/eliminate it.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out section 3 of the interim ordinance states no later than the next
regular meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the
subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim
ordinance. While the council does not have to give him that direction tonight, some action needs to be
taken at next week's council meeting with regard to either continuing with the interim ordinance or
repealing it.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that means the council would not wait until December,
but taking action next week. Mr. Taraday said he was not clear if Ms. McLaughlin was referencing some
other action that would occur in December, but the decision whether to continue with the interim
ordinance is a decision that needs to be made next week.
Councilmember Paine agreed the minutes would be very helpful. She asked if the Supplemental EIS will
still be pursued. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes, as the council took action on the SEIS.
With regard to a permanent decision being made in December, Council President Olson asked if the
council wants to continue the interim ordinance because councilmembers are not ready to make a decision
on the permanent ordinance, would that be a finding of fact to continue the interim ordinance. Mr.
Taraday answered yes, that is the reason for an interim ordinance, to finalize the planning process. He was
not clear from Ms. McLaughlin's remarks whether the reference to December was adoption of a new
permanent CG or something else. The interim ordinance can remain in place until a permanent ordinance
is ready to be adopted. There is nothing that requires the interim ordinance remain in place during the
continued analysis. The council has a decision to make during this period of time the City is reevaluating
development in the corridor about what is best for the community during the next few months, whether it
is better to have the interim in place or have no interim ordinance in place and go back to the preexisting
regulations. That is fundamentally the council's choice.
Council President Olson asked for clarification, if the council maintains the interim ordinance, the council
still has the option at the end of the interim period or any tine between now and then to vacate it. The
council is not locked into the entire interim period. Mr. Taraday answered even if the council decided
next week to leave the interim in place, it is not obligated to leave it in place for the full six month period.
At any point in time if the council gets new information or becomes aware of a change in circumstances
that requires the interim ordinance to repealed earlier, the council is not prevented from repealing it
earlier.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a
November 15, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 233
8.3.j
Stanley Piha, Seattle, one of owners of the vacant land at 84t' & 236t'', said he learned about the CG
emergency interim ordinance after its passage by council on October 4, 2022. For nearly one year, they
have been under a purchase and sale agreement with a builder/developer to acquire the site. During the
period of this agreement, they have been working diligently on plans to construct a multifamily transit
oriented development in accordance with the zoning code and rules put in place by the City. They have
not requested any deviations from the code and have applied the requirements as mandated by the code
and development plans. The intent was to close at the end of December; the interim ordinance has thrown
this into an abyss and they do not know what the possibilities of this process will be. He was taken aback
to learn of the implementation of the CG interim ordinance. First, the subject of step backs was fully
vetted in the public hearing process in 2017. Public hearing presentations to the city council by the
consultant, senior planner, and FEIS consultant concluded that step backs for residentially zoned
properties across the street were not warranted due to the separation generated by the required setbacks on
each property plus the width of the City right-of-way. A step back for single family residential properties
adjacent to CG zoned properties were warranted and were included in the planned action.
Mr. Piha continued, proof of this is clearly found in the public record and video of the city council
meetings occurring on June 20, July 31, and August 15, 2017. The presentation to the council by Kernen
Lien on October 4, 2022 that resulted in the passage of the CG interim ordinance was misleading and
inaccurate. Contrary to his assertions as evidenced by the public hearing noted previously, the step backs
across the street from single family zoned properties was fully presented, discussed and vetted during the
public hearing. Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and then-Councilmember Nelson were in
attendance and provided comment and questions. At the conclusion of the August 15, 2017 public
hearing, the city council voted unanimously to approve the planned action. It is understandable with so
much City business to attend to that the institutional memory of prior public hearings and council
meetings can get lost, but the record is clear. The subject of step backs for residential properties across the
street was not missed and was thoroughly discussed and vetted by the council before passing the
ordinance.
Brian Bergstrom, Synergy Construction, owner representative of the developer of the property at 84t' &
2361, commented they were quite surprised to learn of the passage of the emergency ordinance on
October 4, 2022 and immediately mobilized their architects to analyze what this meant to the feasibility
of their project. The impact was significant, 40-50 housing units may potentially be lost if the emergency
ordinance were to stand as currently implemented. They recognize this issue arose due to concerns from
the community and hope this project will become part of this community. He expressed their willingness
to work with City staff to find a workable solution for the project, the City and the community. They
chose Edmonds due to its wonderful attributes and hope to continue and close their transaction with Mr.
Piha. He hoped a timely solution could be found as every day this continues has a significant impact on
their project. Their project is currently in for design review which has now been placed on hold.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, a resident in the neighborhood where the Terrace Place Apartments are
proposed, expressed her appreciation for the historical context Ms. McLaughlin provided today about the
robust public engagement process in developing the subarea plan for Highway 99. She asserted none of
the neighbors on 84' Street who participated in the 2017 public engagement process asked the City to get
rid of the transition between single family and general commercial or high rise multifamily. Yet, that is
what happened in the council decision making. The lots on 84' between 238' and 236t' were upzoned
from multifamily 1.5 to CG. It will be a huge change to have a 6 story structure plus underground parking
on the corner of 236t' & 84t''. She preferred the project proposed a couple years ago, a 4-story adult family
home as there needs to be more supportive housing units, but that project did not move forward. There is
no rush to make a decision; she recognized from the business perspective, this is rehashing past decision
making. A single family home on this site was razed about 20 years ago and the property has remained
vacant. There is no longer a transition zone between single family and high rise multifamily on 84t''. The
most significant mitigation to address that is the step backs. She requested the council permanently codify
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a
November 15, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 234
8.3.j
step backs for high rise buildings across the street from single family where the transition zone has been
eliminated.
Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident adjacent to the Highway 99 subarea planning area, voiced her
support for making the emergency ordinance passed in October 2022 a permanent revision to the
Edmonds zoning code. She recognized there was some history to this issue but hoped the council
appreciated those who participated in that process were not representative of the impacted neighborhoods
adjacent to the subarea plan. In her opinion, one of the main reasons for the step back was to provide the
transition that was taken away by changing the area from multifamily to CG and mitigating the bulk and
mass. Siting multifamily across the street from single family residential has a significant impact on
transportation, parks and sidewalks and aesthetically. The zoning changes would not have been needed if
it had not been upzoned to General Commercial and it remained multifamily as was done on the northern
part of Highway 99 corridor. While the council may have discussed this, she assumed the neighbors did
not voice their opinions. She lived in this area at the time and knew nothing about it. The step backs are
important and provide the mitigation needed to provide for a transition. In other areas along Highway 99,
the single family residential is not adjacent. It is not about shadows and distance, it is about aesthetics,
traffic, parks, etc. This is one of the only mitigations available; she appreciated the developers offer to
have a conversation. She supports multifamily in this corridor but wants to preserve the sense of
neighborhood as described in the comprehensive plan and the subarea plan. She hoped the council would
honor that even if the wrong decision was made in the past.
With no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Council President Olson commented in light of the information provided, she sensed the council needed
more time to make a decision.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESOLUTION TO
EXTEND THE INTERIM ORDINANCE.
Council President Olson commented there is also the option to ask the city attorney to draft finding of fact
to retain and to lift the interim ordinance.
Mayor Nelson asked if the motion needed to state the timeline for the extension. Mr. Taraday answered
the six month limit under state law would be the default unless the council directs him otherwise. Section
2 of the interim ordinance states it has a 6 month duration.
Council President Olson clarified her motion was to extend the emergency ordinance.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was unsure what the motion would accomplish. His understanding was
the council will vote next week whether to extend the emergency ordinance for six months and during
that six months, the council could choose to lift it, eliminate it or something else.
Council President Olson explained findings of fact need to be adopted next week to extend the ordinance
and they will not be prepared unless the council asks for them.
Councilmember Tibbott clarified the motion is for the city attorney bring back findings of fact next week.
Council President Olson agreed.
Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding that community members and certain developers are
seeking solutions for a win -win. If the council extends the emergency ordinance for six months and a
workable solution can be reached, he wanted to be certain that the council had the option to lift the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a
November 15, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 235
8.3.j
interim ordinance sooner. Council President Olson assured the council can lift the ordinance as soon as
resolution is reached.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2023-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN &
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Engineer Rob English advised Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla, Public Works Director Oscar
Antillon, Parks, Recreation are available to answer questions. He reviewed the following, highlighting
several projects:
• Public Works & Utilities
o 2023-2028 CFP & CIP
■ Combined CFP & CIP Document
- Transportation
- Utilities
Water
Stormwater
• Sewer
- Facilities
- Wastewater Treatment Plant
- Comparison to previous year
Public Works & Utilities - Transportation
0 2023 Pavement Preservation Projects
■ 2023 Pavement Preservation Program DP#64
- Decision package will be reduced from $1.5 million to $1.1 million
■ 76th Ave Overlay Close-out DP#65($15k)
■ Main St. Overlay 6th Ave - 8th Ave DP#69($157k)
- 2023 Design / 2024 Construction
- $750K Federal Grant
- 11 New ADA Ramps
0 2023 Safety & Capacity Projects
■ Hwy 99 Revitalization/Gateway DP#66 ($2.6M)
■ Hwy 99 Stage 3 244" St-238' St DP#67 ($1.1M)
■ Hwy 99 Stage 4 224' St-220th at DP#68 ($740K)
■ 76th Ave/220th St Intersection DP#63 ($761K)
■ SR-104 Adaptive System DP#70 ($243K)
■ Traffic Signal Safety & Upgrades DP#73 ($30K)
■ Guardrail Improvements DP#74 ($20K)
0 2023 Active Transportation Projects & Planning
■ Transportation Plan Update DP#62 ($170K)
■ Citywide Bicycle Improvements DP#71 ($1.7M)
■ Green Streets DP#72 ($297K)
■ Pedestrian Safety Program DP#75*($80K)
■ Traffic Calming Program DP#76*($33K)
■ Citywide Street Lighting Study DP#77 ($60K)
■ Elm Way Walkway DP#78 ($901K)
*increase from decision package in budget
Public Works & Utilities - Utilities
o 2023 Water Utility
■ 2022 Replacement Program DP#34 ($10k)
■ 2024 Replacement Program DP#35 ($506K)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a
November 15, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 236
8.3.k
A�
of EDAI
O�
A "Step -back" means the upper
portion of a building that is
required to be set (or stepped)
further back than the minimum
setback otherwise required by
ECDC 16.60.020(A)
Packet Pg. 237
EDMONDS
HIGHWAY 99
SUBAREA PLAN
FINALAUGUST 2017
PLANNED ACTION
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
fvrthe
HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
My of Edmonds
Dep,l—t of Development Services
Data of Final EIS Imuancm
Aux-t t, 2017
Packet Pg. 238
8.3.k
m
Q
Packet Pg. 239
8.3.k
. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet
in height shall step back no less that eight feet from the required street setback. That
portion of building over 55 feet in height shall step back no less than 16 feet from the
required street setback.
Meight Limit 75'
jig. Right
Znne.' QfWily
w
O
5,-]Tstrrtet ilkU,+r. k
Packet Pg. 240
8.3.k
m
Q
Packet Pg. 241
8.3.k
STREET PROFILE SETBACK
m
r
Q
Packet Pg. 242
8.3.k
m
Q
Packet Pg. 243
8.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
2023 Legislative Agenda
Staff Lead: Todd Tatum
Department: Community Services
Preparer: Todd Tatum
Background/History
Every year the City Council reviews and approves the City's Legislative Agenda for the upcoming
Legislative Session in the new year. This Agenda serves as guidance to our Lobbyist in Olympia, as well as
a hand-out to share with Legislators and their staff.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the attached 2023 Legislative Agenda
Narrative
The attached 2023 Edmonds Legislative Agenda includes the changes approved during November 22nd's
City Council meeting.
Attachments:
CoE 2023 Legislative Agenda redpdf
Packet Pg. 244
`yam ■■[` .'� • ' ■
9 4 r D
I
Ip- I I$OM
cityof Edmonds
Legislative Agenda
2023
8.4.a
City of Edmonds Legislative Agenda
Transportation
Request: Program $22.5 million allocated
under the Move Ahead Washington
transportation package in the 2025-27
biennium for SR99 Revitalization Project
Stage 3 and begin work to secure funding
for future phases for the 2027-29 biennium.
The City of Edmonds places a high priority on
both safety and social and environmental justice
throughout our community. The Highway99
Corridor and its surrounding neighborhoods have
historically been underserved, with lower levels
of parks and public spaces, community gathering
facilities, and safe, multimodal transportation
improvements.
In tandem with the Community Renewal Plan,
the City will pursue multiphase transportation
improvements along the Corridor, costing upwards
of $243 million, including accompanying utility
improvements. This significant public investment
will also promote private investment along the
corridor, and bring needed jobs, affordable
housing and services to an underserved
community of Edmonds.
Thanks to the Legislature's
support in providing $39
million from the Connecting
Washington and Move Ahead
Washington transportation
packages, we will complete
the initial transportation and
pedestrian safety improvements in spring 2023
and have started design on the next stages of
improvements.
Edmonds Marsh
The Legislature in the 2021 Session approved
a proviso for the duration of the 2021-2023
biennium that provided Edmonds first right of
purchase of the former UNOCAL site when it
transfers to WSDOT These provisions are in effect
until 6/30/23.The clean-up process will take through
2025, and therefore will require an extension of
the first right of purchase.
Request: On October 4th, 2022, the City
Council passed Resolution 1508 requesting
the legislature to extend the first right of
purchase to the 2023-2025 biennium.
In 2021, the Legislature earmarked $258,000
to help fund the potential purchase of the
UNCOCAL property. Request that these funds
be reallocated to help fund water infiltration
projects, and that further funding be allocated
for purchase of the UNOCAL property in
2023-2025.
J,
Packet Pg. 246
8.4.a
Gun Violence Prevention
Gun violence and the injuries and death that result
from it constitute a public health crisis, including
the mental health impacts on many communities.
We support continued efforts for legislation
addressing the prevention of gun violence.
Environmental and
Climate -Related Issues
Monitor and support potential
envi ronmenta I -protection
measures, including those that
would enhance the Puget Sound
ecosystem, including the impacts
of coal and oil trains, drought
management, toxics control and
clean-up, as well as measures
associated with climate change,
crumb rubber athletic field infill,
remediation of culverts under state highways, ban-
ning plastic bags, etc.
• Support legislation addressing the impact
of tire dust (6PPD-quinone) on salmon
health.
Support state -level actions called out in our
Climate Action Plan.
- Support legislation to require gas supply
systems statewide to be carbon -neutral
by 2045.
-- Support changes to the state building code
to achieve net -zero energy consumption in
new buildings by 2030.
- Support the long-term plan for electrifying
the Washington State Ferry Fleet.
Other Significant issues
1. Housing Affordability, Availability
& Accessibility
• Support a proactive approach to create new
tool slincentiveslrevenues for cities to use to
support increasing housing supply and addressing
affordability. Cities need resources to encourage
development of housing at all income levels and
particularly state funding to support housing for
the lowest income levels.
- Support increased funding for the 1-lousing
Trust Fund.
Support legislation which will improve the
communication between state agencies and
local municipalities when working on bridge
housing and other homelessness issues.
Packet Pg. 247
Other Significant Issues I cont.
2. Infrastructure Funding
- Fully fund the Public Works Assistance Account
(PWAA), including allowing the current revenue
diversions to sunset at the end of fiscal year 2423
and refraining from further transfers or diversions
of funds to other infrastructure programs or other
non -infrastructure accounts.
• Explore expanding state funding opportunities
to assist with maintenance and operations of
local infrastructure.
Support legislation which helps local municipalities
with ongoing maintenance due to the passing
of SB 5974 which requires state transportation
projects over $500,000 to include Complete Street
characteristics.
3. Support Parks and Open Space
- Support robust funding for Capital Budget programs
that invest in the outdoor recreation sector.
Support funding to help local parks agencies address
severe maintenance backlogs exacerbated by
COVI D-19
Support technical change to the Derelict Vessel
Removal Program statute.
4. Puget Sound Health and Salmonlarca
• Support WRIA 8's legislative agenda
• Support $82 million for Salmon Recovery Funding
Board in the Recreation and Conservation 0 ffice
budget (RCO).
• Support $65A million for Puge t 5oun d Acq uisition
and Restoration in the RCO budget.
• Support state agency budget requests for monitoring
salmon populations, and for studies and management
of predation, disease, and other issues that affect
WRIA 8 salmon populations.
• Support legislation that seeks to improve regulatory
protections for areas that are important for salmon
habitat, including proposals to define & implement
"net ecological gain"
• Support efforts to improve existing funding
opportunities to support salmon recovery and
Puget Sound restoration priorities.
• Support legislation and funding requests that
promote stormwater management planning,
coordination, and implementation at a watershed
scale including replacement of improperly sized
culverts on city, state, railroad, and privately
owned lands.
i,
as
Mh
J
M
N
O
N
Packet Pg. 248
Other Significant Issues I cont.
5. Blake Decision Response and
Behavioral Health
Support additional investments to help cities with
the costs created by the changes resulting from
the Blake decision on how possession of controlled
substances is handled by the criminal justice
system including funding to help offset the costs
of processing criminal conviction vacations and
repaying legal financial obligations as well as
support for ongoing costs for diversion programs
and municipal court impacts.
• Support more state investment in alternative
response teams, treatment facilities for
adults and juveniles, treatment in jails, as
well as funding to provide social workers,
treatment providers and system navigators
to help direct people to treatment.
Support clarification regarding the crime of
possession of a controlled substance so individuals,
law enforcement, and treatment providers can
respond appropriately. Remove the current system
of two referrals prior to criminal charges so that it
can be more effectively administered across the state.
6. Transportation Funding
- Identify sustainable, ongoing transportation funding,
including Road Usage Charge (RUC), as a revenue sourcE
for cities' unique transportation funding needs, with
specific dedicated revenue directed to cities. Funding
should recognize the unique challenges both urban
and rural communities experience and their unique
needs including funding for maintenance of existing
transportation infrastructure.
• Support funding and options for cities and counties
to create innovative "last mile" solutions.
M
ek
-T
C*-O
Packet Pg. 249
8.4.a
Other Significant Issues I cont.
7. Funding for Arts and the Creative
Economy
• Support efforts to create funding sources
which support creative businesses and
nonprofit's abilities to connect communities,
particularly youth, with the arts.
• Support ArtsWA's Decision Packages, which include
continued funding for Creative Districts and grants
for arts education.
• Support efforts to give Creative Districts coherent
and collective branding and marketing tools to
increase awareness, understanding and visitation
in all Creative Districts.
8. GMA Planning & Permitting
• Engage in the GMA reform conversation and
look to secure dedicated planning funding in
recognition of proposed new responsibilities
in areas such as climate change and salmon
recovery that cities can support.
• Reject mandatory density schemes which subvert
local zoning control.
9. Public Safety Vehicular Pursuits
• Support reconsideration of the ability to conduct
vehicular pursuits using a reasonable suspicion stan-
dard in order to address concerns about impacts to
public safety and allow for effective and safe pursuit
of suspects when there is an immediate threat to
public safety. Cities will continue to support safety
standards and training for officers who engage in
vehicular pursuits.
M
N
0
- Packet Pg. 250
8.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Street Vacation Ordinance PLN2022-0045
Staff Lead: Michele Szafran
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Michele Szafran
Background/History
Kent Scudder submitted a petition to vacate that portion of unopened alley right-of-way lying south of
Fir Street and adjacent to the properties addressed 838 Fir ST. and 1108 9tn Ave. S. The City Council
considered the alley right-of-way vacation request in a public hearing on September 20, 2022. Following
the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Vacate (Exhibit 2) with
a condition that must be met within 90 days prior to the City completing the vacation.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Ordinance in Exhibit 1 vacating the unopened alley right-
of-way situated south of Fir Street and adjacent to the properties addressed 838 Fir ST. and 1108 91n
Ave. S.
Narrative
An application and petition was filed with the City to vacate that portion of unopened alley right-of-way
lying south of Fir Street and adjacent to the properties addressed 838 Fir ST. and 1108 9t" Ave. S. This
stretch of right-of-way is 17 feet wide and approximately 120 feet in length, for a total area of
approximately 2,038 square feet. No public utilities are located within this portion of unopened right-of-
way; and thus, no easements will be retained.
The application included a petition signed by more than two-thirds of the adjacent property owners.
Following the close of the public hearing on September 20, 2022, the Council adopted a Resolution of
Intent to Vacate (Resolution No. 1506). The resolution identified a number of conditions to be met
within 90 days of the adoption of the resolution before the City would complete the vacation. These
conditions are provided below with reference to the exhibits documenting compliance with the stated
conditions:
1. The petitioners shall deposit $17,500 with the City of Edmonds, which is one-half the appraised
value of the vacation property, and which money, upon adoption of an ordinance vacating the
property, shall belong to the City of Edmonds.
Staff Response: Kent Scudder submitted a check in the amount of $17,500 to the City on
November 17, 2022 (Exhibit 3).
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 Street Vacation Ordinance
Exhibit 2 Resolution 1506
Exhibit 3 Receipt PLN2022-0045
Packet Pg. 251
8.5
Exhibit 4 City Council - Full Minutes 9-20-22
Packet Pg. 252
8.5.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, VACATING THE PORTION OF UNOPENED
ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH OF FIR STREET AND
ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES ADDRESSED 838 FIR ST.
AND 1108 9TH AVE. S. AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION
OF INTENT NO. 1506, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022 the Edmonds City Council adopted
Resolution No. 1506 stating its intent to vacate the portion of unopened alley right-of-way south
of Fir Street and adjacent to the properties addressed 838 Fir Street and 1108 9th Ave. S.; and,
WHEREAS, certain conditions were set forth therein for the vacation; including
1) payment of $17,500 for one-half the appraised value of the vacated right-of-way.
WHEREAS, the staff has reported to the City Council that all such conditions
have been met within the ninety (90) day period set in the resolution; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That portion of unopened alley right-of-way south of Fir Street and
adjacent to the properties addressed 838 Fir Street and 1108 91h Ave. S. as described in the
attached Exhibit A and shown on the attached Exhibit B, is hereby vacated.
Section 2. 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.
-1-
Packet Pg. 253
8.5.a
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
C•
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
JEFFREY B. TARADAY, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
-2-
Packet Pg. 254
8.5.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of December, 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, VACATING THE
PORTION OF UNOPENED ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH OF FIR STREET AND
ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES ADDRESSED 838 FIR ST. AND 1108 9TH AVE. S. AS
SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1506, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of December, 2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
-3-
Packet Pg. 255
8.5.a
Exhibit A
17-foot Alley Vacation
THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 12, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION TO EDMONDS. ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 6, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER ❑F LOT 10, OF SAID BLOCK 12, YOSTS FIRST
ADDITION TO EDMONDS AND A POINT ON THE SOUTH MARGIN OF FIR STREET; THENCE
SOUTH 88'40'14" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, OF SAID BLOCK 12, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION TO EDMONDS;
THENCE SOUTH 01'17'03" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF
119.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 88'42'57" WEST
17.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE NORTH 01°17'03"EAST
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 119.90 FEET TO THE POINT ❑F
BEGINNING.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
-4-
Packet Pg. 256
8.5.a
I
M
I�
U
30'
i
Exhibit B
FIR ST.
0
Ll
17' ALLEY TO BE
VACATED
0 no 0�
SCUDDER a,SCHENKAR
LOT 10 LOT 1
BLOCK 12 3 BLOCK 12
YOST'S FIRST ADDYOST'S FIRST ADD_
TO EDMONDS is o TO EDMONDS
VOL 6, PG_ 6 a VOL. 8, PG. 6
0
MILLER
5 , 4 SEAa LPG 42 3
� f
LINE TABLE
LINE
LENGTH
BEARING
L1
17.00
5$$'40'14°E
L2
17,00
N8842'57'W
x
r~
SCALE - 1" = 50'
30,
EXHIBIT B
0
O
N
N
O
N
Z
J
a
CD
C
C
0
a
0
m
a�
L
v
-5-
Packet Pg. 257
8.5.b
RESOLUTION NO. 1506
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, STATING ITS INTENT TO VACATE
THE PORTION OF UNOPENED ALLEY RIGHT-OF-
WAY SOUTH OF FIR STREET AND ADJACENT TO
THE PROPERTIES ADDRESSED 838 FIR ST. AND 1108
9TH AVE. S. UPON THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN
CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2022, the Edmonds City Council adopted resolution No
1501 establishing a public hearing on a proposed street vacation, File No. PLN2022-0045;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed street vacation was held on
September 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the vacation is in the public
interest, and that no property will be denied access as a result of the vacation; and
WHEREAS, there are no easements to the City required; and
WHEREAS, at that public hearing, the record contained a real estate appraisal
showing the value of the proposed vacation area to be $35,000; and
WHEREAS, the subject right-of-way was originally acquired pursuant to
dedication with the Plat of Yost's First Addition to Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a and RCW 35.79.030 the City may
be compensated up to an amount equal to one-half of the fair market value of the right-of-
way prior to vacation by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds $17,500 (one-half of $35,000) is reasonable
compensation when determined in accordance with the fair market value of the land to be
vacated; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1
Packet Pg. 258
8.5.b
Section 1. The city council hereby states its intent to vacate by ordinance the
portion of unopened alley right-of-way south of Fir Street and adjacent to the properties
addressed 838 Fir St. and 1108 9t' Ave. S. as shown on the attached Exhibits A and B and
further described in File No. PLN2022-0045, which exhibit and file are incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth as long as the following conditions are met
within ninety (90) days of adoption of this resolution:
1. The petitioners shall deposit $17,500 with the City of Edmonds, which is
one-half the appraised value of the vacation property, and which money, upon adoption of
an ordinance vacating the property, shall belong to the City of Edmonds.
RESOLVED THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022:
ATTEST:
"CLERK.ASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
MA R MIKE NELSON
September 16, 2022
September 20, 2022
1506
2
Packet Pg. 259
8.5.b
EXHIBIT "A"
17-foot Alley Vacation
THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 12, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION TO EDMONDS, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 6, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 10, OF SAID BLOCK 12, YOST'S FIRST
ADDITION TO EDMONDS AND A POINT ON THE SOUTH MARGIN OF FIR STREET; THENCE
SOUTH 88°40'14" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 17.00 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, OF SAID BLOCK 12, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION TO EDMONDS;
THENCE SOUTH 01°17'03" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF
119.88 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 88°42'57" WEST
17.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE NORTH 01 °17'03"EAST
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10, A DISTANCE OF 119.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON
3
Packet Pg. 260
8.5.b
SCUDDER
LOT 10
d'
BLOCK 12
YO SRRST D
I
TOEDMONDS
U
VOL. 8, PG. 6
30'
I
5
rI�
1
EXHIBIT "B"
FIR ST.
-17'
ALLEY TO BE
VACATED
m
SCHENKAR
LOT 1
3
BLOCK 12
Y
in
YOST S RRST ADD.
TO EDMONDS
VOL, 8, PG. 6
in
L2
MILLER t
4vSE P8 `pG 3
UNE TABLE
LINE
LENGTH
BEARING
L7
17.00
SB8'40'14"E
L2
17.00
N88'42'S7"W
m
�i
x
r~
0
SCALE - 1 " 50'
30'
EXHIBIT B
i
O
O
N
N
O
N
Z
J
d
N
V
C
L
0
C
0
c�
u
m
d
a�
L
N
O
r
C
O
7
O
to
N
w
N
r+
t
x
w
r
c
m
E
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 261
OF EDM
o�0
8.5.c
City of Edmonds
Customer Receipt
(425) 775-2525
PLN2022-0045 R24526
STREET VACATION $17500.00
PLN2022-0045 Total: $17500.00
Transaction Total: $17500.00
Paid By: Kent M Scudder Family Trust
Cashier: DER
Pay Method: CHECK 3342
Signature:
Thursday, November 17, 2022 1:14 PM
Packet Pg. 262
8.5.d
Sound View Plaza building and other buildings in the BD3 and other zones that have rooftop amenities
for penthouse condominiums. If something is done comprehensively, she wanted it to be more equitably
designed so if there is rooftop amenity space, it is equal for all and considers safe ingress/egress. She
looked forward to the discussion on October 4tn
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO REMOVE SECTION F, ROOFTOP DECKS.
Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Councilmember Teitzel that the entire BD area needed to be
considered comprehensively. Including rooftop decks now is forcing something that needs to be looked at
pragmatically. She supported the concept of rooftop decks, but due to the slope, she assume the people
living in condominiums would not want to look down on rooftop decks.
Council President Olson said the issue for her is the elevator and access. If there is nothing on the roof,
there is no extra height associated with the elevator shaft on the roof. The issue of view infringement
requires a more thoughtful process. These standards may be repealed if the designated street front is
extended to the entire BD2 zone so it is cleaner to remove it now that and include it in the comprehensive
plan discussion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Clugston summarized staff will bring back an ordinance on October 4t' that is substantially similar to
Exhibit A on pages 277-278 of tonight's packet without Section F regarding rooftop decks.
2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATION PLN2022-0045
Associate Planner Michele Szafran presented the Street Vacation Petition Adjacent to 838 Fir Street &
1108 9t1i Avenue South, identifying the vacation request area on an aerial map and a street view of the
primarily vegetated site. She reviewed:
• Initiation of proceedings ECDC 20.70.050
o By City council or by property owners abutting the portion of ROW to be vacated.
o Vacation request has been initiated by abutting owners
■ A petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of street or
alley to be vacated is included as an attachment in the staff report.
o According to ECDC 20.70.070 a future public hearing must be set by resolution
o On August 2nd 2022, Resolution No. 1501 was passed by Council setting the public hearing
for tonight
• Survey map of unopened alley row, approximately 17' wide and 120' in length, located south of
Fir Street
• ECDC 20.70.020 — Criteria for Vacation
o City council may vacate a ROW if found that:
1. The vacation is in the public interest
■ Removal of maintenance concerns for the City and/or liability from potential issues
with any existing or future vegetation
■ No public purpose is provided by the ROW, so returning the property to the tax rolls
would be in the interest of the public.
2. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation
• ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision
o Following the public hearing, the city council shall by motion:
1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or
2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or
3. Adopt a resolution of intent with specific conditions that must be met within 90 days
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 20, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 263
8.5.d
a. Either
i. Monetary compensation up to one-half the fair market value
ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way
iii. Any combination of the above (i or ii) totaling no more than one-half fair market
value
Or
b. Grant an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated
Utilities and Easements
o No existing public utilities and no future need
■ No need for easements to City
Monetary compensation recommended consistent with ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a.i
o Appraisal based on single-family use
o Pre -vacation
■ 838 Fir Street = $1,000,000
o Post Vacation
■ 838 Fir Street = $1,035,000
o Difference in appraised value of $35,000
o One-half of appraised value = $17,500
Staff recommendation
o Adopt Resolution of Intent to Vacate with the proposed condition in the staff report to require
payment by the petitioners of one-half the appraised value
Councilmember Paine commented it sounds like all the easements will be removed when the alley is
vacated. Ms. Szafran answered there are no easements. Councilmember Paine asked if there was any
guidance for the appraisal regarding the use of comparables. She noted the comparables (page 38 of the
report and 374 of the council packet) are in many areas including Esperance, Lake Ballinger, etc. She
asked how comparables are determined in a situation like this. In her experience in Seattle, they looked at
neighboring property values and valued the property per square foot. This seems to be choosing properties
that are most favorable to the property owner. Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell answered
there is no specific language in the code regarding how appraisals are conduced other than the appraisal is
to be prepared by a qualified land appraiser with an MAI designation establishing the fair market value of
the area to be vacated. Councilmember Paine expressed concern the appraisal favors the property owner
who will absorb the unopened alley.
Council President Olson agreed with Councilmember Paine, commenting she knew where this property
was located and it was a high value view area. Comparing it to the other properties was not apples to
apples and there were plenty of properties that have been sold in that area. She questioned the
comparables that were used and requested properties in the exact vicinity be considered.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has seen a lot of vacations, sometimes the property owner is
charged and sometimes they aren't. She asked if the intent of the vacation was to do a lot line adjustment
to design a larger house. Ms. McConnell said staff has had conversations with the applicant to get a better
understanding and that is not their intent. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why they want to have the
property vacated. Ms. McConnell answered it is to have additional property, but it does not provide
enough more land for an individual lot to do a subdivision; they would have to work together, houses
would potentially need to be demolished, the lot lines realigned, etc. to do a subdivision. She summarized
there is another process involved that is not part of this street vacation and that intent has not been made
apparent to the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if each party would pay half the appraised value. Ms. McConnell
answered the City does not get involved in how the compensation is made to the City. Staff s
recommendation is up to one half the appraised value, $17,500. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed there
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 20, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 264
8.5.d
should be other comparables and this seems to be extremely generous to the people applying for the
vacation.
Council President Olson added other than property valuation, the street vacation is pretty straightforward.
She was interested in hearing public comments.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled public comment regarding the definition of non -right-of-way easement.
He clarified this was vacation of a right-of-way, not an easement. Ms. McConnell agreed, it is the
vacation of alley/street right-of-way. Councilmember Teitzel clarified it is basically City -owned property
being vacated in exchange for compensation. Ms. McConnell agreed.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described procedures for in -person comments.
Kent Scudder, Edmonds, one of the property owners that abut the right-of-way, described the purpose
of the vacation request. They are trying to do a backyard makeover and found make site improvements in
proximity to a right-of-way very restrictive with regard to wall heights, setbacks, etc. The primary
motivation is to remove the right-of-way restrictions as well as improve the utility of their property by
adding lot area. With regard to the appraisal process, he has been a commercial real estate appraiser for
the last 35 years, primarily a dirt appraiser, similar to the ones who did the appraisal for this vacation. He
understood the difficulty finding comparables in a City that is essentially built out. Comparables have to
be vacant land so the appraiser finds them wherever they can. Vacant land won't be next door or down the
block because the bowl is built out so they had to look far and wide to find comparables. The rules for
appraisals are dictated by the Appraisal Institute. Finding vacant land comparables requires going broader
than one might expect; properties closest to the subject property are given the most weight in the
appraiser's analysis. He felt the appraiser did a good job, recognizing the disparity of the data and
reaching a reasonable conclusion. He discussed it with the appraiser and they were persuasive in their
argument as well as in their appraisal.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said a right-of-way is an easement, it is not property possessed by the City. The
City has a right to use the land; the title belongs to Mr. Scudder and others. He wished the council
understood that critical concept; Mr. Scudder is the fee title owner, the City only has an easement right.
When the City vacates an easement, requiring compensation is optional, there is nothing in the law
requiring compensation. The vacation is in the public interest as it eliminates maintenance responsibility
and liability exposure. He requested the council vacate this unused, unneeded easement without requiring
any compensation and if any councilmembers disagreed, requested they explain why. This vacation is in
the public interest without requiring compensation. If councilmembers disagreed, he suggested treating
the applicants like the abutting property owners at 174t' Street SW who paid less than 10% of the
appraised value for property that the City owned the fee title to, a much different situation than tonight's
vacation where Mr. Scudder and his neighbors own the fee title. The council can read about the vacation
that charged less than 10% in Ordinance 3250. He questioned why the applicant in tonight's vacation
should pay 50% of appraised value for property they already own the fee title to. The title is not
transferring; tonight's applicant owns the fee title already.
As requiring compensation is permissive, Mr. Reidy questioned why appraisals were required before it
was known whether the council would require compensation. He questioned whether tonight's applicants
would be required to pay for the appraisal if City staff had done what the 2019 city council directed,
initiate a 2-step process to resolve the differences between the planning board and staff recommendations
and add a second public hearing. The city attorney was asked to help staff with drafting the related
ordinance, but that was never done. He questioned why the council would allow staff to put forward a
recommendation that differed from the recommendation made by the public hearing after a lengthy public
process. At the October 15, 2019 meeting, then -Mayor Earling assumed this would be done by the end of
the year or the process would need to start over. As the appraisal in tonight's packet was required, he
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 20, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 265
8.5.d
suggested refunding the appraisal costs to the applicants. He referred to pages 212-215 in the council
packet, Resolution 1145 which provides an example of how the appraisal fee was refunded.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Ms. McConnell asked council for direction regarding the appraisal. If the council agrees with payment of
one half of the appraised value, the resolution in the packet could brought back on the consent agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the City charges for some street vacation and does not charge for
others. Ms. McConnell answered there are specific circumstances outlined in code when the City does not
seek compensation for the street vacation which usually relates to the reservation of an easement to the
City. There are other historic factors when compensation was not collected such as critical areas on the
property that decreased the value so compensation was less than one half the appraised value, an instance
where it was part of a City property sale, a cemetery expansion, or the council felt during its deliberation
there was enough public benefit from the vacation not to require compensation.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed this is an unopened right-of-way, no one can walk through it and it
is part of their property. Ms. McConnell answered it is unopened and looks like it is part of their property,
there is no representation of it being open to the public such as a trail. To the south of the property is a
developed plat where the houses take access off Sea Vista Place that connects to 9t' Avenue S.
Councilmember Chen observed the City has right-of-way through this property being vacated. He asked
whether this vacation cost the City anything, any repairs needed to be made, etc. Ms. McConnell said if it
is vacated, it would be vacated as is. Councilmember Chen asked is the vacation would impact public
access. Ms. McConnell answered there are no permit applications from the property owner or any
indication regarding how that property may be utilized. If a permit was required for anything the property
owner wanted to do, they would need to obtain one from the City. She was unable to speak to the
property owners' potential use or rehabilitation of the property or whether it could all be done onsite or if
it would impact the public. Councilmember Chen concluded with that information, since it would not cost
the City anything or inconvenience the public, he was okay with not charging the property owner for the
vacation.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
WAIVE THE $17,500 VACATION FEE FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
Council President Olson said staff s recommendation for payment of one half the appraised value is
consistent with the examples in the packet. However, there is still a question about the market value
which is a separate issue. For consistency's sake, as well as the exceptions cited in the code which did not
apply in this instance, she supported following staffs recommendation to require payment of one half the
appraised value. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Paine agreed with Council President Olson, it appeared everything in the code was
followed. Amendments may need to be made to the code in the future, but that does not apply to this
action. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Tibbott did not support the motion. Staff s recommendation conforms with previous
presentations on the same topic. The vacation adds value to the property owners who receive the
additional property and it was his understanding the City was not allowed to give away property without
just compensation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 20, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 266
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER CHEN VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Council President Olson commented in lieu of going forward with the action, she would like to have staff
look at the valuation based on price per square foot from the tax assessor's office versus the vacant
parcels used in the appraisal. That differential would provide more information regarding whether the
appraisal should be questioned. Ms. McConnell said that could be done if it was the overall direction from
the council.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED TO GET MORE INFORMATION FROM STAFF
REGARDING THE APPRAISAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ACTION. MOTION FAILED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the point made by Mr. Reidy, the City is requiring compensation for
property the City does not legally own; the City holds the right to a right-of-way across the property so
arguably the City could put a street or alley on that right-of-way. If the City opened that right-of-way and
installed a street or right-of-way, he asked if the City would owe any money to the property owner for use
of that fee title property. Ms. McConnell answered no. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed the question is
whether the City would owe compensation in the absence of a street vacation if the City wanted to put an
alley in that location. Councilmember Teitzel clarified since the City has rights to the right-of-way, if the
City wanted put a street or alley in that location, since the City is not the fee title owner of the property,
would the City owe any compensation to the property owner in that even. Mr. Taraday asked if the
question presumed there was no street vacation.
Councilmember Teitzel said if the City retained the right-of-way and eventually put in a street or alley in
the right-of-way but were not the legal owner of the property. Mr. Taraday answered the City owns a
right-of-way which entitles it to improve the right-of-way with an alley and would not need to pay the
property owner any compensation. When that plat was recorded, all the streets and alleys in the plat were
dedicated to the public and the City basically holds those in trust for the public. It may be many years or
in some cases not foreseeable when the right-of-way would be improved.
Councilmember Tibbott said his understanding from a previous meeting was that the public could use a
right-of-way like that. For example, children in the neighborhood could play in the hedge because it is a
City right-of-way. Mr. Taraday answered that is his understanding. He did not think the property owner
had a right to exclude the public from the right-of-way as long as it remained right-of-way. In most cases,
that is unenforced and people look the other way. While the speaker was correct that the underlying fee is
owned by the property owner, the fee is subject to dedication of the right-of-way which carries with it a
substantial burden on the property. He would need to research whether there was any case law that
addressed the facts the councilmember mentioned, but his hunch was it would be inappropriate for a
property owner to completely exclude the public from the right-of-way. It could be an unimproved
pedestrian path that the City did not spend money improving, but that would be an informal pedestrian
thoroughfare in a neighborhood which would still be a proper use of a right-of-way.
If there was a path through the hedge, Councilmember Tibbott asked if it would be available for anyone
in the City to use. Mr. Taraday answered the definition of right-of-way dedicated to the public is that the
public can use it for travel. Councilmember Tibbott relayed vacating the right-of-way essentially removed
the rights of citizens to use that land and it becomes completely available to the property owner who
receives the vacated property. Mr. Taraday answered yes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 20, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 267
8.5.d
Councilmember Tibbott commented in that case it makes sense there would be some compensation for
removing the public's rights. Mr. Taraday said another reason that cities charge for street vacations is the
council is stewards of public funds and one of their responsibilities is to look out for the taxpayers'
resources and not give away property that has value. It would be one thing if everybody in Edmonds
could get a street vacation and the city council decided it did not want to charge anyone for street
vacations. The reality is not everyone gets a street vacation, they only exist in a few pockets of the City so
it creates a benefit for a certain class of citizens who happen to abut an unopened right-of-way.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was uncomfortable micromanaging or examining a property valuation
done by a certified commercial appraiser. He did not disagree it sounded like a low valuation, but these
professionals work hard at their craft and what has been provided is their best effort. He had some unease
attempting to change what a professional evaluator determined for this property.
Councilmember Paine recalled the City has defended its rights to access unopened right-of-way used by
the public that lead to the water and if there are encroachments. Mr. Taraday answered the City requires
encroachment permits when someone builds a structure in a right-of-way. He was unable to speak to how
commonly the City defends its unopened rights -of -way or requires encroachment permits, but it was his
sense encroachment permits were fairly common. Councilmember Paine clarified extra steps were
required to do things in a right-of-way. She agreed with Councilmember Tibbott, this appraisal was done
in accordance with the requirements in the code and she did not want to change the appraisal.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
There was unanimous consent from the council to postpone Item 10.3, Development Code Rewrite Work
Plan.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL VOTE TAKEN AT TODAY'S SPECIAL MEETING
REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR FILLING COUNCIL VACANCY — POSITION #7
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
PASS THE PROCESS IN THE PACKET AS AMENDED AT THE EARLIER SPECIAL
MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PARK LAND ACQUISITION REPORT
Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser explained a high priority was established by
the mayor for acquisition of land for conservation of natural resources in the community. Tonight's
presentation is a report related to that work over the last couple years. She reviewed:
• Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Recommendations
1. Acquisition to fill park system gaps — secure additional land for neighborhood parks to
address gaps
2. Open space and conservation acquisitions — pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or
conserve unique natural areas
5. Trail connections — needed to help link destinations across community
Acquisitions that occurred in 2021
o DNR Tidelands
■ Address: Shoreline between Casper and north end of Cary Street (approx.. 1,100' feet of
shoreline)
■ Size: 20 acres
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 20, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 268
8.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self -Determination of Land Use
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Accept and approve the Resolution as presented, and attach to the 2023 Legislative Agenda.
Narrative
Council wishes to express its official position in support of retaining local control of our zoning and
building codes without modification by County or State legislation.
Attachments:
Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self -Determination Land Use
Packet Pg. 269
8.6.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT OF RETAINING RIGHTS TO SELF-
DETERMINATION AS IT PERTAINS TO LAND USE, ZONING,
BUILDING CODES AND ORDINANCES AND TO URGE
COUNTY AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO NOT TAKE
THESE RIGHTS AWAY THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION
WHEREAS, Edmonds is a code city within the State of Washington as encoded by Title 35A
RCW; and
WHEREAS, code cities were created by the State Legislature in order to grant the greatest
degree of local control to municipalities possible under the state constitution and general law;
and
WHEREAS, code cities are authorized to perform any function not specifically denied them in
the State Constitution or by state law and may perform any function granted to any other city
classification under Title 35 RCW; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan recognizes and adheres to Growth Management
Act (GMA) requirements and contains a wide variety of housing options in addition to specific
sub -area plans and Edmonds is comfortably exceeding current and projected GMA targets for
housing capacity; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds has an engaged volunteer Planning Board of citizens to guide growth; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, a 23-volunteer Citizens' Housing Commission met for 18 months and
provided 15 recommendations to the City Council that included robust and flexible zoning and
building codes to meet a changing environment; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds has a land area of 8.9 square miles and has consistently met GMA growth
targets with 2035 population projected to be 45,550; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds is a waterfront community with a built -out city that has a unique
topography with large watersheds and public spaces which limits our land capacity for new
structures; and
WHEREAS, our buildable lands report reflected 23 years of constant growth and current
permitting projections are exceeding all prior forecasts; and
WHEREAS, residents have clearly spoken that we value neighborhood character and are
increasingly protective of watersheds, critical areas and our environment and;
WHEREAS, a survey conducted by our Citizens' Housing Commission, showed 78% of
respondents strongly desire to retain single family zoning as currently codified; now therefore,
Packet Pg. 270
8.6.a
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Council adopts this resolution to express its official
position in support of retaining local control of our zoning and building codes without
modification by County or State legislation.
Section 2. The Edmonds City Council opposes legislation, or other outside mandates,
which changes or attempts to influence local zoning or building codes or any definitions
associated with them.
Section 3. The Edmonds City Council further resolves that, by its legislative policy,
single family zoning will continue to be a component of our zoning codes.
Section 4. The City of Edmonds accepts responsibility for our land use and zoning codes
to be in compliance with all current federal, state and county laws.
Section 5. The Edmonds City Council directs that copies of this Resolution shall be sent
to our Snohomish County representatives, Governor Inslee, and our State representatives
as a means of affirming our City's support of our right to self-determination of our land
use, zoning and building codes and ordinances.
Section 6. The Edmonds City Council reaffirms our commitment to our citizens to reject
any intervention by County and State Legislators to dilute any of City Council's authority
in all land use matters.
RESOLVED this 6th day of December 2022.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR, MIKE NELSON
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Pg. 271
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Deliberations on the 2023 Edmonds City Budget
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
This is an opportunity for Council to review proposed changes and amendments to the 2023 Proposed
Budget.
Staff Recommendation
For discussion and deliberation. Changes to the proposed budget will be discussed and voted on.
Narrative
N/A
Packet Pg. 272
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Council Discussion of CIP/CFP
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
On November 1, 2022, Council received the presentation on Proposed 2023-2028 Capital Facilities Plan
& Capital Improvement Program.
On November 15, 2022, Council held a public hearing on the Proposed 2023-2028 Capital Facilities Plan
& Capital Improvement Program.
Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This is a council -requested opportunity for questions and discussion about the CIP/CFP.
Councilmembers were invited to submit amendments regarding the CFP/CIP. Attached are submissions
sent to Director Turley from CM Dave Teitzel and CM Diane Buckshnis.
Attachments:
Teitzel CIP CFP amendments
BUCKSHNIS CFP AMENDMENTS submitted 11.6.22
Packet Pg. 273
9.2.a
11/4/22
2023-2028 CIP/CFP
Dave Teitzel amendments/additions/requests
1. PWT-18: this project is characterized as either a new traffic signal or a mini -roundabout
to improve traffic flow at 91" and Main. However, the project estimate is not broken
down to identify the cost of these two options, and it is unlikely the cost would be the
same for each. Please separately identify the estimated project costs for each of the
two alternatives.
2. PWT-35: this is ranked #2 in the Long Walkway List in the 2015 TIP. However, the
funding is not programmed in the CIP/CFP until 2027 and 2028 (approximately $1.7m in
total funding) to install a sidewalk between 84t" Ave. W and 76t" Ave. W. This is a
popular walking route for kids to walk to Chase Lake Elementary School and needs to
take a higher priority. Please move this project up to begin in 2024 and complete in
2025
3. PWT-42: this request is for sidewalk improvements between Dayton St. and the ferry
terminal at Main St. and is programmed to begin in 2026 and complete in 2027, for a
total cost of $980,000. However, a project is pending by Burlington Northern for double
tracking along Railroad Avenue, and this project may include some form of pedestrian
overpass over the track. And the double tracking effort may require use of the eastern
portion of Railroad Avenue (which is owned by Burlington Northern). It is not clear what
effects these efforts by Burlington Northern will have on the configuration of Railroad
Avenue, nor on the existing sidewalk on the western side of Railroad Avenue. In
addition, there already exists a sidewalk in good condition on the western side of
Railroad Avenue, and more pressing needs exist for sidewalks elsewhere in Edmonds.
This item should be deleted from the CIP/CFP until Burlington Northern's plans are clear
for that area and the prioritization should be reconsidered for this sidewalk investment
versus addressing sidewalk needs in other areas of the city.
4. PWT-65: this request is for an investment in 2023 through 2025 of approximately $1.7m
to construct a "green streets" prototype on Dayton St. between SR 104 and 2nd Ave. S.
This is a worthwhile concept, as there is a clear need to better address stormwater
management and heat island effects in urban areas. However, we are now embarking
on the major Highway 99 revitalization project as well as addressing how to better
handle stormwater in that area. This item should be deleted from the CIP/CFP and the
green streets funding associated with this item should be redirected to the eastern
portion of the Highway 99 subarea where there is a pressing need to address these
issues via permeable paving, bioswales, rain gardens, eco-friendly plantings, etc.
5. New item: Note that PWD-04 addresses lower Perrinville Creek Restoration -Phase 1.
The city also has a pressing need to address erosion issues in Shell Creek, starting in Yost
Packet Pg. 274
9.2.a
Park. The creek there is severely undercutting the southern bank in the park, causing
silting and trees to fall. This issue has already forced closure of one footbridge over
Shell Creek and will likely require closure of at least one more footbridge. This problem
is being caused by stormwater surges entering the creek as well as redirection of the
creek by the presence of old concrete weirs that were once part of the city's original
water supply system in Shell Creek. Note: as opposed to Perrinville Creek, Shell Creek is
100% within Edmonds' city limits, and we have full control of how the creek can be
maintained/improved. The restoration effort in the Yost Park portion of Shell Creek
(which is the headwaters of this spring -fed creek) should be supported by funding in
2024 of $500,000, with preliminary work to begin in 2023 via a meeting between Parks,
Public Works, WDFW, the tribes, members of City Council, citizen scientists, etc. to
identify a near term emergency plan to address the erosion issue and determine what
work can be done to address it with volunteer help. If the preliminary meeting
identifies a need for 2023 funding, a mid -period funding request will be brought to
Council.
6. PWF-01: this item requests approximately $300k in funding to improve the existing Boys
and Girls Club building at Civic Field. The project description states the building "...is
expected to be in operation for another 10 years." However, Council has learned the
Boys and Girls Club has plans to demolish the existing building and construct a new
structure on that site. This request should be scaled down to include only the
investments needed to keep the building safe for operation until it is demolished, and
the narrative should be updated to reflect the Boys and Girls Club's intentions for the
property.
7. Project P3 and D14: this request is for funding of an elevated pedestrian walkway on the
beach in front of the Ebb Tide condominiums. The total investment is stated as
$1,334,500, with the project beginning in 2024. The start date for this protect should be
moved to 2025 to enable the city to engage in further discussions with the Ebb Tide
ownership about potential alternatives.
8. New item (add to PWD): The Edmonds Waterfront Connector project, which was
abandoned in 2019, was intended to provide a means for first responders to reach the
Edmonds Waterfront in the event of emergencies (police, EMS or fire). The problem still
exists, however, and is actually increasing in severity with the advent of the Waterfront
Center and its many attractions, imminent double tracking by BNSF which will increase
train traffic along the waterfront and potential addition of a boutique hotel on the
waterfront (which is currently allowed under Edmonds zoning rules.) These items,
coupled with the many amenities already available at the waterfront (dive park, beach
access, restaurants, offices, the marina, off leash park, etc) will increase the likelihood of
injury or need for urgent first responder attention. Please add an item for 2024 with an
estimated cost of approximately $100k to study this issue and develop potential
solutions for Council to consider.
2
Packet Pg. 275
CIP/CFP Amendments from Diane Buckshnis due 11/7/22 and not complete
BUCKSHNIS CFP AMENDMENTS — for two carry -forwards. These two projects do not comply to the bond
funding directives.
1) Carryovers 2022 found CFP to be voted to remove budget authority and any funding designation
The following 2 items were part of the Bond Funding and when further reviewed in Finance Committee this year,
bonds were specified for aging infrastructure. These two items are still outstanding and this amendment will
remove those items from the bond funding source. 2022 DP #71 for $260 is for a NEW infrastructure project
known as a Citywide Electric Vehicle Charging Network. DP #72 for $230K is a NEW infrastructure Solar Plan
Renewal and Grant Application. Both of these NEW infrastructure projects violate the bonding purpose and
therefore should be removed and put forth as utility infrastructure CFP and budget request.
Amendment: Remove budgetary authority and fund designation for these two carry forwards. Funds
have not been taken from bonding yet or so it seems? Need clarification.
BUCKSHNIS CIP AMENDMENTS BUT CIP items to discuss and recommended amendments — not
complete as NO public hearing.
1) CIP Missing Link— P3 and D14 $1.4MM
Kudos for the City in obtaining that right away and the COST to get to this point is over. As an environmentalist, I
have been against this project for over 10 years, but the simple majority and momentum of the win always made
me a minority. The intrusion of this project will be costly and if out in the water, extremely destructive to the
environment and the alternative of condemning private property to create the walkway by the bulkhead will be
expensive and unnecessary since their already is already an alternative pathway on the west side.
Amendment: Remove from CIP and any funds returned to fund balance. Alternative routes would be less
costly and more artistic!
2) Marsh Estuary Restoration Al P4, D9, and D1
This project should be a TBD as the City should not rely on as the Shannon Wilson team for design 6 to be a
sanctioned design as it was under a Stormwater mitigation for the Connector Project. Therefore the process has
not gone through the normal RFP process when we finally obtain the UNOCAL property There is no watershed
restoration or holistic perspective master plan in place except for the Marina Beach portion of the system.
Additionally, there is not discussion regarding the use of consultants such as Forterra that could purchase the
UNOCAL property and assist the Administration in grant writing and watershed management. Again, there is
plenty of funds available at the State and Federal Level to support the millions of dollars in grants available. I can
easily provide the example of the Wayne's Golf Course State funding whereas that group was able to obtain over
$14AMM in grants to pay for that property.
Amendment: Remove any funds and indicated TBD and provide more description regarding alternatives.
3) CIP - Add ILA between Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds for the Lake Ballinger Golf Course
The development of this Park has been reviewed twice in the Lake Ballinger Forum and MLT is at a critical
juncture for designing the "passive park" aspect which is designated by Edmonds. The Administration has
already agreed to this amendment.
Amendment: Add $200K for ILA work with MILT.
Packet Pg. 276
CIP/CFP Amendments from Diane Buckshnis due 11/7/22 and not complete
4) CIP — Add ILA between Snohomish County for regional parks of Esperance and Meadowdale
Beach Parks
Both of these parks are frequented by Edmonds individuals and Edmonds was part of the permitting process and
the Meadowdale Beach Park near -shore estuary restoration. We should help our neighboring cities with
expenses that might be incurred by our park uses and create a regional park model.
Amendment: Work with Snohomish County for ILAs for Esperance and Meadowdale Beach Parks.
5) CIP P8 D 19 — Move 4"' Avenue Corridor to Community Services and Economic Development
With the Creative District Designation and the Arts and Cultural area being moved over to Community Services
and Economic Development, it seems logical to create a new CIP number designation for Community Services
and Economic Development as this capital project is a key factor for the Creative District.
Amendment: Create new CIP for Community Services and Economic Development. NO cost allocated
Lost amendment and even though rate study is next year, this amount would be added.
amendment: Remove 2025 estimated cost to be TBD as this amount affects utility rates and no
justification.
Packet Pg. 277