The URL can be used to link to this page

2025-04-21 City Council Packet2. of c�,y s Agenda Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 21, 2025, 6:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. TO ATTEND VIRTUALLY, CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 BY PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. 3. ROLL CALL 4. PRESENTATIONS S. 6 7 1. Resolution Recognizing Earth Day 2025 (0 min) 2. Climate Resiliency Presentation (25 min) 3. Mayor's Finance Update (10 min) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 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. IF USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE, RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. IF USING A DIAL - UP PHONE, PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. Written Public Comments (0 min) Edmonds City Council Agenda April 21, 2025 Page 1 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes April 8, 2025 2. Approval of Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 2025 3. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 4. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 5. Resolution Recognizing Earth Day 2025 6. Approval of Supplemental Agreement with SCJ for Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 7. Planning Department Position Reclassification 8. Ordinance Amending Authorized Employee Positions 9. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing on Permanent STEP Housing Code (30 min) 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Interim Ordinance to Prohibit the Removal of Certain Landmark Trees on Private Property (30 min) 2. Priorities for 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ideas (40 min) 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds City Council Agenda April 21, 2025 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Resolution Recognizing Earth Day 2025 Staff Lead: Councilmember Susan Paine Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History This resolution is brought forward to recognize the important benefits of using our local transit systems. Recommendation Receive a resolution and approve on consent agenda a resolution recognizing April 22, 2025 as Earth Day. Narrative This year marks the 55th anniversary of the first Earth Day. This year's theme is "Our Power, Our Planet". Resources for Earth Month activities can be found here: Edmonds Parks Activities - Earth Dav in the Park and Watershed Fun Fair <https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/parks and recreation/programs classes and camps/discovery programs/annual public events> Earth Day with the Edmonds Stewards - Day of service in Edmonds <https://www.soundsalmonsolutions.org/events/2025/4/19/earth-day-edmonds> Earth Month Activities - The Nature Conservancy <https://www.nature.org/en-us/get- involved/how-to-help/earth-day/?fa=opentothepublic,limitedaccess,closedtothepublic> Attachments: 4.9.2025 RESOLUTION Recognizing Edmonds' Earth Day Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a RESOLUTION NO: A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZING APRIL 22, 2025 AS EDMONDS' EARTH DAY WHEREAS, Earth Day is a time to reflect upon the health of our planet and acknowledge the responsibility we all share in preserving and protecting the environment for current and future generations; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is a part of the global community, and we are facing a climate crisis, along with environmental emergencies and challenges; and WHEREAS the theme for Earth Day 2025 is "Our Power, Our Planet", which is an unwavering commitment to call for sustainable use of our limited resources for the sake of human and planetary health as well as reducing the use of our unsustainable power sources; and WHEREAS, humanity possesses immense power through collective action, innovation, and compassion to heal and sustain the Earth, ensuring that our ecosystems, communities, and resources are preserved for future generations; and WHEREAS, the urgency of addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and the disproportionate impact of these crises on vulnerable populations demands bold and immediate action across all sectors of society; and WHEREAS, to achieve the future Edmonds has envisioned for itself - a community with a high quality of life that is sustainable and equitable for all residents - the city of Edmonds recognizes that reducing the impacts climate change is important and cannot be accomplished without action at every level from national, state, our community, and individuals; and WHEREAS, this year marks the 55th anniversary of the first earth day movement, the city of Edmonds encourages all businesses, institutions, and individuals to celebrate the earth and commit to caring for the planet and its limited resources. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The city of Edmonds declares that we are in a climate emergency, acknowledging that climate change is upon us, and that the measures taken up to this point are not enough to limit the changes brought by this emergency. The city of Edmonds in committed to: 1. Empowering Youth and Future Generations Recognizing that the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow, we pledge to empower the next generation with the knowledge, tools, and opportunities needed to continue the fight for environmental justice. We will support youth -led movements, educational Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a programs, and initiatives that elevate the voices of young people in shaping the future of our planet. 2. Investing in Green Innovation and Solutions We commit to supporting research, innovation, and the development of new technologies that promote sustainability, reduce environmental impact, and accelerate the transition to a green economy. Investment in clean technologies, sustainable agriculture, and carbon reduction strategies will be a priority for the global community. 3. Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystems Governments, corporations, and individuals will work to protect critical ecosystems, including forests, oceans, wetlands, and grasslands. Efforts will be made to halt biodiversity loss, restore damaged ecosystems, and support conservation efforts, ensuring that the Earth's natural resources are safeguarded for future generations. Be it further resolved that, in the spirit of Earth Day 2025's theme of "Our Power, Our Planet", we will unite our collective power to ensure that we leave a sustainable, thriving planet for future generations. Together, through intentional acts and shared responsibility, we will use the power of innovation, compassion, and regional cooperation to create a more resilient and just world for all. RESOLVED this day of April 2025. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 5 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Climate Resiliency Presentation Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning & Development Preparer: Heather Lakefish Background/History Reducing our carbon footprint and protecting our community from climate change impacts are important parts of the City's work. Staff Recommendation Consider information. Provide any questions or comments. Narrative The City's efforts toward climate resilience are in two categories: (1) activities that the City carries out as parts of its internal operation; and (2) actions by the City to influence others in the community or region. Examples of the first category (operational) are: § Converting the City's vehicle fleet to low- or zero -carbon models whenever feasible § Using electric landscaping tools instead of gasoline- powered tools when possible for the job § Providing transit passes to City employees. [Note: Sometimes internal operations can also be a good example that inspires others to take action]. Examples of the second category (influential) are: § Adopting development codes that incentivize green building practices and energy efficiency § Requiring local food service businesses to use compostable products § Adopting land use codes that encourage walkability § Constructing bike lanes for the community to use § Cooperating with regional agencies to increase transit opportunities. At the City Council's April 21 meeting --one day before Earth Day --City staff will make an interdepartmental presentation about climate -friendly actions the City has been carrying out. Packet Pg. 6 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Mayor's Finance Update Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History On July 2, 2024 the council voted to have a Mayor Update as an ongoing item on all regular meeting agendas. This was in response to a recommendation from the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel. Staff Recommendation No action, informational Narrative The Mayor, or another member of the administration, will answer questions about City finances that have been requested by council in advance and will also share actions related to the fiscal emergency that have transpired since the last update. When there is nothing new to report, this agenda item will be the opportunity to share that there is nothing new to report. Packet Pg. 7 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 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 April 3, 2025 and April 16, 2025. Attachments: Public Comment April 21, 2025 Packet Pg. 8 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 Online Form 2025-04-02 08:41 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/2/2025 11:41:18 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Christine LastName Johnson Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Selling Frances Anderson Center?? Comments Surely, Edmonds City Council, you are not seriously considering selling Frances Anderson Center, are you? To permanently eliminate a well -loved, well used community center does not serve the majority of Edmonds residents! Selling off assets is not a sustainable solution to budget shortfalls. The Frances Anderson Center and the Public Library are community assets that serve people of various demographics, and once gone, they would not be replaced. Please, think of what our beloved city would look like in 10, 20 or 50 years. Do we really want a city of progressively more expensive mini -mansions and no public spaces for our residents? Sincerely, Christine Johnson Edmonds resident for 39 years Online Form 2025-04-02 10:34 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/3/2025 1:34:17 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Nina LastName Shoop Email CityOfResidence Shoreline AgendaTopic Please DO NOT sell FAC and Hummingbird Park Comments I have exercised at FAC and enjoyed the park. We need more places to exercise and be mindful of care of the earth and our bodies and places to gather as a community, NOT LESS. Be more creative!! Do not sell to developers. Find other ways to create revenue!! Thank you so very much!! Nina Shoop Online Form 2025-04-06 03:22 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/6/2025 6:22:03 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Elizabeth LastName Greimes Email Packet Pg. 9 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 CityOfResidence Lynnwood AgendaTopic Sale of public parks Comments Whom It May Concern: I am not an Edmonds City resident. I have been a neighbor of Edmonds for most of my life, though, and I've always admired Edmonds for appearing to put livability for its citizenry first, before profit. However, having seen the postings regarding the potential sales of Hummingbird Hill Park and the Francis Anderson Center, I wonder if that has changed. I am a citizen of Lynnwood, and I would hate to see Edmonds go in the direction that Lynnwood has gone. Livability has decreased drastically over my lifetime. I don't believe I have ever heard a worse idea than to sell off city parks in order to make up a budget shortfall. I imagine that this idea was put forth by developers. Edmonds land is at a premium, and one housing development can make millions of dollars. The property taxes from those homes would not be a small amount either However, selling off parks, which are a legacy and an investment in livability, preservation of species and mental health, is an extremely poor solution. Past generations recognized the value of these spaces and the necessity to preserve them against exploitation for money. They were not put in place to be your rainy day fund. They were put in place to preserve something unique and special for the citizenry. Countless studies show the value of spending time in nature, even a city park. Stress reduction, enhanced cognitive functioning, connection to nature, a place to walk your dog and a safe place to take your children to play. I have included a link to one such study, but if you care to research on your own, there are many other studies proving the value of neighborhood parks. In addition to all of the above, haven't we done enough to marginalize and neglect our stewardship of other species? Razing city parks because you want money, is -forgive me for being blunt- greedy, short-sighted and irresponsible. If appealing on the basis of concern for your citizenry and / or other species is not sufficient, perhaps you might think of yourselves. Developers may love you if you make this choice, but re-election will become more difficult. People in Edmonds tend to be educated, and I'm sure they will perform their due diligence come election time. Do each of you want to be the one who voted against the parks and for more development, for which the citizenry will not thank you? You don't have to listen to me. I don't have voting power in your city, but I implore you, please do not become another Lynnwood. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/04/nurtured- nature#:—:text= Fro m%20a%20stroll%20through %20a,understanding%20of%20its%20potentia1%2 Obenefits. Thank you for your time in reading this email and, perhaps, giving it some consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Elizabeth Greimes Online Form 2025-04-07 12:44 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/7/2025 3:44:20 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Gayla LastName Shoemake Email m E E 0 U 3 a a� Packet Pg. 10 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Saving own growth trees like Big Red Comments Many thanks to all council members who really listened to the huge loss to our community with the cutting down of Big Red last Monday. It was heartening to see all those people who came out on Monday morning at 7:00 am to protect that tree, even though there was no information about it until late Friday for the quietly scheduled Monday cutting. It was with great sadness that we watched the destruction of that amazing tree. But there was hope that Big Red was not killed in vain, but could become a martyr to save other historic trees around Edmonds. As with the parks, once they are gone, these trees can never be replaced. Thank you so much for bringing such a document to the meeting tomorrow. Please pass this interim ordinance to immediately protect our heritage trees until a more complete ordinance can be prepared. Thank you for all you do; I know your jobs are often thankless. I do understand how what a fine line you walk, and I am E grateful that you accepted the challenge that is your job. Gayla v 2 3 a Online Form 2025-04-08 08:24 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/8/2025 11:24:51 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName joy LastName okazaki Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Frances Anderson Center and Hummingbird Park Comments Getting rid of both of these wonderful City assets would be to the detriment of the community. Please find other ways to recover from the budget deficit. With all of the building that is happening around the city and the increase in tourists, it seems that the City should be able to find a way to afford to keep both. Maybe we need to charge for parking? Maybe additional speeding cameras? It seems the City has prioritized speed humps on OVD and curb bulbs on Main Street over improvements that could generate revenue or sustaining existing assets. Online Form 2025-04-09 02:14 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/9/2025 5:14:55 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Lynne LastName Greenup Email Packet Pg. 11 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Tree code to protect our tree canopy Comments The tree code to protect our tree canopy in Edmonds has been postponed for way too long, hence the loss of a healthy 102 year old coastal redwood, last week. This never should have happened and it's up to the Mayor and Edmonds Council to follow through with writing and enforcing a tree code for Edmonds to prevent further removal of our large, healthy conifers, that provide cleaner air, wildlife protection and habitat, cooling shade in an increasingly warm climate. It's not enough to replace these trees, which seldom happens, but to prevent the removal of them. Don't let the developers keep clearing the land where these trees grow but to work around them. It will take decades to replace these trees. Please! Online Form 2025-04-09 09:14 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/10/2025 12:14:50 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Gwen LastName Baugh Email CityOfResidence Bothell AgendaTopic Temporary Tree Ordinance Comments Thank you for proposing this pause to protect our majestic old trees in Edmonds. They need to be saved! I looked up the difference between the terms "Landmark" trees and "Heritage" trees. It seems like the designation of Heritage trees is a more appropriate term. Here is what I found. The difference between landmark trees and heritage trees is as follows: Heritage trees are recognized by the City Council for their unique size, age, historical, or horticultural significance. They are designated with a plaque and listed in the Heritage Tree database. Landmark trees are established and familiar features of the community, significant to its heritage, or planted to commemorate special events or community leaders more than fifty years ago. Online Form 2025-04-09 11:35 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/10/2025 2:35:27 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Melissa LastName Lucas Email Packet Pg. 12 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Frances Anderson Center and Hummingbird Park Comments Please do NOT sell the Frances Anderson Center or Hummingbird Park. Right now these are places of vibrant community gatherings, classes, kids' spaces, and events. It is centrally located in Edmonds and USED by the community. Developers usually promise all kinds of benefits for communities like ours and then, when they acquire the property, they do whatever they want. This is a community that values the intangibles - being together, working together, learning together, creating together. All of this is possible at these two properties. Handing them over to people who do not understand or value or benefit from those intangibles themselves is a very big mistake. We do NOT want to look like Ballard in 10 years. We do NOT want to look like Kirkland. We want to look like Edmonds. A town consisting of small neighborhoods where people know, help, and care about their neighbors, steward Puget Sound responsibly, respect wildlife and nature, and thrive on learning, teaching, communicating, interacting, creating, and enjoying life together. I know I've put this in idealized words, and that the reality is not the ideal. But selling off the Center and the Park will force this community to turn away from this ideal and instead move us into a future where the things we value most are the first things we sell off. Please do NOT sell these properties. Thank you. Online Form 2025-04-10 09:25 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/10/2025 12:25:11 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Julia LastName Hagen Email CityOfResidence Edmonds, WA AgendaTopic Support for Interim Tree Protection Ordinance Comments Dear Edmonds City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong support for the interim ordinance proposed by Councilmember Paine that would prohibit cutting trees over 30 inches in diameter for one year while the city develops a comprehensive long-term tree code. Our landmark trees are irreplaceable treasures that benefit our entire community. These trees: - Reduce air pollution and produce oxygen - Provide critical habitat for wildlife - Help manage stormwater runoff and prevent erosion - Increase property values - Create a sense of place and community identity - Offer natural cooling and shade, reducing energy costs - Contribute to the mental health and well-being of residents Once these landmark trees are gone, it will take centuries to replace them. The proposed one-year pause is a reasonable, measured approach that allows the city time to thoughtfully develop regulations that balance property rights with the community's interest in preserving our natural heritage. I urge you to vote in favor of this interim ordinance at your April 21 st meeting. This is not about restricting property rights unnecessarily, but about taking a brief pause to ensure we don't lose irreplaceable natural assets while developing a balanced, long- Packet Pg. 13 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 term solution. Thank you for your consideration and your service to our community. Sincerely, Julia Hagen Online Form 2025-04-10 09:47 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/10/2025 12:47:57 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Mickie LastName Gundersen Email CityOfResidence South Snohomish County UGA AgendaTopic Saving trees Comments Dear Edmonds City Council, It this world of fast destruction of our natural lands, it is in your power to do something about this. You have the power to save your part of our earth for future generations. I can list all the good trees do, but you already know that. Please don't give in to those who aren't educated about the environment or those who just want more space to develop and are only interested in making a profit off our lands. Please save trees and take care of our streams and salmon, which means saving Orcas. Please vote to save trees with the certain diameter trunk. Thank you, Mickie Gundersen 1126 Lawton Road, Alderwood Manor, WA98036- 7122 Online Form 2025-04-10 10:32 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/10/2025 1:32:44 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Nancy LastName Johnson Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Saving heritage trees Comments Thank you to Susan Paine for putting forth an interim ordinance that would prohibit for one year the cutting of trees over 30 inches diameter at breast height. I live near Yost Park and the in the past 18 months have seen many beautiful, healthy trees cut down. With a little better planning, many could still be storing carbon, absorbing air pollution and cooling our city in the summer. Anything you can do to put the brakes on tree destruction is much appreciated! Thank you Packet Pg. 14 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments — April 21, 2025 Online Form 2025-04-10 11:36 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/10/2025 2:36:56 PM (GMT 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Suzanne LastName Cunliffe Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic SAVE OUR TREES Comments I am sure you understand everything that is at stake when we negatively impact the tree canopy. Just today NPR sent out a climate change instrument from the USDA that shows how temperature has risen over the years. We are now in a 9a zone, when in 2012 we were in a 8b zone. Using air conditioning is not the answer. Protecting and maintaining our canopy is part of the answer, the one we have the most control over. Leave a legacy in your name to do good. Use compassion to peer into the future and see what we will have if we continue to sell out to financial interests that have no ability to see beyond their bottom line. Online Form 2025-04-11 06:44 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/11/2025 9:44:42 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Patrick LastName Gaffney Email pmgaffney@gmail.com CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic fate of Anderson Center Comments We use the Anderson Center on a regular basis and consider it a valuable asset to the community. Converting it to private development would be a big loss (except perhaps for the developers). I hope there are better ways of dealing with a budget shortfall. Online Form 2025-04-13 04:25 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/13/2025 7:25:12 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Pam LastName Tauer Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Interim Landmark Tree Ordinance Comments City Council Members, On your watch, Edmonds' iconic coastal redwood —Big Red —was felled. This tragic loss could have been prevented had a landmark tree ordinance been in Packet Pg. 15 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 place. When I arrived in Edmonds 41/2 years ago, Big Red greeted me. I noticed her immediately. Despite the region's history of heavy logging, many majestic trees still stand as silent witnesses to our city's story. Coming from Richmond, Virginia, I felt I had found "my people" here. Regardless of political beliefs, Edmonds residents share a deep appreciation for the natural beauty that surrounds us. I still believe that is true. Ordinances exist to protect what we value most. Let us not allow Big Red's demise to be in vain. I urge each of you to stand up for Edmonds —to protect what makes this place special. Trees are not just scenic; they are essential to our health and well-being. As extreme weather becomes more frequent, our urban tree canopy is more critical than ever. Trees are powerful carbon sinks and provide vital shade, cooling, and habitat. Please take action. Support the adoption of a landmark tree ordinance. Let Big Red's legacy be one of change and protection for the trees that remain. Sincerely, Pam Tauer Online Form 2025-04-14 11:00 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/14/2025 2:00:44 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Pam LastName Brisse Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Do Not Sell OUR Parks Comments I understand a few of our city council members and the mayor are considering, and in talks with developers about, selling OUR parks. This is obscene on its face, but also very short- sighted of you. It makes me wonder how much you might personally stand to gain by facilitating these deals with developer friends. I know I am not the only person wondering this. Our parks are one of the things that make this city enjoyable and healthy. Every day I walk my dog to at least two parks and sometimes up to five. No park is too small to be enjoyable. Some, like Seaview, is always busy with children's activities on the playground or in the play fields. Last night a family was having a cookout and sometimes there's informal soccer games. The tennis and pickleball courts are almost always in use. But the small parks, and less busy parks are just as important for wildlife watching, getting away from it all just steps from home. Even the pass -through paths like Rhody Lane make a walk special and enjoyable. Hummingbird Park in particular has a special place in my family's heart because it was a favorite walkable destination when my son attended summer camps at Frances Anderson Center. Do not sell it! Find new revenue sources but do not sell our parks. It may give you short-term budget relief now but will leave our city poorer in every other way. Listen to the residents. Packet Pg. 16 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 Online Form 2025-04-14 02:16 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/14/2025 5:16:20 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Linda LastName Crowe Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Anderson Center/Hummingbird Park Comments We DO NOT support the sale of our coveted Anderson Center or the precious Hummingbird Park. We are long time residents who vote in all elections and do not believe this action being considered is appropriate. Online Form 2025-04-14 04:02 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/14/2025 7:02:27 PM (GMT 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Nadine LastName Shanti Email CityOfResidence Snohomish AgendaTopic protecting our mature trees in cities and forests Comments I am a seventy year old who has been concerned for a lifetime about the well-being of our planet because of our unconcern about protecting our forests. When I was in high school and we had discussions in our classes about the health of the South American Rain Forest, it was terrifying, yes, I mean terrifying, that we were decimating those forests for the sake of making money at the expense of the planet. And I am actually quite angry that those discussions are still going on and the decimation continues. At least now in addition to attempts to protect mature growth forests, citizens are becoming aware that large trees in our towns and cities go a long way to improving the health and the sustainability of our communities. Although I don't live in Edmonds, I ask you to please take into consideration the life of mature trees in your city and make that consideration a part of your growth plan. We will all benefit if our communities make the environment a major consideration in the coming years. Lets stop the DISCUSSION and start CONTINUED ACTION. Nadine Shanti Online Form 2025-04-15 12:02 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/15/2025 3:02:17 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Nancy LastName Johnson Packet Pg. 17 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —April 21, 2025 Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Saving heritage trees Comments Hello Councilmembers, I was heartsick to see "Big Red" come down. Taking down one heirloom tree like that changes the character of a neighborhood, removes the important carbon sequestration services performed by older trees as well as soil stabilization, bird habitat, area cooling and much more. Thanks to Susan Paine, Council President Pro Tem, for offering the Interim Landmark Tree Protection Ordinance. It is my hope that councilmembers will unanimously endorse this ordinance and that it will be extended until a permanent tree code - including protections for heirloom trees - is adopted. Thank you for protecting our environment! Online Form 2025-04-15 12:06 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 4/15/2025 3:06:09 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Ann LastName Christiansen Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Interim Tree Ordinance for Heritage Trees Comments Thank you all for considering this ordinance. My hope is that is all of you will unanimously endorse this ordinance. It is not overly restrictive and mirrors the tree protections of other surrounding communities. We cannot replace these huge, carbon eating, shade producing trees with the smaller caliper trees sometimes required in the city's planning documents. These trees are natural assets - let's not lose them! Remember the environment affects everyone in Edmonds all the time. Packet Pg. 18 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes April 8, 2025 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Recommendation Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 2025-04-08 Council Minutes Draft Packet Pg. 19 8.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING ACTION MINUTES April 8, 2025 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Council President Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE Emily Wagener, Sr. HR Analyst Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Angela Tinker, City Attorney Phil Williams, Interim PW Director Jeannie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Rob English, City Engineer Rod Sniffen, Acting Police Chief Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Nand read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. 2024 PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT Aaron Walls of the Walls Law Firm provided the annual report, which included the following highlights: • The total number of cases in 2024 was 2,703 and break down into the following categories: 1) Traffic Infractions; 2) Non -Traffic Infractions; 3) DUI / Physical Control; 4) Other Criminal Traffic; 5) Criminal Non -Traffic. • Case Backlog - the accumulation of unfiled cases is an area of concern. Walls has Edmonds City Council Minutes April 8, 2025 Page 1 Packet Pg. 20 8.1.a addressed the backlog by executing a specific agreement with the City aimed at eliminating it. • Community Court - in collaboration with the public defender's office, community court has been reorganized and structured to focus on individual situations and needs. • Court Resource Day provides opportunities to connect with service providers. Questions and discussion followed regarding the ways in which cases are initiated, the case backlog, high theft and trespass cases, domestic violence, and community court progress. 2. MAYOR'S FINANCIAL REPORT Mayor Rosen commented on issues impacting city finances. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, urged the city to preserve the natural environment and revisit the interim ordinance to protect landmark trees in Edmonds. 2. Georgina Armstrong, Edmonds, Hummingbird Hill, urged the city to protect the institutions and environmental characteristics we value most, such as parks and trees. 3. Jordan - commented that the police must be allowed to enforce the law when constitutionally protected events such as protests devolve into disorderly conduct. 4. Dorian - put the city on notice of potential legal liability because the Edmonds police did not protect her from an aggressive mob at a recent protest. 5. Gayla Shoemake, Edmonds, spoke in support of a temporary ordinance to preserve old growth trees in Edmonds. 6. Ann Christiansen, Edmonds, urged the city to adopt the interim ordinance to preserve landmark trees. 7. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, commented in favor of the interim tree ordinance and that the community is eager to help do the research to get it right. 8. Janell Cass, Edmonds, encouraged thoughtful policy decisions on tree preservation, noting that homeowners are not the enemy but allies for preserving tree canopy. 9. Susan, Seattle, shared that preserving trees is not only good for the ecosystem but our responsibility as stewards of the environment. 10. Kim Butler was encouraged by the draft interim ordinance to protect landmark trees, noting that incentive programs will not work. 11. Lora Hein urged the city to adopt equitable policies to preserve trees in Edmonds to improve health and wellness for all areas and income levels. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 8, 2025 Page 2 Packet Pg. 21 12. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said the Boardwalk permit application for tree removal was flawed and poorly executed by the city. 13. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, urged the city to do a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan and Tree Code to develop one consistent policy on tree preservation. 14. Nick, Edmonds, expressed concern that private property rights are threatened by the tree ordinance, and he will be auditing the police on constitutional rights. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 21, 2025 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 27, 2025 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 28, 2025 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 31, 2025 5. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE A MINUTES APRIL 1, 2025 6. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 1, 2025 7. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS. 8. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS. 9. SUMMER MARKET, EDMONDS SPRINGFEST, EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL SPECIAL EVENT AGREEMENTS 10. BUILDING CONTROLS - SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH ATS AUTOMATION 11. PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING - CHILLER PLANT SERVICE & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT CONTINUATION 12. AWC ENERGY AUDIT GRANT AWARD 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. TITLE 18 CODE UPDATES FOR UTILITIES ON ROW Phil Williams, Acting Public Works Director, Rob English, City Engineer, Jeannie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, and City Attorney Tinker provided an overview of the issues related to the City's right-of-way (ROW) relating to franchises. They outlined the types of users, the status of their respective franchise agreements, and provided examples of the problems the city is experiencing in the city ROW. While the primary purpose of city right of way is travel, a secondary use is placement of utilities. When users do not comply with the conditions of city - issued ROW permits or do not work in compliance with city policies, it creates clutter, requires extra staff time, increases city incurred costs, and frustrates city efforts to provide a reasonably safe right-of-way for the traveling public. Recent windstorms and fires have illustrated how undergrounding of overhead utilities aids public safety and is in the public interest. The city may desire an ability to implement undergrounding cost-effectively and with utilities paying their fair share to the extent authorized under law. Next steps include working on updates to Edmonds Community Development Code Title 18 to clarify and further establish rules and regulations to effectively manage the ROW in the public interest. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 8, 2025 Page 3 Packet Pg. 22 8.1.a Questions and comments focused on the following points: • Franchise renewal provides opportunity to negotiate for best price and recovery of administrative costs. • A code update would contemplate significant fines for non-compliance • Franchise terms • Process and timeline for the review of draft code changes • Problems related to ADA requirements, pole removal, sidewalk repair/maintenance, and lapsed agreements. • The staff time and risk -reward of embarking on such a significant code project 2. EPD CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS Acting Chief Sniffen provided information on the city's three camera enforcement programs: 1) School Zone Speed Enforcement; 2) Red -Light Cameras; and 3) Flock Camera System. School Zone includes five enforcement systems operating in four school zones, and fines were increased to $145 earlier this year. He provided program data and ticket issuance rates, as well as the Process Flow which tracks violations with an event captured on camera to issuance of a citation mailed to the registered owner. Red -Light includes five camera systems installed at two intersections. Cameras record events 24/7 with fine set at $145. Flock Cameras are scheduled to be deployed using existing infrastructure in select points around the city. The Flock system is a grant -funded license plate reader technology aimed at collecting information on vehicles used in the commission of a crime. Questions and comments focused on the following areas: • Concerns about data sharing with other agencies to surveil undocumented immigrants • Data security • Cameras as a force to change driver behavior • Number of citations, collections, revenue tracking and reporting • Challenges caused by the high number of Red -Light camera violations • Costs and overall financial picture of the camera enforcement program • Ability to expand Red -Light cameras to more problem locations • Staff resources to review/process Red -Light violations 3. DRAFT INTERIM ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY Councilmember Paine explained that the interim ordinance will preserve large trees on private property, which provide canopy cover, wildlife habitat, and support the Climate Action Plan's tree canopy goals. The timing of this ordinance will allow the preservation of big trees to be incorporated into the building code updates, allowing for flexibility in building placement which would allow for the preservation of Landmark trees. The interim ordinance would also provide exemptions for trees which have already been vested through the permitting process, hazard Edmonds City Council Minutes April 8, 2025 Page 4 Packet Pg. 23 8.1.a trees, and nuisance trees. She summarized the ordinance as a 1-year prohibition on the removal of a tree with a 30-inch diameter at breast height. This will allow the city to implement the required Work Plan to develop permanent regulations. MEETING EXTENSION AT 8:55 PM, COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 9:45 PM. MOTION CARRIED 6-1 WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT DISSENTING. Councilmembers discussed the merits of the ordinance, next steps, and whether the work should be done separately or in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO PLACE THE INTERIM TREE ORDINANCE ON THE APRIL 21 CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND BY PLACING THE INTERIM ORDINANCE ON THE APRIL 21 COUNCIL BUSINESS AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED 6-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH DISSENTING. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers commented on various issues. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen provided comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 pm. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 8, 2025 Page 5 Packet Pg. 24 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Approval of Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 2025 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Recommendation Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 2025-04-15 Council Committee W Minutes Draft Packet Pg. 25 8.2.a COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING April 15, 2025 Elected Officials Present Council President Tibbott (Chair) Councilmember Dotsch Councilmember Paine Councilmember Chen Councilmember Eck Councilmember Olson CALL TO ORDER Staff Present Angie Feser, PRHS Director Rob English, City Engineer Betrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Phil Williams, Interim PW Director Richard Gould, Finance Director Shane Hope, Interim Planning & Dev. Dir. Mike Clugston, Planning Manager RaeAnn Duarte, HR Manager Rod Sniffen, Acting Police Chief Megan Luttrell, CCED Program Coordinator Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council Committee of the Whole meeting was called to order virtually and in the City Council Conference Room, 121 — 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, at 6:00 pm by Council President Tibbott. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Day Camp Positions Authorization PRHS Director Angie Feser briefed the Committee on the proposal to authorize the hiring of temporary staff to implement the 2025 Summer Day Camp program and received committee questions and feedback. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda 2. Supplemental Agreement with SCJ for Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss and City Engineer Rob English briefed the committee on Stage 3 of the Hwy 99 Revitalization and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included ADA features and compliance, funding/cost increases, sidewalks and Complete Streets requirements, public outreach, property acquisition and impacts to adjacent property owners, and placemaking. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda 3. Update on 88th Ave Overlay and Sidewalk Repair Project City Engineer Rob English briefed the committee on 881h Ave Overlay and Sidewalk Repair Project and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included driveways, budget and scope of work changes, and ADA requirements. Committee recommendation: For information only Packet Pg. 26 8.2.a 4/15/2025 Committee of the Whole Minutes, Page 2 4. 2025 April Budget Amendment Finance Director Richard Gould briefed the committee on the 2025 April Budget Amendments and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included fund balance, fund transfers and carry forwards, General Fund vs other funds, and red-light camera revenues. Committee recommendation: Full Council 5. Update on STEP Housing Permanent Code Language Interim Planning & Development Services Director Shane Hope and Planning Manager Mike Clugston briefed the committee on the proposed code update for STEP Housing and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included criminal behavior language and code formatting. Committee recommendation: For information only 6. Update on Neighborhood Centers and Hubs Permanent Code Work Interim Planning and Development Services Director Shane Hope and Planning Manager Mike Clugston updated the committee on the Neighborhood Centers and Hubs Permanent Code Work and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included height limits, minimum density on Hwy 99, tree retention, commercial zones, middle housing and single-family, and design standards. Committee recommendation: For information only 7. Update on Middle Housing Code Work Interim Planning and Development Services Director Shane Hope and Planning Manager Mike Clugston updated the committee on the Middle Housing Code Work and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included density limits and regulations, housing types, and public process. Committee recommendation: For information only 8. Planning Department Positions Reclassification Interim Planning and Development Services Director Shane Hope and HR Manager RaeAnn Duarte briefed the committee on the recommendation to reclassify one Planner to Associate Planner and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included budget impacts and classification implications. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda MEETING EXTENSION AT 8:58 PM, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 9:30 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Priorities for 2025 Comarehensive Plan Amendment Ideas Packet Pg. 27 8.2.a 4/15/2025 Committee of the Whole Minutes, Page 3 Council President Tibbott briefed the committee on the process to docket remaining Comprehensive Plan amendments for further consideration and received committee questions and feedback. Areas of interest included docketing process, timeline, public process and expectations, and transparency. MEETING EXTENSION AT 9:25 PM, COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 9:40 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Committee recommendation: Full Council 10. Resolution Recognizing Earth Day 2025 Councilmember Olson requested changes to the wording of the proposed resolution. Committee recommendation: Consent Agenda ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 pm. Packet Pg. 28 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Staff Lead: Richard Gould Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #266841 through #266953 dated April 9, 2025 for $527,966.26, claim checks #266954 through #267022 dated April 16, 2025 for $754,438.54 and wire payment of $14,302.94. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Narrative The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public meeting. Attachments: Claim cks 04-09-25 Agenda copy Claim cks 04-16-25 Agenda copy Packet Pg. 29 8.3.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 4/9/2025 10:33:53AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 266841 4/9/2025 4,163.59 079758 A NATURAL DESIGN STUDIO LLC 266842 4/9/2025 24.00 078347 ACTIVE INTEREST MEDIA HOLDCO 266843 4/9/2025 1,800.75 078469 AGUIRRE, RAUL 266844 4/9/2025 260.00 079537 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC 266845 4/9/2025 24,723.75 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 266846 4/9/2025 103.88 078237 ARIAS, ADRIAN 266847 4/9/2025 130.00 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 266848 4/9/2025 2,380.66 075629 AV CAPTURE ALL INC 266849 4/9/2025 3,315.00 076685 BAILEY, MICHAEL E 266850 4/9/2025 135.00 079841 BAKER, DOMINIK 266851 4/9/2025 500.00 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 266852 4/9/2025 162.12 071421 BIO CLEAN INC 266853 4/9/2025 497.25 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 266854 4/9/2025 912.21 079788 BRADLEY LANGUAGE SERVICES 266855 4/9/2025 130.00 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 266856 4/9/2025 46.35 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 266857 4/9/2025 66.00 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 266858 4/9/2025 114.03 079843 CAR TECH AUTO GLASS INC 266859 4/9/2025 460.21 064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DISTRIBUTION 266860 4/9/2025 985.12 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 266861 4/9/2025 5,244.87 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 266862 4/9/2025 440.30 011210 CIMCO-GC SYSTEMS LLC 266863 4/9/2025 2,975.18 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 266864 4/9/2025 910.80 079831 CLARK, ALLEN L 266865 4/9/2025 45.50 064369 CODE PUBLISHING LLC 266866 4/9/2025 363.55 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 266867 4/9/2025 168.42 079824 CPS HR CONSULTING 266868 4/9/2025 17,000.00 005965 CUES INC 266869 4/9/2025 2,583.79 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 266870 4/9/2025 200.00 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 266871 4/9/2025 459.33 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 266872 4/9/2025 285.00 064640 DMCMA 266873 4/9/2025 200.00 079749 E TYPIST INC 266874 4/9/2025 367.65 077425 ECOREMEDY LLC 266875 4/9/2025 19,930.00 077425 ECOREMEDY LLC 266876 4/9/2025 19,930.00 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 266877 4/9/2025 14,975.00 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 266878 4/9/2025 284.62 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 266879 4/9/2025 130.00 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 266880 4/9/2025 407.82 078919 EMERALD CITY FLOORBALL 266881 4/9/2025 1,334.45 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 266882 4/9/2025 67.08 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 266883 4/9/2025 9,714.51 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 266884 4/9/2025 2,334.60 012199 GRAINGER 266885 4/9/2025 951.07 012560 HACH COMPANY 266886 4/9/2025 295.86 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 266887 4/9/2025 257.85 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 266888 4/9/2025 6,000.00 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 266889 4/9/2025 3,610.03 078923 HKA GLOBAL INC 266890 4/9/2025 6,075.00 076240 HM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC 266891 4/9/2025 221.47 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 266892 4/9/2025 2,305.52 061013 HONEY BUCKET 266893 4/9/2025 290.95 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 30 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 4/9/2025 10:33:53AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 266894 4/9/2025 2,766.67 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 266895 4/9/2025 600.00 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 266896 4/9/2025 2,560.00 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC 266897 4/9/2025 4,440.51 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 266898 4/9/2025 152.40 079573 JUVVAL TECH LLC 266899 4/9/2025 200.00 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER 266900 4/9/2025 1,381.25 079830 KULKAMI, SIDDHANT 266901 4/9/2025 500.00 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 266902 4/9/2025 182.52 079769 LAW OFFICE SAM SOMMERMAN PLLC 266903 4/9/2025 7,370.00 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 266904 4/9/2025 893.10 079732 LIZ LOOMIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS 266905 4/9/2025 8,000.00 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 266906 4/9/2025 3,062.95 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 266907 4/9/2025 6,627.04 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 266908 4/9/2025 358.61 024302 NELSON-REISNER 266909 4/9/2025 50.55 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 266910 4/9/2025 123.87 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 266911 4/9/2025 187.11 079842 OPTICOS DESIGN INC 266912 4/9/2025 6,623.00 074793 PETDATA INC 266913 4/9/2025 311.60 078800 POPA & ASSOCIATES 266914 4/9/2025 600.00 079020 PRECISION LANGUAGE SERVICES 266915 4/9/2025 130.00 079646 PROCOM LLC 266916 4/9/2025 216.00 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 266917 4/9/2025 935.00 070789 QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES INC 266918 4/9/2025 790.35 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 266919 4/9/2025 500.00 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 266920 4/9/2025 3,479.83 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 266921 4/9/2025 368.03 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 266922 4/9/2025 215.48 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 266923 4/9/2025 112.51 079829 SIMKINS, STUART 266924 4/9/2025 500.00 036955 SKY NURSERY 266925 4/9/2025 1,310.90 075590 SMARSH INC 266926 4/9/2025 128.46 078782 SMITH FIRE SYSTEMS INC 266927 4/9/2025 948.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 266928 4/9/2025 23,400.67 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 266929 4/9/2025 90,115.86 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 266930 4/9/2025 5,166.07 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 266931 4/9/2025 308.34 079704 SPECTRUM ENTERPRISES 266932 4/9/2025 130.00 078874 STRAIGHT, COURTNEY LEA 266933 4/9/2025 132.00 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 266934 4/9/2025 135.60 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 266935 4/9/2025 2,509.05 079840 TEMPLE BETH OR 266936 4/9/2025 850.00 079359 THE WALLS LAW FIRM INC 266937 4/9/2025 25,000.00 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION 266938 4/9/2025 2,744.44 072800 TOYOTA MATERIAL HANDLING NW 266939 4/9/2025 508.41 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 266940 4/9/2025 348.00 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 266941 4/9/2025 408.53 069751 VESTIS 266942 4/9/2025 129.14 069751 VESTIS 266943 4/9/2025 330.51 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 266944 4/9/2025 201.00 078314 WASTE MGMT DISPOSAL SVC OF OR 266945 4/9/2025 140,694.49 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 266946 4/9/2025 6,231.85 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 266947 4/9/2025 1,278.08 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 31 apPosPay 4/9/2025 10:33:53AM Positive Pay Listing City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name 071467 WEST COAST PET MEMORIAL 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 078889 ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS INC 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC Check # Check Date Amount 266948 4/9/2025 45.68 266949 4/9/2025 175.96 266950 4/9/2025 994.50 266951 4/9/2025 26.46 266952 4/9/2025 6,694.10 266953 4/9/2025 1,511.64 GrandTotal: 527,966.26 Total count: 113 c d E 0_ a� L �3 c ca U 0 0 E M U 4- 0 0 L Q Q Q Q. 0 U CU C d Q LO N O O O N Y U U c d E t U Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 32 8.3.b apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 4/16/2025 1:18:05PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 025217 ARG INDUSTRIAL 266954 4/16/2025 324.82 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 266955 4/16/2025 1,749.47 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 266956 4/16/2025 421.25 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 266957 4/16/2025 112.09 079747 BLUE COAST ENGINEERING LLC 266958 4/16/2025 15,972.10 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 266959 4/16/2025 1,177.80 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 266960 4/16/2025 238.50 067570 C A CAREY CORPORATION 266961 4/16/2025 542,739.30 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 266962 4/16/2025 292.50 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 266963 4/16/2025 4,327.23 073249 CG ENGINEERING, PLLC 266964 4/16/2025 2,642.50 079781 CHUUKESE NATIVE LANGUAGE SOL 266965 4/16/2025 110.00 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS LLC 266966 4/16/2025 661.59 072746 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC 266967 4/16/2025 3,184.25 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 266968 4/16/2025 47,210.25 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 266969 4/16/2025 3,316.67 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 266970 4/16/2025 626.50 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 266971 4/16/2025 48.16 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 266972 4/16/2025 292.83 012199 GRAINGER 266973 4/16/2025 154.20 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 266974 4/16/2025 72.31 079800 GUPTA, PREMCHAND 266975 4/16/2025 130.00 012560 HACH COMPANY 266976 4/16/2025 1,270.72 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 266977 4/16/2025 31,780.54 061013 HONEY BUCKET 266978 4/16/2025 2,593.15 076614 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNO CO 266979 4/16/2025 6,305.00 072422 JE HORTON INTERPRETING SVCS 266980 4/16/2025 130.00 067568 KPG PSOMAS INC 266981 4/16/2025 15,107.75 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 266982 4/16/2025 1,675.00 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 266983 4/16/2025 1,355.07 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 266984 4/16/2025 373.87 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 266985 4/16/2025 55.19 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 266986 4/16/2025 804.01 075881 NORRIS, KENNETH W 266987 4/16/2025 510.00 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 266988 4/16/2025 66.36 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 266992 4/16/2025 25.49 079846 OBERSTEIN, BOB 266989 4/16/2025 110.00 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC 266990 4/16/2025 8,427.00 079842 OPTICOS DESIGN INC 266991 4/16/2025 20,494.00 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 266993 4/16/2025 4,705.84 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 266994 4/16/2025 4,567.65 079020 PRECISION LANGUAGE SERVICES 266995 4/16/2025 390.00 077461 PUGET SOUND PLANTS INC 266996 4/16/2025 2,069.12 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 266997 4/16/2025 1,000.00 079607 ROMERO, STACEY F 266998 4/16/2025 130.00 076752 SAFAROVA- DOWNEY, ALM IRA 266999 4/16/2025 130.00 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 267000 4/16/2025 306.63 036041 SETINA MFG CO 267001 4/16/2025 1,432.08 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 267002 4/16/2025 56.30 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 267003 4/16/2025 254.09 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 267004 4/16/2025 6,471.13 037521 SNO CO TREASURER 267005 4/16/2025 121.95 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 267006 4/16/2025 40.00 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 33 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 4/16/2025 1:18:05PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 079704 SPECTRUM ENTERPRISES 267007 4/16/2025 130.00 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE 267008 4/16/2025 1,808.30 079847 TEKLEMARIAM, YOSEPH 267009 4/16/2025 130.00 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 267010 4/16/2025 584.63 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 267011 4/16/2025 2,972.17 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION 267012 4/16/2025 2,159.56 068141 TRANSPO GROUP 267013 4/16/2025 1,717.50 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 267014 4/16/2025 2,400.00 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 267015 4/16/2025 27.65 069751 VESTIS 267016 4/16/2025 184.44 069751 VESTIS 267017 4/16/2025 256.12 079503 WAHI, SANTOSH 267018 4/16/2025 130.00 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 267019 4/16/2025 663.00 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 267020 4/16/2025 2,152.19 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 267021 4/16/2025 394.81 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 267022 4/16/2025 165.91 GrandTotal: 754,438.54 Total count: 69 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 34 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Lori Palmer Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Lori Palmer Background/History Approval of direct deposit for $802,057.08, benefit checks #66211 through #66218 and wire payments of $835,576.03 for the pay period of April 1, 2025 through April 15, 2025. Staff Recommendation Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of payments. Attachments: 04-01-2025 to 04-15-2025 payroll earnings summary 04-01-2025 to 04-15-2025 benefit checks summary Packet Pg. 35 8.4.a Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,178 (04/01/2025 to 04/15/2025) vi Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 216.00 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 61.00 0.00 113 ABSENT Unpaid ADA hours 36.00 0.00 120 SICK SICK LEAVE - L & 1 -216.00 -9,781.34 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 817.75 42,259.30 122 VACATION VACATION 1,051.25 60,218.27 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 221.00 12,931.48 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 141.50 6,865.97 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 214.00 11,982.44 128 HOLIDAY Holiday Bank WWTP 18.00 792.96 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 9.00 479.67 137 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 10.00 1,170.29 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 30.00 2,251.01 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 90.00 5,130.99 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 66.00 4,684.49 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 26.50 1,988.40 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 84.00 5,628.04 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 45.40 3,374.11 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 187.11 12,876.65 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 271.00 22,436.21 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 16,488.75 892,780.09 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 99.00 8,300.05 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 10.00 498.90 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 3,466.13 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 8.00 1,134.98 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 203.00 21,860.50 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 33.75 3,717.56 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 21.08 404 MISCELLANEOUS Medical Opt Out 0.00 300.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 1,328.68 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 2.50 2,877.50 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 20.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 119.25 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 19.00 0.00 04/16/2025 Packet Pg. 36 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,178 (0410112025 to 04/15/2025) v> Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 187.51 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 228.46 anc REGULAR HOURS Ancilary Duty Pay 0.00 279.01 anc2 REGULAR HOURS Ancilary Duty Pay 0.00 1,556.86 anc3 REGULAR HOURS Ancilary Duty Pay 0.00 1,606.84 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 244.78 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 235.40 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 122.39 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 1,351.04 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 993.26 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 686.28 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 11,430.95 evap VACATION Exempt Vacation Premium 9.00 523.13 fd1 REGULAR HOURS Furlouqh Day Non -Represented 219.00 15,256.25 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 88.00 5,450.24 fmly VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 13.00 634.93 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 Assiqnment 0.00 440.68 Ian MISCELLANEOUS LANGUAGE PAY 0.00 750.00 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,160.18 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 1,135.30 Ig12 LONGEVITY Longevity 9% 0.00 3,892.59 Ig13 LONGEVITY Longevity 7% 0.00 1,704.01 Ig14 LONGEVITY Longevity 5% 0.00 1,459.10 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 556.41 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1% 0.00 1,192.91 Iq5 LONGEVITY Longevity 3% 0.00 4,236.53 Iq7 LONGEVITY Longevity 1.5% 0.00 920.97 mels SICK Medical Leave Sick 2.00 112.48 melv VACATION Medical Leave Vacation 18.00 879.14 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 144.75 0.00 pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 47.00 2,946.85 pfmv VACATION Paid Family Medical Vacation 77.25 6,233.22 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 3,553.10 str MISCELLANEOUS PSET Serqeant 0.00 255.80 04/16/2025 Packet Pg. 37 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,178 (04/01/2025 to 04/15/2025) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours tac MISCELLANEOUS to MISCELLANEOUS traf MISCELLANEOUS TAC Officer Traininq Officer Traffic Officer - Car 0.00 0.00 0.00 21, 049.26 Total Net Pay: Amount 225.72 214.96 462.12 $1,194, 693.81 $802,057.08 8.4.a rr m d _ 0 0 a 0 04/16/2025 Packet Pg. 38 8.4.b Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,178 - 04/01/2025 to 04/15/2025 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 66211 04/18/2025 bpas BPAS 12,588.77 0.00 66212 04/18/2025 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 7,245.00 0.00 66213 04/18/2025 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 1,354.50 0.00 66214 04/18/2025 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 5,957.51 0.00 66215 04/18/2025 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 4,897.20 0.00 66216 04/18/2025 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 7,512.00 0.00 66217 04/18/2025 teamcom TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 615.00 0.00 66218 04/18/2025 tx TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT SDU 166.50 0.00 40,336.48 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3822 04/18/2025 awc AWC 443,889.70 0.00 3828 04/18/2025 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 143,953.75 0.00 3830 04/18/2025 us US BANK 156,113.15 0.00 3831 04/18/2025 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 7,967.26 0.00 3832 04/18/2025 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 42,250.69 0.00 3834 04/18/2025 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,065.00 0.00 795,239.55 0.00 Grand Totals: 835,576.03 0.00 4/16/2025 Packet Pg. 39 8.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Resolution Recognizing Earth Day 2025 Staff Lead: Councilmember Susan Paine Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History This resolution is brought forward to recognize the important benefits of using our local transit systems. Recommendation Receive a resolution and approve on consent agenda a resolution recognizing April 22, 2025 as Earth Day. Narrative This year marks the 55th anniversary of the first Earth Day. This year's theme is "Our Power, Our Planet". Resources for Earth Month activities can be found here: Edmonds Parks Activities - Earth Dav in the Park and Watershed Fun Fair <https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/parks and recreation/programs classes and camps/discovery programs/annual public events> Earth Day with the Edmonds Stewards - Day of service in Edmonds <https://www.soundsalmonsolutions.org/events/2025/4/19/earth-day-edmonds> Earth Month Activities - The Nature Conservancy <https://www.nature.org/en-us/get- involved/how-to-help/earth-day/?fa=opentothepublic,limitedaccess,closedtothepublic> Attachments: 4.9.2025 RESOLUTION Recognizing Edmonds' Earth Day Packet Pg. 40 8.5.a RESOLUTION NO: A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZING APRIL 22, 2025 AS EDMONDS' EARTH DAY WHEREAS, Earth Day is a time to reflect upon the health of our planet and acknowledge the responsibility we all share in preserving and protecting the environment for current and future generations; and WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is a part of the global community, and we are facing a climate crisis, along with environmental emergencies and challenges; and WHEREAS the theme for Earth Day 2025 is "Our Power, Our Planet", which is an unwavering commitment to call for sustainable use of our limited resources for the sake of human and planetary health as well as reducing the use of our unsustainable power sources; and WHEREAS, humanity possesses immense power through collective action, innovation, and compassion to heal and sustain the Earth, ensuring that our ecosystems, communities, and resources are preserved for future generations; and WHEREAS, the urgency of addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and the disproportionate impact of these crises on vulnerable populations demands bold and immediate action across all sectors of society; and WHEREAS, to achieve the future Edmonds has envisioned for itself - a community with a high quality of life that is sustainable and equitable for all residents - the city of Edmonds recognizes that reducing the impacts climate change is important and cannot be accomplished without action at every level from national, state, our community, and individuals; and WHEREAS, this year marks the 55th anniversary of the first earth day movement, the city of Edmonds encourages all businesses, institutions, and individuals to celebrate the earth and commit to caring for the planet and its limited resources. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The city of Edmonds declares that we are in a climate emergency, acknowledging that climate change is upon us, and that the measures taken up to this point are not enough to limit the changes brought by this emergency. The city of Edmonds in committed to: 1. Empowering Youth and Future Generations Recognizing that the youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow, we pledge to empower the next generation with the knowledge, tools, and opportunities needed to continue the fight for environmental justice. We will support youth -led movements, educational Packet Pg. 41 8.5.a programs, and initiatives that elevate the voices of young people in shaping the future of our planet. 2. Investing in Green Innovation and Solutions We commit to supporting research, innovation, and the development of new technologies that promote sustainability, reduce environmental impact, and accelerate the transition to a green economy. Investment in clean technologies, sustainable agriculture, and carbon reduction strategies will be a priority for the global community. 3. Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystems Governments, corporations, and individuals will work to protect critical ecosystems, including forests, oceans, wetlands, and grasslands. Efforts will be made to halt biodiversity loss, restore damaged ecosystems, and support conservation efforts, ensuring that the Earth's natural resources are safeguarded for future generations. Be it further resolved that, in the spirit of Earth Day 2025's theme of "Our Power, Our Planet", we will unite our collective power to ensure that we leave a sustainable, thriving planet for future generations. Together, through intentional acts and shared responsibility, we will use the power of innovation, compassion, and regional cooperation to create a more resilient and just world for all. RESOLVED this day of April 2025. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 42 8.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Approval of Supplemental Agreement with SCJ for Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Emiko Rodarte Background/History On October 11, 2022 professional services agreements with SCJ for Highway 99 Stages 3 & 4 were presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to full council. On October 25, 2022 professional services agreements with SCJ for Highway 99 Stages 3 & 4 were presented to City Council. On November 1, 2022 the professional services agreements with SCJ for Highway 99 Stages 3 & 4 were approved by City Council. On March 28, 2023, City Council approved the new active transportation recommendations along Hwy 99 and new capacity recommendations at Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW into the Design phase. On March 19, 2024, a project update was presented to City Council. On June 18, 2024, this supplement was presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and was forwarded to a future City Council Meeting for presentation and approval. On July 23, 2024, Supplemental Agreement #1 was approved by Council. On April 15,2025, this supplement was presented to the Committee of the Whole and was forwarded to the consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve supplemental agreement. Narrative The goal of the Highway 99 Revitalization project is to extend the successful transformation of Highway 99 in Shoreline through Edmonds from 244th St. SW to 210th St. SW. Due to the high cost of completing all the other proposed improvements along the corridor, the 2.25 mile stretch was divided into 7 segments. The scope of the Stage 3 segment, from 244th St. SW to 238th St. SW, includes capacity improvements at Hwy 99 at 238th St. SW with the addition of a second left turn lane for the northbound movement. A Packet Pg. 43 8.6 planter strip, bike lane, new sidewalk, and new street/pedestrian lighting will be added on both sides of the street, along with the completion of various utility improvements, including conversion of overhead utility lines to underground. The initial consultant contract only included Design Phase elements with no Right -of -Way Acquisition Phase elements. This supplement consists of the following additional items: Design Elements Additional surveying along 238th St. SW, 240th St. SW, Safeway (23632 Hwy 99) and EC Plaza (23830 Hwy 99) to account for list of items below; Due to the existing roadway grades on the east side of Hwy 99 along 238th St. SW and 240th St. SW, additional design work to regrade both streets and provide wider accessible crossings for the complete streets improvements. Drainage work on the east side of Hwy 99 along 240th St. SW to fix an existing drainage issue at vacant restaurant on SE corner of Hwy 99 @ 240th St. SW (24001 Hwy 99); and Additional site design at (6) private properties due to driveway changes, parking lot reconfiguration, ADA accessibility, and off -site stormwater system modifications: o Campbell Nelson VW (24329 Hwy 99); o Shoreline Academy (23931 Hwy 99); o K&E Motor Inn (23921 Hwy 99); o Safeway (23632 Hwy 99); o Taco Time (23904 Hwy 99); and o Pizza Hut (23830 Hwy 99). ROW acquisition services for 21 parcels Waiver of Valuations; Appraisal, appraisal review, title review, clearing, ROW negotiations, and closing; and Survey staking on private property to delineate ROW lines and Temporary Construction Easements The total cost for this supplement is $783,336. The initial contract amount with SCJ was $3,217,453 with $154,000 in Management Reserve. Supplement 1 totaled $388,571, increasing the total contract amount to $3,606,024 with $154,000 in Management Reserve. The new contract amount will be $4,389,360 with $154,000 in Management Reserve. This supplement will be funded with the State of Washington Move Ahead Transportation Funds and WSDOT funds. WSDOT recently committed to funding design, right-of-way, and construction related to the pavement overlay and complete streets improvements. The total WSDOT funding contribution is currently estimated at $6,122,000. The City is working with WSDOT to finalize an interlocal funding agreement which will be presented to the City Council in May or June. Attachments: Attachment 1 - SCJ Amendment #2 Packet Pg. 44 8.6.a Washington State Department of Transportation Supplemental Agreement Organization and Address Number Amendment 2 Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc. (dba SCJ Alliance) 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey WA 98516 Original Agreement Number LA-10229 Phone: 360-352-1465 Project Number Execution Date Completion Date N/A 11/01/2022 12/31/2026 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable Highway 99 Gateway - Revitalization, Stage 3 244th St SW to 238th St SW $4,389,360 Description of Work The objective of the Stage 3 project is to design and construct improvements to Highway 99 from 244th St SW to 238th St SW consistent with the Conceptual Plans developed in the Highway 99 Revitalization Stage 1 planning project and the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway Stage 2 construction. The scope of work includes new sidewalks, street lighting, crosswalks, improved storm water management, targeted utility replacements, landscaping, a new dual left turn pocket at 238th St SW and potential utility undergrounding. The Local Agency of City of Edmonds desires to supplement the agreement entered in to with SCJ Alliance and executed on 11/01/2022 and identified as Agreement No. LA-10229 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See attached Scope of Work. 11 Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: N/A III Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: The contract will be increased by $783,336 from $3,606,024 to $4,389,360 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the Appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action. By: Scott Sawyer By: Mike Rosen Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature DOT Form 140-063 Revised 09/2005 Packet Pg. 45 8.6.a Exhibit "A" Summary of Payments Original+ Amendment 1 Amendment #2 Total Direct Salary Cost $710,087 $41,850 $751,937 Overhead (Including Payroll Additives) $1,087,751 $73,158 $1,160,909 Direct Non -Salary Costs $1,572,437 $654,435 $2,226,872 Fixed Fee $235,749 $13,893 $249,642 Total $3,606,024 $783,336 $4,389,360 DOT Form 140-063 Revised 09/2005 Packet Pg. 46 8.6.a 1480-�. SC.J ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES Exhibit A Scope of Work HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY -REVITALIZATION PROJECT - STAGE 3 244TH STREET SW TO 238TH STREET SW AMENDMENT 2 City of Edmonds, WA Prepared For: Bertrand Hauss, Project Manager, City of Edmonds Rob English, City Engineer, City of Edmonds Prepared By: Scott Sawyer, Project Manager, SO Alliance Date Prepared: April 02, 2025 Introduction At the time the original scope of work was written, the objective of the Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Stage 3 project was to design and construct improvements to Highway 99 from 244th Street SW to 238th Street SW consistent with the Conceptual Plans developed in the Highway 99 Revitalization Stage 1 planning project and the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway Stage 2 construction. Those improvements included extending the transformation of Highway 99 in Shoreline through Edmonds. The scope of the project included replacement sidewalks, new street lighting, improved stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, a new dual -left turn pocket for NB traffic at 238th Street SW, potential undergrounding of overhead distribution utilities, landscaping, softscape treatments and other streetscape improvements to speak to the unique character of Edmonds. Since that time, changes have occurred to the nature of the project. WSDOT added a Complete Streets element to the project and the City of Edmonds, in a previous amendment and management reserve request, added work for those changes including the new complete streets element for the project including roadway and stormwater work along 238th Street SW, roadway and stormwater work south of the SR 104 interchange and layout of and design of the new footprint. This amendment includes work for right of way services including Waiver of Valuations, appraisal and appraisal review, title review, clearing and closing for 21 parcels. This amendment also includes design and survey work for off -site drainage impacts where the project is impacting on -site stormwater management at Safeway and at Pizza Hut. Packet Pg. 47 8.6.a Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SC.J ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 2 of 11 M N Im CID r Additionally, the amendment includes design and survey work to regrade 238th St SW and 240th St SW to N incorporate Complete Streets improvements since wider accessible crossings will be required at both intersections. Regrading 240th St SW also will require the project to fix an existing drainage issue at the vacant restaurant at the SE quadrant of the 240th St SW intersection. Currently road stormwater is draining onto the property. The necessity of this work became apparent during the development of the Complete Streets Memo and cost estimate requested by WSDOT. Lastly, the amendment also includes work for more detailed site design of five of the impacted properties accounting for additional work on private property. This work is detailed below. Campbell VW • The Campbell VW driveway was not included in the original project scope as work South of the SR 104th interchange was recently completed. Amendment 1 added complete streets work to this property. • Campbell VW has a lease with WSDOT for their driveway and a parking lot. The proposed grading will impact both the driveway and the parking lot. Shoreline Academy of Music and Dance • Additional work has been added along the property for the regrade of 240thSt. • While the original design would have impacted the stairs, handrail, and ramp of the Shoreline Academy of Dance, the effort of redesigning these features and coordinating them with the property owner were not reflected in the original effort for design of the property interface. K&E Motor Inn • The original concept at the 30% plan was to consolidate driveways where possible. The first driveway at K&E Motor Inn was identified with the City as an opportunity as they have a potential internal circulation. In reviewing the Plan with the right of way team between 30% and 60% it became apparent that this is not a possibility. The already steep driveway when combined with Complete Streets will = m result in a retaining wall along the building to keep the first two motel rooms open. E Safeway E a • Design work is needed to relocate the existing private stormwater system due to project improvements v and right of way acquisition. Work at this property is expected to include rechannelizing the parking lot depending on where the new flow control and treatment facility is placed. r Taco Time • Work at Taco Time will include rechannelizing their parking lot due to an encroachment on the drive aisle that connects the drive thru to the parking lot. The full extent of this impact was not realized when originally scoping the project. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 48 8.6.a -40- -ON- ow SC.J ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 April 2, 2025 Page 3 of 11 Phase 1 Project Management (No Change) Phase 2 Funding and Grant Assistance (no change) Phase 3 Survey and Basemapping (1AG) (added work, SC32, SC33) Task 1 Survey and Basemapping Beyond Curbs (added work, SC32) 1) Survey Control (no change) 2) 3D Laser Scanning (no change) 3) Field Surveying (SC32): Perform additional survey along 2381h St SW, 240th St SW, and at Safeway (23632 Highway 99) and E.C. Plaza (23830 Highway 99) to supplement drainage design work. 4) Office Processing (SC32): Process the additional work collected in Phase 3.1.3. 5) Utility Mapping (no change) Task 2 Survey and Basemapping Between Curbs (no change) Task Survey of Potholing Information (no change) Task 4 Staking TCE and ROW (new work, SC33) 1) Survey PM, Admin, QQ/QC. (new work, SC33) This task includes the survey project management, administrative duties, and quality control required for a project of this complexity and magnitude. Depending on the project requirements, there will be a Survey Project Manager, Assistant Project Manager, and Survey Quality Leader for this project. 2) Survey Control (new work, SC33) This task includes the establishment of survey control, or the recovery of existing survey control, as required for the project. Existing survey control, in conformance with industry standards, will be used for this survey. This survey control is then typically propagated, as required, utilizing standard terrestrial total station measurements. ♦ Geodetic Survey Control (Coordinates) (a) Current coordinate system is NAD83-1991. (b) Horizontal survey work shall reference the Washington State Plane Coordinate System of 1983 as established in accordance with Chapter 58.20 RCW. (c) Vertical Datum for the survey work shall reference the NAVD88. ♦ Cadastral Survey Control (Lines established and marked on the ground by suitable monuments, which are used as starting and closing points in surveys of the public domain of the United States.) Units shall be in US Survey Feet. 3) Field Surveying (new work, SC33) This task includes the field surveying and staking required for this specific effort. Survey will be conducted using a traditional Total Station to stake the positions of the proposed right-of-way lines and proposed temporary construction easements for the 21 properties attached. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 49 8.6.a -40- -ON- ow SC.J ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 April 2, 2025 Page 4 of 11 4) Office Processing (new work, SC33) This task includes the office processing of the collected survey data, data extraction, field book note reductions, CADD drafting, and other duties required for the generation of the deliverable(s). For the staking efforts, sub -tasks include the office calculations of the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easement lines, QA/QC of said calculated lines, processing of field data and QA/QC of said staked points, as required. 5) Right -of -Way and Boundary Resolution(s) (new work, SC33). Existing right of way to be researched and resolved. 6) Right of Way and Easement Acquisition Support (new work, SC33) Up to 40 land descriptions and exhibits (2 per parcel) for right of way acquisition and temporary construction easements will be prepared. Understanding ♦ The new work will be incorporated into the deliverables already identified in the original scope. Deliverables ♦ Updated AutoCAD Civil 3D survey base map. ♦ An allowance of $51,642 is included in Task 4 for setting field stakes to delineate TCE's and right of way acquisition limits on properties. This allowance will be used on an as -needed basis and only performed after the City provides written authorization to stake limits on properties identified by City. Field survey will include staked points on the ground, with lathe, designating the limits of proposed right of way and temporary construction easement lines ♦ Signed and stamped PDF copy of up to 40 legal descriptions and associated exhibits ♦ Field book notes, if required ♦ ASCII file of all set points Phase 4 Potholing (no change) Phase 5 Utility Coordination (no change) Phase 6 Geotechnical Engineering (no change) Phase 7 WSDOT Project Development Approval (no change) Phase 8 Traffic Analysis (no change) Phase 9 Design Management and Meetings (no change) Phase 10 Transportation Design (SCJ) (added work, SC29 and SC30) Task 1 30% Transportation Plans (no change) Task 2 60% Transportation Plans (added work, SC29 and SC30) 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 50 8.6.a -401- -00- 411110� Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SCJ ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 5 of 11 1) Roadway Design — 2381h St SW and 2401h St SW (SC30): This subtask is updated to include scope for the roadway design along 238th St SW and 240th St SW east of highway 99. This includes the work associated with regarding the roads to provide accessible crossings wide enough for the complete streets elements. These updates will affect the following plan sheets: ♦ Site Preparation Notes, Plans and Details ♦ Right of Way Plans ♦ Channelization Notes, Plans, and Details ♦ Illumination Design ♦ Roadway Typical Sections ♦ Paving Notes, Plans, and Details. Includes roadway modeling in AutoCAD. ♦ Driveway Profiles and Details. Develop driveway profiles and details as needed for up four (4) driveways. These are driveways along 238th St SW and 240th St SW that are impacted by the regrade and were not included in the original scope. 2) Site Design resulting from Complete Streets (SC29): This subtask is updated to include scope for site design for the five properties that were identified in the introduction above. Work will include driveway grading, additional landscaping, additional curbs, and parking lot regrading. ♦ Site Preparation Notes, Plans and Details ♦ Paving Notes, Plans, and Details. Develop details for paving transitions and interfaces with private property. Task 3 90% Transportation Design (added work, SC29 and SC30) 1) Roadway Design — 238th St SW and 240th St SW (SC30): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the sheets identified in Task 2 to reflect the advancement of the design from the 60% to 90% level. This work assumes one round of review comments. 2) Site Design resulting from Complete Streets (SC29). This subtask is amended to add work to advance the sheets identified in Task 2 to reflect the advancement of the design from the 60% to 90% level. This work assumes one round of review comments. Task 4 95% Transportation Design (added work, SC29 and SC30) 1) Roadway Design — 238th St SW and 240th St SW (SC30): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the sheets identified in Task 2 to reflect the advancement of the design from the 90% to 95% level. 2) Site Design resulting from Complete Streets (SC29): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the sheets identified in Task 2 to reflect the advancement of the design from the 90% to 95% level. This work assumes one round of review comments. Task 5 100% Transportation Design (added work, SC29 and SC30) 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 51 8.6.a -401- -00- 411110� Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SCJ ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 6 of 11 1) Roadway Design — 2381h St SW and 2401h St SW (SC30): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the sheets identified in Task 2 to reflect the advancement of the design from the 95% to 100% level. 2) Site Design resulting from Complete Streets (SC29): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the sheets identified in Task 2 to reflect the advancement of the design from the 95% to 100% level. This work assumes one round of review comments. Understanding ♦ The new work will be incorporated into the deliverables already identified in the original scope. ♦ The work required for WSDOT approvals has already been accounted for. Deliverables ♦ Same as original contract and Amendment 1. Phase 11 Traffic and Electrical Design (no change) Phase 12 Stormwater Design (OCI) (added work SC26 and SC31) Task 1 30% Stormwater Management Technical Memorandum (no change) Task 2 Stormwater Analysis and Drainage Report (added work SC26 and SC31) 1) Drainage Report. Report (SC26 and SC31). This amendment involves including offsite drainage design from properties impacted due to roadway changes in the Stage 3 project. ♦ The change includes revisions and/or redesign of stormwater treatment and verification of existing location of detention systems (by survey in Phase 3) for the Safeway property (at the intersection of Highway 99 and 238th street) biofiltration swale which will be impacted due to the sidewalk on Highway 99 and 238th Street. The scope involves the following: ♦ Providing a maximum of two (2) preliminary design options for stormwater to the City for discussion with Safeway property owners. This will include developing calculations and exhibits to prove the feasibility of the two options. No further options will be evaluated, and the preliminary designs will be used by the City to discuss cost to cure options with Safeway. This conceptual work will be completed as part of the 60% design and will not be advanced into submittal plan/profile/detail sheets and further design submittals. ♦ Three (3) meetings with the property owners for the Safeway property only and one (1) round of comments from the property owners will be incorporated into the options analysis for the Safeway property. ♦ Additional conveyance design changes to upgrade the existing conveyance on 238th per City's request will also be included in this scope of work. ♦ Additional changes to the existing conveyance system are required due to impacts to the conveyance in front of the Pizza Hut property and to carry the design forward through 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 52 8.6.a -40- -ON- ow SC.J ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 April 2, 2025 Page 7 of 11 60%, 90%, 95% and 100% submittals. No flow control and treatment design is assumed in this location since any existing flow control and treatment facilities in these locations are assumed to have no impact based on current survey. ♦ This amendment will also address the existing low point for the property on 240th street that will need to be regraded and conveyance added. Design will be carried forward through 60%, 90%, 95% and 100% submittals. No flow control and treatment design is assumed in this location since any existing flow control and treatment facilities in these locations are assumed to have no impact based on current survey. 2) Site Visits (no change) 3) Update TDAs Delineation. (no change) 4) Calculate Area Updates. (no change) 5) Minimum Requirements. (no change) 6) Modeling (SC 26 and SC31): Update model per changes in Task 12.2.1. 7) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). (no change) 8) WSDOT Hydraulics Coordination Meetings. (no change) 9) Appendix Exhibits (no change) Task 3 30% Stormwater Design (no change) Task 4 60% Stormwater Design (added work SC26 & SC31) 1) Stormwater Design (SC26 and SC31): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the stormwater design to mitigate for offsite drainage changes as noted in Phase 12, Task 2 of this amendment. Advance the following sheets to reflect the advancement of the design from the 30% to 60% level and develop plans as noted. No plan sheets will be developed for the Safeway property treatment design. All drainage details are assumed to be standard plan details as there will not be any flow control and treatment facilities designed for this added offsite drainage conveyance design work for the rest of the project. ♦ Drainage Plans ♦ Drainage Profiles Task 5 90% Stormwater Design (added work SC31) 1) Stormwater Design (SC31): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the stormwater design to mitigate for offsite drainage changes as noted in Phase 12, Task 2 of this amendment. Advance the following sheets to reflect the advancement of the design from the 60% to 90% level and develop plans as noted. No plan sheets will be developed for the Safeway property treatment design. All drainage details are assumed to be standard plan details as there will not be any flow control and treatment facilities designed for this added offsite drainage conveyance design work for the rest of the project. ♦ Drainage Plans 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 53 8.6.a -401- -00- 411110� Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SCJ ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 8 of 11 ♦ Drainage Profiles Task 6 95% Stormwater Design (added work SC31) 1) Stormwater Design (SC31): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the stormwater design to mitigate for offsite drainage changes as noted in Phase 12, Task 2 of this amendment. Advance the following sheets to reflect the advancement of the design from the 90% to 95% level and develop plans as noted. No plan sheets will be developed for the Safeway property treatment design. All drainage details are assumed to be standard plan details as there will not be any flow control and treatment facilities designed for this added offsite drainage conveyance design work for the rest of the project. ♦ Drainage Plans ♦ Drainage Profiles Task 7 100% Stormwater Design (added work SC31) 1) Stormwater Design (SC31): This subtask is amended to add work to advance the stormwater design to mitigate for offsite drainage changes as noted in Phase 12, Task 2 of this amendment. Advance the following sheets to reflect the advancement of the design from the 95% to 100% level and develop plans as noted. No plan sheets will be developed for the Safeway property treatment design. All drainage details are assumed to be standard plan details as there will not be any flow control and treatment facilities designed for this added offsite drainage conveyance design work for the rest of the project. ♦ Drainage Plans ♦ Drainage Profiles Assumptions ♦ The new work will be incorporated into the deliverables already identified in the original scope. ♦ This work includes up to three meetings to meet and coordinate with property owners. ♦ One round of updates of design will be performed at each stage of design. Additionally, one round of design calculations/updates will be completed based on comments received from the City. Any additional updates to design are not included in this scope of work except to correct errors or omissions at any stage. Phase 13 Water Design (no change) Phase 14 Sanitary Sewer Design (no change) Phase 15 Utility Undergrounding Design (no change) Phase 16 Art, Landscape, and Irrigation Design (no change) 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 54 8.6.a -401- -00- 411110� Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SCJ ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 9 of 11 Phase 17 Estimate of Probable Cost (SCJ and OCI) (added work SC26 and SC29- SC31) Task 1 30% Estimate of Probable Cost (no change) Task 2 60% Estimate (added work SC26, SC29-SC31) 1) 60% Quantities (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work to prepare quantity take offs for the work associated with the work described in Phases 10 and 12 based on the 60% Plans in BlueBeam and document quantities by sheet. 2) 60% Unit Costs (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work researching similar, recent projects and determine unit costs to be used in the estimate for items unique to the work described in Phases 10 and 12. Document the source and calculation of each unit cost. 3) 60% Lump Sum Estimates (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work to prepare rough lump sum estimates for bid items to be paid by LS for items unique to the work described in Phases 10 and 12. 4) 60% Estimate (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to update the estimate spreadsheet based on the above subtasks. Task 3 90% Estimate (added work SC29-SC31) 1) 90% Quantities (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work to update quantity take offs for the work described in Phases 10 and 12 based on the 90% Plans in BlueBeam and document quantities by sheet. 2) 90% Unit Costs (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work to update similar, recent projects and determine unit costs to be used in the estimate for items unique to the work described in Phases 10 and 12. Document the source and calculation of each unit cost. 3) 90% Lump Sum Estimates (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work to prepare rough lump sum estimates for bid items to be paid by LS for items unique to the work described in Phases 10 and 12. 4) 90% Estimate (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to update the estimate spreadsheet based on the above subtasks. Task 4 95% Estimate (added work SC29-SC31) 1) 95% Estimate (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include work to update the estimate spreadsheet for work the work described in Phases 10 and 12 based on the 95% Plans and 95% Project Manual. Task 5 700% Estimate (added work SC29-SC31) 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 55 8.6.a -401- -00- 411110� Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SCJ ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 10 of 11 1) 100% Estimate (SC26 and SC29-SC31): This subtask is amended to include the work to update the estimate spreadsheet for work the work described in Phases 10 and 12 based on the 100% Plans and 100% Project Manual. Assumptions ♦ The new work will be incorporated into the deliverables already identified in the original scope. Phase 18 Project Manual (no change) Phase 19 Construction Schedule (no change) Phase 20 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (no change) Phase 21 Assistance During Bidding (no change) Phase 22 Public Involvement (no change) Phase 23 NEPA and SEPA Documentation (no change) Phase 24 Permitting (no change) Phase 25 Right of Way Calculations (no change) Phase 26 Right of Way Plans (no change) Phase 27 Right of Way Acquisition Design Support (no change) Phase 28 Right of Way Acquisition (RESGNW) (new work, SC21) Task 1 Right of Way Coordination (no change) Task 2 Project Funding Estimate (no change) Task 3 Preliminary Right of Way Services (new work, SC21) 1) Waiver of Valuations: Following review of the right-of-way plan, instruct the appraiser to prepare Waiver of Valuation for all impacted parcels. The Waiver of Valuation will utilize consistent comparable sales and valuation techniques. Waiver Valuations will be written for those acquisitions valued under $35,000 and uncomplicated, with an option for property owners the option of having the agency appraised the property, and in compliance with 49 DFR 24.102 ©(2)(ii). Should any appraisals be required, consultant will make a recommendation with cost estimates for appraisal consultants to the Prime or the City. 2) Appraisal and Appraisal Review: Handle contracts and make any necessary recommendations to the City. 3) Title Review, Clearing and Closing: Review title reports for affected parcel and provide Title Review Memo identifying all potential encumbrances to project team members. Assist in clearing the necessary encumbrances prior to closing, if feasible. Assist in facilitating in-house 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 56 8.6.a -401- -00- 411110� Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 2 SCJ ALLIANCE April 2, 2025 CONSULTING SERVICES Page 11 of 11 closing on low impact parcel or manage closing through escrow should those services become necessary. Task 4 Acquisition Services (new work, SC21) 1) Right of Way Documentation, Negotiations, and Closing: Assist the City in developing all right-of- way documents/offer letters in accordance with the City's right-of-way procedures manual for acquisition of impacted properties. Draft the acquisition documents using City approved forms or QC any forms that are created directly by City. All negotiations will start with an in -person presentation of all offers when feasible. We will identify property owner issues, concerns and differences early on and document that information in the individual parcel negotiation diaries. Work with City staff throughout the negotiation process with the property owner until settlement is reached on each parcel. Phase 29 Management Reserve (no change) END of SCOPE OF WORK Edmonds_Hwy99_Stg3_amendment 2 v2.docx 1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 • Seattle, WA 98101 • Office 206.739.5454 • Fax 360.352.1509 • scjalliance.com Packet Pg. 57 8.6.a Consultant Fee Determination Summary - Exhibit D-1 SCJ Alliance i� SCJ ALLIANCE Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stag Job #: 21-000551 Template version: 2/2/2024 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Contract Type: LAG Contract Consultant Fee Determination DIRECT SALARY COST Classification Hours Direct Hourly Rate Amount Principal 36.0 $100.98 $3,635.28 PM2 Project Manager 124.0 $70.00 $8,680.00 PM2 Project Manager 16.0 $60.10 $961.60 E3 Engineer 116.0 $44.00 $5,104.00 E3 Engineer 40.0 $45.56 $1,822.40 El Engineer 568.0 $38.11 $21,646.48 Total Direct Salary Cost $41,850 OVERHEAD Overhead Rate: 174.81% Direct Salary Cost: $41,849.76 Overhead Cost $73,158 FIXED FEE Fixed Fee Rate: 33.20% Direct Salary Cost: $41,849.76 Fixed Fee Cost $13,894 TOTAL SALARY COST Total Salary Cost $128,901 SUBCONSULTANTS 1AG PHASE 03 Survey and Basemapping (1AG) (SC32 & SC33) $134,500 DO PHASE 12 Stormwater Design (OCI) (SC26, SC31) $139,235 OCI PHASE 17b Estimate of Probable Cost (OCI) (added work SC26, SC31) $5,495 RESGNW Phase 28 Right of Way Acquistions (RESGNW) (SC21) $375,205 Subconsultant Fee Subtotal: $0 $654,435 Subconsultant Markup: 0% $0 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Copies, Printing, etc. 0.0% of the Direct Salary Costs $0.00 Mileage 0 miles at $0.670 per mile $0.00 Expenses Subtotal: $0 Expenses Markup: 0% $0 SUBTOTAL (SALARY, SUBCONSULTANTS AND EXPENSES) Subtotal (Salary, Subconsultants and Expenses) $783,336 MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (MRF) Management Reserve: $0 $0.00 Total Estimated Budget: $783,336 4'2'2025 Packet Pg. 58 8.6.a Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 3 Job #: 21-000551 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Template Version: 2/2/2024 Contract Type: LAG Contract SCJ C.LLIANCE C_C)N`AJL I INC, `�L IIVICL�, Andrew Susann Andrew Scott Sawyer George Hilen Metternich- Danyal Ali Babaei Armstrong Fields Phase & Phase &Task Title Principal PM2 Project PM2 Project E3 Engineer E3 Engineer E1 Engineer Total Direct Labor Task No. Manager Manager Hours & Cost PHASE 03 Survey and Basemapping (1AG) (SC32 & SC33) PHASE 10 Transportation Design (SCJ) (SC29, SC30) Task 02 60% Transportation Plans (added work, SC29, SC30) 1 Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW 1.0 2.0 16.0 19.0 2 Right of Way Plans - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Channelization Notes, Plans, and Details- 238th St SW and 240th St SW Illumination Design - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Roadway Typical Sections - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Paving Notes, Plans and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Driveway Profiles and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details -Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets Paving Notes, Plans and Details - Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets 1.0 2.0 8.0 11.0 11.0 17.0 11.0 113.0 37.0 21.0 113.0 3 1.0 2.0 8.0 4 1.0 8.0 8.0 5 1.0 2.0 8.0 80.0 24.0 16.0 80.0 6 1.0 8.0 24.0 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 8.0 24.0 8 4.0 8.0 9 Subtotal Hours: 9.0 32.0 8.0 32.0 24.0 248.0 353.0 N a� E as E a U Cn c as E a _ m E U a 1 of 6 Packet Pg. 59 8.6.a Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SO Alliance Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 3 Job #: 21-000551 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Template Version: 2/2/2024 Contract Type: LAG Contract SCJ C.LLIANCE C_C)N`AJL I INC, `�L IIVICL�, Scott Sawyer Susann Babaei George Hilen Andrew Armstrong Andrew Metternich- Fields Danyal Ali Phase & Phase &Task Title Task No. Principal PM2 Project Manager PM2 Project Manager E3 Engineer E3 Engineer E1 Engineer Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost Task 03 90% Transportation Plans (added work, SC29, SC30) 1 2 3 Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Right of Way Plans - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Channelization Notes, Plans, and Details- 238th St SW and 240th St SW Illumination Design - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Roadway Typical Sections - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Paving Notes, Plans and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Driveway Profiles and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details -Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets Paving Notes, Plans and Details - Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets 1.0 2.0 8.0 11.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 4 1.0 4.0 16.0 4.0 4.0 40.0 12.0 9.0 7.0 61.0 25.0 5 1.0 2.0 6 1.0 4.0 7 1.0 4.0 8.0 8 1.0 4.0 8.0 13.0 9 1.0 9.0 4.0 24.0 4.0 24.0 16.0 16.0 40.0 124.0 61.0 201.0 Subtotal Hours: Task 04 95% Transportation Plans (added work, SC29, SC30) 1 2 Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Right of Way Plans - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Channelization Notes, Plans, and Details- 238th St SW and 240th St SW 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3 1.0 2.0 4.0 N a� E as E a U Cn 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 60 8.6.a Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SO Alliance Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 3 Job #: 21-000551 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Template Version: 2/2/2024 Contract Type: LAG Contract SCJ C.LLIANCE C_C)N`AJL I INC, `�L IIVICL�, Scott Sawyer Susann Babaei George Hilen Andrew Armstrong Andrew Metternich- Fields Danyal Ali Phase & Phase &Task Title Task No. Principal PM2 Project Manager PM2 Project Manager E3 Engineer E3 Engineer E1 Engineer Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost 4 5 Illumination Design - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Roadway Typical Sections - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Paving Notes, Plans and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Driveway Profiles and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details -Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets Paving Notes, Plans and Details - Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 19.0 11.0 1.0 2.0 6 1.0 2.0 7 1.0 2.0 8 9 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 7.0 2.0 8.0 11.0 Subtotal Hours: 9.0 16.0 2.0 56.0 83.0 Task 05 100% Transportation Plans (added work, SC29, SC30) 1 2 3 Site Preparation Notes, Plans, and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Right of Way Plans - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Channelization Notes, Plans, and Details- 238th St SW and 240th St SW Signing Notes, Plans, Schedules, and Details- 238th St SW and 240th St SW Illumination Design - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Paving Notes, Plans and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW Driveway Profiles and Details - 238th St SW and 240th St SW 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4 1.0 2.0 5 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6 1.0 2.0 7 1.0 2.0 N C as E as E a U Cn I 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 61 8.6.a Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 3 Job #: 21-000551 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Template Version: 2/2/2024 Contract Type: LAG Contract SCJ C.LLIANCE C_C)N`AJL I INC, `�L IIVICL�, Scott Sawyer Susann Babaei George Hilen Andrew Armstrong Andrew Metternich- Fields Danyal Ali Phase & Phase &Task Title Task No. Principal PM2 Project Manager PM2 Project Manager E3 Engineer E3 Engineer E1 Engineer Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost 8 Staging Plans - 238th St SW and 240th St SW 12 Paving Notes, Plans and Details - Site Design Resulting from Complete Streets 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 2.0 Subtotal Hours: 9.0 16.0 2.0 36.0 63.0 Total Phase Hours: 36.0 88.0 16.0 56.0 40.0 464.0 700.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $3,635.28 $6,160.00 $961.60 $2,464.00 $1,822.40 $17,683.04 $32,726.32 PHASE 12 Stormwater Design (OCI) (SC26, SC31) PHASE 17a Estimate of Probable Cost (SCJ) (added work SC29, SC30) Task 02 60% Estimate (SCJ) (added work SC29, SC30) 1 2 3 4 60% Quantities 60% Unit Costs 60% Lump Sum Estimates 60% Estimate 40.0 40.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Subtotal Hours: 16.0 32.0 40.0 88.0 N E a U Cn 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 62 8.6.a Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SO Alliance Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 3 Job #: 21-000551 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Template Version: 2/2/2024 Contract Type: LAG Contract SCJ C.LLIANCE C_C)N`AJL I INC, `�L IIVICL�, Scott Sawyer Susann Babaei George Hilen Andrew Armstrong Andrew Metternich- Fields Danyal Ali Phase & Phase &Task Title Task No. Principal PM2 Project Manager PM2 Project Manager E3 Engineer E3 Engineer E1 Engineer Total Direct Labor Hours & Cost Task 03 90% Estimate (SCJ) (added work SC29, SC30) 1 2 3 90% Quantities 90% Unit Costs 90% Lump Sum Estimates 90% Estimate Subtotal Hours: 40.0 40.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 4 8.0 8.0 16.0 72.0 12.0 20.0 40.0 Task 04 95% Estimate (SCJ) (added work SC29, SC30) 1 95% Estimate (SC29, SC30) 4.0 4.0 16.0 24.0 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 4.0 16.0 24.0 Task 05 100% Estimate (SCJ) (added work SC29, SC30) 1 100% Estimate (SC29, SC30) 4.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 Subtotal Hours: 4.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 Total Phase Hours: 36.0 60.0 104.0 200.0 Total Phase Direct Labor: $2,520.00 $2,640.00 $3,963.44 $9,123.44 N a� E as E a U Cn 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 63 8.6.a Consultant Labor Hour Estimate SO Alliance Client: City of Edmonds Project: Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 3 Job #: 21-000551 File Name: Stage 3 Amendment 2 update.xlsm Phase & Phase & Task Title Task No. PHASE 17b Estimate of Probable Cost (OCI) (added work SC26, SC31) PHASE 28 Right of Way Acquistions (RESGNW) (SC21) SCJ C.LLIANCE C_C)N`AJL I INC, `�L IIVICL�, Template Version: 2/2/2024 Contract Type: LAG Contract Susann Andrew Andrew Scott Sawyer Babaei Armstrong George Hilen Metternich- Danyal Ali Fields PM2 Project PM2 Project Total Direct Labor Principal E3 Engineer E3 Engineer E1 Engineer Manager Manager Hours & Cost Total Hours All Phases 36.0 124.0 16.0 116.0 40.0 568.0 900.0 Total Direct Labor Estimate All Phases $3,635.28 $8,680.00 $961.60 $5,104.00 $1,822.40 $21,646.48 $41,849.76 N C d E C d E Q U Cn c d E t v r Q c m E t U a 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 64 8.6.a SCJ Alliance Client: Project Job #: Actuals Not To Exceed Billing Rate Table (ANTE) Effective July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 SCJ ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES Direct Labor Rate Ranges NTE Overhead 174.81% NTE Fee 33.20% NTE Total Hourly Billing Rates NTE 1 Principal $136.12 $237.95 $45.19 $419.26 2 Senior Consultant $109.09 $190.71 $36.22 $336.02 3 Senior Engineer $66.86 $116.88 $22.20 $205.94 4 E4 Engineer $63.60 $111.18 $21.12 $195.89 5 E3 Engineer $58.38 $102.05 $19.38 $179.81 6 E2 Engineer $50.95 $89.07 $16.92 $156.93 7 El Engineer $41.47 $72.49 $13.77 $127.72 8 Senior Landscape Architect $64.88 $113.42 $21.54 $199.84 9 L4 Landscape $55.21 $96.51 $18.33 $170.04 10 L3Landscape $47.70 $83.38 $15.84 $146.92 11 L2Landscape $42.79 $74.80 $14.21 $131.79 12 L1Landscape $36.04 $63.00 $11.97 $111.01 13 Senior Planner $75.26 $131.56 $24.99 $231.81 14 P4 Planner $54.26 $94.85 $18.01 $167.13 15 P3 Planner $47.70 $83.38 $15.84 $146.92 16 P2 Planner $41.45 $72.47 $13.76 $127.68 17 P1 Planner $38.48 $67.26 $12.77 $118.52 18 Senior Technician $56.18 $98.21 $18.65 $173.04 19 T4 Technician $50.67 $88.58 $16.82 $156.07 20 T3 Technician $43.05 $75.26 $14.29 $132.61 21 T2 Technician $38.16 $66.71 $12.67 $117.54 22 Tl Technician $35.37 $61.83 $11.74 $108.94 23 Senior Project Manager $97.63 $170.67 $32.41 $300.72 24 PM3 Project Manager $79.31 $138.64 $26.33 $244.28 25 PM2 Project Manager $74.90 $130.93 $24.87 $230.70 26 PMl Project Manager $55.64 $97.26 $18.47 $171.38 30 Cl2 Construction Inspector $44.00 $76.92 $14.61 $135.52 32 CI4 Construction Inspector $76.62 $133.94 $25.44 $236.01 35 Construction Inspector $34.83 $60.88 $11.56 $107.28 38 PC2 Project Coordinator $48.14 $84.16 $15.98 $148.28 39 PC1 Project Coordinator $38.17 $66.72 $12.67 $117.56 40 Project Accountant $67.98 $118.84 $22.57 $209.39 41 IT Specialist $62.75 $109.70 $20.83 $193.29 42 Senior Marketing Coordinator $60.42 $105.62 $20.06 $186.10 43 Marketing Coordinator $42.66 $74.58 $14.16 $131.41 44 Communications Manager $59.85 $104.62 $19.87 $184.34 45 Information Services Manager $75.73 $132.38 $25.14 $233.24 46 Graphic Designer $48.76 $85.24 $16.19 $150.19 Packet Pg. 65 8.6.a Aft Washington State wo Department of Transportation June 13, 2024 Shea Carr & Jewell, Inc dba SO Alliance 8760 Tallon Ln NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98513 Subject: Acceptance FYE 2023 ICR — CPA Report Dear Tammy McDonald: Development Division Contract Services Office PO Box 47408 Olympia, WA 98504-7408 7345 Linderson Way SW Tumwater, WA 98501-6504 TTY:1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov We have accepted your firm's FYE 2023 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) of 174.81% (rate includes 0.41 % Facilities Capital Cost of Money) based on the "Independent CPA Report" prepared by Stambaugh Ness. This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis. Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms and conditions of the respective agreement/contract. This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with the firm is responsible for determining the acceptability of the ICR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 704-6397 or via email consultantratesAwsdot.wa.2ov. Regards, scha�zlqe, 1farvetl Schatzie Harvey (Jun 13, 2024 14:05 PD SCHATZIE HARVEY, CPA Contract Services Manager SH: sms Packet Pg. 66 8.6.a �rkT'C�1'7� Project Number SCJA_17-056 Project Name Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Client SCJA Owner City of Edmonds Cost + FF (DSC) Pricing Proposal Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Stage 3 Project 3/4/2025 Safeway Drainage Request Principal Surveyor Project Manager Quality Manager Project Surveyor CADD 5 CADD 4 Tech 5 Tech 3 Assist PM Admin/ Accounting Total Hours Labor Dollars Task DSC Rate $ 111.06 $ 69.07 $ 69.07 $ 60.71 $ 54.91 $ 42.83 $ 48.89 $ 42.50 $ 42.83 $ 59.40 Utility Surveying 4 2 2 8 24 24 1 1 66 $ 3,174.07 Total Dollars $ - $ 276.28 $ 138.14 $ 121.42 $ - $ 342.64 $ 1,173.36 $ 1,020.00 $ 42.83 $ 59.40 $ 3,174.037 Direct Salary Cost $ 3,174 Overhead Cost 133.24% $ 4,229 Fee (*DSC) 33.20% $ 1,054 ODC BREAKDOWN NON -INVOICED INVOICED Total Labor $ 8,457 Mileage 250 0.7 $175.00 3D Laser Scanner (1 Week) ODC's (Other Direct Costs) Non -Invoiced (mileage; repro; etc.) Mile/repro $ 175.000 Invoiced (sub-c; rental; etc.) TBD $ - Materials repro $ - Traffic Control $ - computer $ - UG Utility Locates other, $ - Other $ - SUB TOTAL $ 175.00 Other I $ - I SUB TOTAL $ - Contract Total 1 $ 8J. Packet Pg. 67 8.6.a Cost + FF (DSC) Pricing Proposal Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Stage 3 Project 4/2/2025 Project Number SCJA_17-056 Project Name Highway 99 Gateway Revitalization Client SCJA Owner City of Edmonds Prepared By: B. Bowie Checked By: D. Peebler Right of Way Acquisitions and Temporary Construction Easements Principal Surveyor Project Manager Quality Manager Project Surveyor CADD 5 CADD 4 Tech 5 Tech 3 Assist PM Admin/ Accounting Total Hours Labor Dollar Task DSC Rate $ 111.06 $ 69.07 $ 69.07 $ 60.71 $ 54.91 $ 42.83 $ 48.89 $ 42.50 $ 42.83 $ 59.40 Right of Way/TCE Calculations 1 6 10 84 8 8 117 $ 6,646., Right of Way/TCE Field Staking 1 6 10 42 168 168 395 $ 19,119.14 TCE Legal Descriptions & Exhibits 1 42 42 252 337 $ 21,211.1 $ - Total Dollars $ 333.18 $ 3,729.78 $ 4,282.34 $ 17,848.74 $ 4,612.44 $ - $ 8,213.52 $ 7,140.00 $ 342.64 $ 475.20 - $ 46,977.1 Direct Salary Cost $ 46,978 Overhead Cost 133.24% $ 62,593 Fee (*DSC) 33.20% $ 15,597 Total Labor 1 $ 125,168 CIDC's (Other Direct Costs) Non -Invoiced (mileage; repro; etc.) Mile/repro $ 700.000 Invoiced (sub-c; rental; etc.) TBD $ - Contract Total 1 $ 125,868 ODC BREAKDOWN NON -INVOICED INVOICED Mileage 10001 0.7 $700.00 Materials repro $ - Traffic Control $ computer $ UG Utility Locates $ other $ Other $ SUB TOTAL $ 700.00 Other $ SUBTOTAL $ Packet Pg. 68 8.6.a WSDOT Agreement: Y-XXXXXXX 1 Alliance Geomatics 1261A 120th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98005 1AG Classifications WSDOT Classifications Direct Labor Hourly Billing Rate NTE Overhead NTE* 133.24% $149.23 Fixed Fee NTE 33.20% $37.18 All Inclusive Hourly Biling Rate NTE $298.41 Principal Surveyor DIRECTOR $112.00 Survey Manager DEPUTY $90.00 $119.92 $29.88 $239.80 Sr. Project Manager & Project Manager LAND SURVEY 3 $82.68 $110.16 $27.45 $220.29 Project Surveyor LAND SURVEY 2 $60.50 $80.61 $20.09 $161.20 Tech 4 & 5 ENGINEERING AIDE 4 $58.65 $78.15 $19.47 $156.27 Tech 1, 2 & 3 ENGINEERING AIDE 2 $58.65 $78.15 $19.47 $156.27 Assist PM & Controller 1ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 5 1 $64.06 1 $85.35 $21.27 $170.68 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 3 JADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 3 1$35.881 $47.81 $11.91 $95.60 3 x L 0 U �3 c m aEi as L Q r c m aEi Q. a 4- 0 0 L Q Q Q N C d E C d E Q n U Q Packet Pg. 69 8.6.a Aft W/Washington State / Department of Transportation August 8, 2024 Atlas Technical Consultants, LLC 13215 Bee Cave Parkway, Building B, Suite 230 Austin, TX 78738 Subject: Acceptance FYE 2023 ICR — CPA Report Dear Andrew Kostas: Development Division Contract Services Office PO Box 47408 Olympia, WA 98504-7408 7345 Linderson Way SW Tumwater, WA 98501-6504 TTY:1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov We have accepted your firm's FYE 2023 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) based on the "Independent CPA Report" prepared by Carr, Riggs & Ingram, LLC as follows: • Home Office: 133.24% of direct labor (rate includes 0.44% Facilities Capital Cost of Money) • Field Office: 127.85% of direct labor (rate includes 0.28% Facilities Capital Cost of Money) This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis. Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms and conditions of the respective agreement/contract. This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with the firm is responsible for determining the acceptability of the ICR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 704-6397 or via email consultantratesAwsdot.wa.aov. Regards, scha�Z,Ite 1falllletl Schatzie Harvey (Aug 8, 202415:48 PD SCHATZIE HARVEY, CPA Contract Services Manager SH: kb Packet Pg. 70 8.6.a Edmonds - SR99 Stage 3 Osborn - Stormwater/Drainage (Offsite drainage) Its- 2024 Direct Rates �60%Stor . �90%Stormwater Report 60% Drainage Plans 90% Drainage Plans 95% Drainage Plans 100%/Ad-ready Drainage Plans 90% Cost Estimate 95% Cost Estimate 00% Mileage and toll. for Sit. �int In -person meatings - Mileage and Toll (I kick off meeting, 6 comment res meetings) Total Cost $0.00 1 $0.00 1 $0.00 1 $0.00 1 $0.00 1 $0.00 1 $0.00 1 I $47,857.50 I $80,984.46 I $15,888.69 I $144,730.651 3 x L 0 i U N •3 E Q E a� Q. 0_ 0 0 a a Q N C d E C d E Q U Q Packet Pg. 71 8.6.a Actuals Not To Exceed Table (ANTE) City of Edmonds: Hwy 99 Stages 3-4 Osborn Consulting, Inc. 1800 112th Avenue NE, Suite 220E Bellevue, WA 98004 Job Classifications Direct Labor Rate NTE Overhead NTE Profit Percent NTE 169.22% 33.20% Principal $106.05 $179.46 $35.21 Senior Engineer II $94.50 $159.91 $31.37 Senior Project Manager / QC $86.10 $145.70 $28.59 Senior Engineer 1 $80.85 $136.81 $26.84 Senior Landscape Architect $77.70 $131.48 $25.80 Project Engineer $68.25 $115.49 $22.66 Senior Project Accountant $63.79 $107.94 $21.18 Civil Tech Manager $66.15 $111.94 $21.96 Senior Civil Designer $65.10 $110.16 $21.61 Engineer IV $60.90 $103.05 $20.22 Project Biologist $57.75 $97.72 $19.17 Project Landscape Architect 11 $63.00 $106.61 $20.92 Technical Editor $54.02 $91.42 $17.94 Engineer 111 $49.35 $83.51 $16.38 Project Landscape Architect 1 $49.35 $83.51 $16.38 Engineer 11 $44.10 $74.63 $14.64 Project Accountant $48.30 $81.73 $16.04 Civil Tech 11 $46.20 $78.18 $15.34 Landscape Designer $38.85 $65.74 $12.90 Administration $36.75 $62.19 $12.20 Engineer 1 $39.90 $67.52 $13.25 Civil Tech 1 $35.70 $60.41 $11.85 Intern Engineer $25.201 $42.64 $8.37 As of 6/1/2024 All Inclusive Hourly Biling Rate NTE $320.72 $285.79 $260.38 $244.51 $234.98 $ 206.40 $192.91 $200.05 $196.88 $184.17 $174.65 $190.52 $163.37 $149.24 $149.24 $133.37 $146.07 $139.72 $117.49 $111.14 $120.67 $107.96 $76.21 N *t a� E c d E Q U Cn _ d E r Q c m E U a Packet Pg. 72 8.6.a Aft Washington State wo Department of Transportation June 28, 2024 Osborn Consulting, Inc. 1800 112th Ave NE, Suite 220-E Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Acceptance FYE 2023 ICR — CPA Report Dear Megan Isaacks: Development Division Contract Services Office PO Box 47408 Olympia, WA 98504-7408 7345 Linderson Way SW Tumwater, WA 98501-6504 TTY:1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov We have accepted your firm's FYE 2023 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) of 169.22% of direct labor (rate includes 0.13% Facilities Capital Cost of Money) based on the "Independent CPA Report" prepared by D.L. Purvine, CPA, PLLC. This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis. Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms and conditions of the respective agreement/contract. This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with the firm is responsible for determining the acceptability of the ICR. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 704-6397 or via email consultantratesAwsdot.wa.2ov. Regards, schatzTwe IfWvetl Schatzie Harvey (Jul 1, 2024 06:41 PD SCHATZIE HARVEY, CPA Contract Services Manager SH: BJO Packet Pg. 73 8.6.a 4VGroup Northwest Acquisition and Relocation Services March 5, 2025 SCOPE OF WORK AND COST ESTIMATE: SCJ Alliance, Highway 99 Gateway -Revitalization Stage 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SCOPE OF WORK SCJ Alliance the (PRIME) consultant with RES GROUP NW LLC (RESGNW) serving as a sub -consultant on a project for City of Edmonds "Highway 99 Gateway -Revitalization Stage 3". This project extends from 244'1i Street SW to 238'1i Street SW and will include wider replacement sidewalks, bike lanes, new street lighting, raised center medians for access management, attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential underground overhead utilities, landscaping, softscape treatments and other streetscape improvements to speak to the unique character of Edmonds. It is anticipated that the project requires partial acquisitions of Fee, Permanent and Temporary Easements from 20 larger parcels, ranging in zoning (various commercial and mix use). The project is currently funded with state funds. To ensure the City's ability to use this fund for this project, all acquisition activities will follow Federal Highways Administration policies and procedures as well as all applicable federal, state and local laws, including, but not limited to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Police Act of 1970 and its amendments, 49CFR Part 24, and state Revised Guidelines and by reference the WSDOT Right of Way Manual. Preliminary Right -of -Way Services WAIVER OF VALUATIONS Following review of the right-of-way plan, RESGNW will instruct the appraiser to prepare Waiver of Valuation for all impacted parcels. The Waiver of Valuation will utilize consistent comparable sales and valuation techniques. Waiver Valuations will be written for those acquisitions valued under $35,000 and uncomplicated, with an option for property owners the option of having the agency appraised the property, and in compliance with 49 DFR 24.102 0(2)(ii). Should any appraisals be required, RESGNW will make a recommendation with cost estimates for appraisal consultants to the Prime or the City. APPRAISAL AND APPRAISAL REVIEW Appraisal services/SOVA Consulting and appraisal review services/ National Right of Way Review Appraisal, the contracts shall be handled directly by RESGNW and will make necessary recommendations to the Prime or the City for concurrence. Appraisal /Appraisal Reviewer consultant to be approved by the city. TITLE REVIEW. CLEARING AND CLOSING RESGNW will review Prime supplied title reports for affected parcels and provide Title Review Memo identifying all potential encumbrances to project team members. RESGNW will assist in clearing the necessary encumbrances prior to closing, if feasible. RESGNW will assist in facilitating in-house closing on low impact parcel or manage closing through escrow should those services become necessary. 1913 6th Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 - 624 S Lander Street #202, Seattle, WA 98134 - ■ ph.206-457-5681 ■ www.resgnw.com Packet Pg. 74 8.6.a 4VGroup Northwest Acquisition and Relocation Services Acquisition Services RIGHT-OF-WAY DOCUMENTATION, NEGOTIATIONS AND CLOSING RESGNW will assist the Agency in developing all right-of-way documents/offer letters in accordance with the Agency's right-of-way procedures manual for acquisition of impacted properties. RESGNW will draft the acquisition documents using City approved forms or QC any forms that are created directly by City. REGNW agents will act in good faith at all times and never coerce owners in an attempt to settle the parcels. All negotiations will start with an in -person presentation of all offers when feasible. We will identify property owner issues, concerns and differences early on and document that information in the individual parcel negotiation diaries. RESGNW will work with Agency staff throughout the negotiation process with the property owner until settlement is reached on each parcel. Cost Estimate Payment to RESGNW for its professional services is not dependent upon outcome, the amount or terms of any agreement reached for the property, or on any contractual arrangement between the City and any third party. Prime agrees to compensate RESGNW for actual professional services rendered as follows: Our fees for services are calculated based upon the applicable hourly rates for those professionals who perform the work - at -hand. The billing rate is $145.68 per hour for all tasks performed under this agreement. In addition, necessary travel time and mileage will be billed at the current year's IRS standard mileage reimbursement rate. WAIVER OF VALUATIONS AND APPRAISALS 17 Appraisals 3 Waiver of Valuations/ SOVA consulting) $82,500.00 12 Sign Appraisal/Relocation Estimate @$3,000 ea. $36,000.00 12 Parking Reconfiguration 4,000 — 6,0000 $50,000.00 $168,500.00 Appraisal Review 17 parcels -National ROW Review Appraisal Review $42,500.00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 50 HOURS NEGOTIATIONS R/W Acquisitions 45 hours per parcel x 20 TITLE REVIEW AND CLEARANCE / CLOSING Senior Acquisition Agents: 8 hours per parcel x 20 50 hours $145.68 per hour = $ 7,284.00 900 hours $145.68 per hour = $131,112 160 hours @ $145.68 per hour = $ 23,308.80 ODC: Estimated Mileage and Postage Reimbursement $2,500.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $375,204.80 SCJ Alliance RES GROUP NW, LLC 1913 6th Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 - 624 S Lander Street #202, Seattle, WA 98134 - ■ ph.206-457-5681 ■ www.resgnw.com Packet Pg. 75 8.6.a City of Edmonds - Hwy 99/Gateway Revitalization Appraisal Assignments & Cost Estimate w/subconsultant fees Based on mapping of November 1, 2024 Subject Parcels Appraisal Sign Parking ROW APN Owner Name Site Address App Type Fee Appraisal Reconfig 1 00491100000110 SOUTHEAST 888 INVESTMENT LLC/ EASTERN INVESTMENT None App $5,000 $3,000 $6,000 Larger Parcel issues 00491100000107 SOUTHEAST 888 INVESTMENT LLC/ EASTERN INVESTMENT 24111 HIGHWAY 99 - 00491100000105 SOUTHEAST 888 INVESTMENT LLC/ EASTERN INVESTMENT None - 2 00491100000106 SOUTHEAST 888 INVESTMENT LLC/ EASTERN INVESTMENT 24001 HIGHWAY 99 App $3,000 $3,000 Strip Appraisal 3 00451900201504 ARI HOLDINGS LLC 23931 HIGHWAY 99 App $5,000 Building Impact 4 00451900201502 BHOK CORPORATION None App $4,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 00451900201601 KNH ENTERPRISES LLC 23921 HIGHWAY 99 - 5 00451900201602 KIM CHU H 23905 HIGHWAY 99 App $4,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 6 00451900200501 JOHSE LLC 23825 HIGHWAY 99 App $4,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 7 00451900200500 CHO EUNSUN 23805 HIGHWAY 99 App $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 8 00773110000500 Various Condo Owners 8100 238TH ST SW Units A-E AOS $2,000 AOS 9 00451900101802 G & G REALTY LLC 8101 238TH ST SW App $4,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 10 00451900101804 EDMONDS FPH BUILDING LLC 23725 HIGHWAY 99 App $4,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 00451900101803 EDMONDS FPH BUILDING LLC 23725 HIGHWAY 99 - 11 00451900100201 234 EDMONDS JCV LLC 23601 HIGHWAY 99 App $4,500 $4,000 Parking Impact 12 00451900100401 FW WA -AURORA MARKETPLACE LLC 23632 HIGHWAY 99 App $4,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 13 00451900200700 UNI PROPERTY LLC 23830 HIGHWAY 99 App $6,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 14 00451900201200 ACCORD INC 23904 HIGHWAY 99 App $6,500 $3,000 $4,000 D-Thru Impact 15 00451900201300 HSUE & LU CORPORATION 23916 HIGHWAY 99 App $6,500 $3,000 $4,000 Parking Impact 16 00451900201400 PETELLE GLORIA G 23930 HIGHWAY 99 App $3,000 Strip Appraisal 17 00491100000108 CAMNEL PROPERTIES LLC 24015 HIGHWAY 99 App $3,000 Strip Appraisal 00491100000109 CAMNEL PROPERTIES LLC None - 18 00491100000102 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION None App $3,000 Strip Appraisal 19 00451900100900 VPSP LLC & DRR KIRKLAND LLC 23625 84TH AVE W AOS $2,000 AOS 20 00934172500100 Various Townhouse owners 23725 84TH AVE W AOS $2,000 AOS 21 00451900200900 KF-SKANDI LLC 23809 84TH AVE W App $3,000 Strip Appraisal $85,000 $36,000 $50,000 Total Appraisal Costs $171,000 * City will obtain driveway permits for all properties as necessary Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 76 8.6.a Res Group NW LLC Indirect Cost Rate Schedule For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Financial Statement Accepted Description Amount Adj. Ref. Amount % Direct Labor Indirect Costs: Fringe Benefits Vacation Pay Sick Pay Holiday Pay Bonus Payroll Taxes Health Insurance Profit Sharing (401-k) Total Fringe Benefits General Overhead Indirect Labor Rent Entertainment - Meals Insurance Telephone Taxes & Licenses Professional Fees Interest Computer Supplies & Miscellaneous Depreciation & Amortization Total General Overhead Total Indirect Costs & Overhead Indirect Cost Rate (Less FCC) Facilities Cost of Capital $ 394,402 $ 18,865 1,736 10,694 22,000 32,190 42,922 (52) 18,272 $146,678 ($52) $ 29,984 16,141 3,335 (387) 6,386 2,100 18,390 (150) 52,268 (1,845) 41 (41) 7,958 2,766 1,715 $ 141,083 $ (2,423) Indirect Cost Rate (Includes FCC) $287,762 ($2,475) 72.96% 72.33% $287,762 ($2,475) $394,402 100.00% $18,865 4.78% 1,736 0.44% 10,694 2.71% 22,000 5.58% 32,190 8.16% (a) 42,870 10.87% 18,272 4.63% $146,627 37.18% $29,984 7.60% 16,141 4.09% (b) 2,948 0.75% 6,386 1.62% 2,100 0.53% (e) 18,240 4.62% (c)/(d) 50,423 12.78% M (0) 0.00% 7,958 2.02% 2,766 0.70% 1,715 0.43% $ 138,660 35.16% Res Group NW LLC "Indirect Cost Rate still subject to WSDOT Audit" References RESGNW LLC Adjustments: $285,287 72.33% 72.33% $0 0.00% $285,287 72.33% (a) - Key Man life insurance ($51.60) is unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-19 (b) - Meals/Entertainment expenses ($386.99) are unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-14 (c) - Federal income tax prep fees ($1,800) are unallowable per 48 CFR 31.205-41(b)(1) (d)- Lobbying contributions ($45) unallowable expenses per 48 CFR 31.205-22 (e)- Penalty/Interest ($150) unallowable expenses per 48 CFR 31.205-41 (f)- Interest expense ($41) unallowable expense per 48 CFR 31.205-20 Packet Pg. 77 8.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Planning Department Position Reclassification Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning & Development Preparer: Heather Lakefish Background/History The Planning & Development Department has reviewed the existing position of Planner, and based on an evaluation of current and future department needs, recommends a reclassification of one (1) Planner (NR-32) to Associate Planner (NR-33). Staff Recommendation Approve on Consent Calendar Narrative The difference in pay grades from this reclassification will result in an increase of $400.14 per month. Anticipating an effective date of 05/05/2025, this would increase the salary of the Planner for $3,201.12 for 2025. For 2026, the increase would be $5,298. The department will also reduce hours of the Administrative Assistant by ten percent. This will result in a salary reduction for that position of approximately $4,979.10 for 2025 and $9,112 for 2026, which more than offsets the increased salary resulting from reclassifying a Planner to Associate Planner. The reclassification will allow for this position to take on more complex tasks and to provide increased value to the Planning & Development Department. The increased level of responsibility for this position will include additional duties such as: reviewing more complex land use applications, conducting SEPA reviews of project proposals, participating in the development of the comprehensive plan and related code updates, and providing lead work direction to Planners and other lower level staff. The job descriptions for Planner and Associate Planner are attached for reference. In addition, attached salary calculations demonstrate costs and savings that result in a net zero increase to the budget. Attachments: Planner Job Description Associate Planner Job Description Calculations.Planner.Reclass Packet Pg. 78 8.7.a City of EDMONDS Washington Planner Department: Planning and Development - Planning Pay Grade: NR-32 Bargaining Unit: Non -Represented FLSA Status: Exempt Revised Date: October 2012 Reports To: Planning Manager POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, performs general planning related activities and tasks for assigned area within City Planning; provides technical assistance in the processing of planning permits for the City of Edmonds; reviews building permits for compliance with zoning, critical areas and design review requirements; conducts critical reviews and various planning reviews as assigned. The Planner performs projects independently and supports the planning function in responding to customer inquiries, processing planning permits and participating in short-term and long-term planning activities. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Provides technical assistance in the processing of planning permits for current applications for the City; conducts a variety of reviews of building permits for compliance with zoning, critical areas, environmental and design review requirements and conducts critical reviews and various planning reviews as assigned. • Perform site inspections; coordinates requirements from other departments; reviews applications and appeals for compliance with development code and compliance with environmental regulations; creates associated reports. • Communicates with the public in person and on the telephone regarding general complex planning issues. • Responds to questions from the public, applicants and developers regarding the City's development review process and assists applicants in the completion of application materials. • Ensures compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local rules, regulations and codes. • Prepares and maintains a variety of records and reviews related to assigned activities and updates or makes recommendations to policy and code in assigned areas. • Conducts various inspections associated with permit compliance in assigned area and fulfills requests for public records including compiling files, emails and data related to a particular request. • Prepares and updates maps, graphics and public information materials to support current and long-range planning projects; develops and maintains Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and database records as assigned. • Participates on assigned committees; attends associated meetings and provides necessary support and information. Planner Last Reviewed: Last Revis Packet Pg. 79 JOB DESCRIPTION Planner 8.7.a 2 of 4 • Maintains professional development including staying abreast with a variety of Federal, State and local regulations pertaining to land development and maintaining current knowledge of trends and developments in the planning field. • Communicates with governmental agencies and other cities regarding projects affecting the City of Edmonds and to coordinate activities, exchange information and resolve issues or concerns. Prepares and maintains a variety of records and reviews related to assigned activities • Reviews and makes recommendations to City codes or policy changes as appropriate and based on experience with daily operations and planning. Required Knowledge of: • Basic planning principles, practices and code of ethics. • General trends and issues in development and planning fields. • Basic construction, architectural design and development techniques. • Basic principles of customer service and public relations. • Basic research methods and report presentation. • Structure, organization and inter -relationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental agencies and offices affecting assigned functions. • Federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, codes and administrative procedures related to assigned activities. • GIS development and maintenance. • Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include customer service. • Basic project management techniques and principles; time management and project prioritization • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases. • English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation. • Principles of business letter writing. Required Skill in: • Providing technical assistance in the processing of planning permits for current applications and in the development of short-range plans for the City of Edmonds. • Conducting basic code interpretation, architectural review, and code enforcement. • Understanding and interpreting legal and technical planning language and communicating the language in a way that is understandable to others. • Reviewing commercial and other building permits and conducting various types of reviews. • Providing information to the public regarding general and complex land and construction issues. • Handling difficult planning related situations with people. • Ensuring compliance with federal, state and local regulations related to land development. • Explaining policies, procedures, rules and regulations. • Maintaining current knowledge of rules, regulations, requirements and trends. • Meeting assigned schedules and timelines. Planner Last Reviewed: Last Revis Packet Pg. 80 JOB DESCRIPTION Planner 8.7.a 3 of 4 • Compiling and verifying data and prepare reports. • Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work. • Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside agencies, community groups and the general public. • Applying basic project management techniques and principles. • Communicating effectively verbally and in writing including public relations. • Administering citizens' boards. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: Bachelor's Degree in Urban, Regional, or Municipal Planning, Geography, or related field and two year of experience performing planning duties including code and permit reviews, analysis, and evaluation, and preparation of basic reports. An equivalent combination of education, training, and experience which allows the incumbent to successfully perform the essential functions of the position may also be considered. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Valid State of Washington Driver's License and a driving record acceptable to the City's insurance carrier. • A criminal background check is required following a verbal offer of employment. Criminal history is not an automatic employment disqualifier. Results are reviewed on a case -by -case basis. WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Indoor/Outdoor/Office environment. • Driving a vehicle to work. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person and by phone • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. • Operating a computer and other office equipment. • Walking or otherwise moving and ascending/descending stairs during site visits. • Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy. Hazards: • Chemicals, fumes or gases associated with utilities systems and projects. • Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied members of the public. Planner Last Reviewed: Last Revis Packet Pg. 81 JOB DESCRIPTION Planner Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: 8.7.a 4of4 Planner Last Reviewed: Last Revis Packet Pg. 82 8.7.b City of EDMONDS Washington Associate Planner Ile. ,-61- Department: Planning and Development Pay Grade NR-33 Bargaining Unit: Non -Represented FLSA Status: Exempt Revised Date: November 2012 Reports To: Planning Manager or Senior Planner POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, processes building and land use permit applications for the City; reviews projects for compliance with applicable codes such as zoning, critical areas and design standards; serves as staff liaison to assigned boards and commissions; provides information to the public regarding general and complex land and construction issues; coordinates GIS/mapping activities; conducts various planning reviews as assigned; may provide lead work direction to Planners and other lower level staff on assigned projects. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Reviews building permit applications for compliance with zoning, site development standards, critical areas regulations and design standards. • Prepares for and conducts presentations before various boards and commissions regarding project proposals and code amendments. • Reviews land use applications including: subdivisions, conditional use permits, design review, rezones, Comprehensive Plan amendments and annexations and writes detailed reports based on the evaluation of proposals compliance with city codes. • Prepares and issues public notice of applicable land use projects via mail; posts and writes publication notices through the local newspaper; follows required timelines for public notice. • Conducts various field visits for critical areas inspections, posting of public notice for land use projects, inspections associated with building permits and compliance with conditions of approval; fulfills requests for public records including: compiling files, emails and data related to a particular request. • Communicates regularly with the public, including owners of private property as well as project applicants such as: architects, developers, surveyors, biologists and geotechnical engineers. • Communicates via phone, email and in person at the public service counter and at various meetings. • Participates on assigned committees; attends associated meetings and provides necessary support and information. • Reviews applications for land use compliance; sends letters and researches past approvals and reviews conditional use permits for home occupations. • Conducts SEPA review of project proposals including various land use and building permit applications and code revisions. Associate Planner— Planning and Development Last Reviewed: 11/5/2024 Last Revised: 11/2012 Packet Pg. 83 8.7.b 2 of 4 JOB DESCRIPTION Associate Planner — Planning and Development • Maintains public handouts and makes updates/revisions as necessary; maintains specific pages of the City's website and updates/revises as necessary and conducts updates of the City Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan as necessary; prepares draft code language as directed and conducts public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council applicable to such updates. • Prepares and updates maps, graphics and public information materials to support current and long-range planning projects. • Develops and maintains Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping and database records as assigned while coordinating GIS/mapping activities with outside organizations. • Prepares and maintains a variety of records and reviews related to assigned activities. • Reviews and makes recommendations to City codes or policy changes as appropriate and based on experience with daily operations and planning. • Participates in the development of the comprehensive plan. • Maintains professional development including staying abreast with a variety of federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to land development and maintaining current knowledge of trends and developments in the planning field. Required Knowledge of: • Planning principles, practices and code of ethics. • General trends and issues in development and planning fields. • Planning principles, including creation of policies and creation of specific laws. • Basic construction, architectural design and development techniques. • Principles of customer service and public relations. • Research methods and report presentation. • GIS development and maintenance. • Structure, organization and interrelationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental agencies and offices affecting assigned functions. • Federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, codes and administrative procedures related to assigned activities. • Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include customer service. • Project management techniques and principles; time management and project prioritization. • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases. • English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation. • Principles of business letter writing. • Lead work and staff oversight of daily tasks. Required Skill in: • Providing technical assistance in the processing of planning permits. • Serve as staff liaison to the Planning Board and/or Architectural Design Board. • Conducting code interpretation, architectural review and code enforcement. • Understanding and interpreting legal and technical planning language and communicating the language in a way that is understandable to others. • Reviewing commercial and other building permits and conducting various types of reviews. • Providing information to the public regarding general and complex land and construction issues. Associate Planner— Planning and Development Last Reviewed: 11/5/2024 Last Revised: 11/2012 Packet Pg. 84 8.7.b 3 of 4 JOB DESCRIPTION Associate Planner — Planning and Development • Handling difficult planning -related situations with people. • Ensuring compliance with federal, state and local regulations related to land development. • Applying and explaining policies, procedures, rules and regulations. • Maintaining current knowledge of rules, regulations, requirements and trends. • Meeting schedules and timelines. • Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and in compiling and preparing spreadsheets. • Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside agencies, community groups and the general public. • Applying project management techniques and principles. • Communicating effectively verbally and in writing including public relations. • Leading and delegating tasks and authority. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: Bachelor's Degree in Urban, Regional, or Municipal Planning, Geography, or related field AND Three years of experience performing planning duties including policy and code review, analysis, and evaluation, and preparation of detailed reports; prefer responsibility for leading projects or staff in a municipal planning environment; OR An equivalent combination of education, training, and experience that will allow the incumbent to successfully perform the essential functions of the position. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Valid Driver's license required at time of hire. State of Washington Driver's License required within 30 days of hire. • Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check. WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Indoor/Outdoor/Office environment. • Driving a vehicle to work. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person and by phone. • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. • Operating a computer and other office equipment. • Walking or otherwise moving and ascending/descending stairs during site visits. • Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy. Hazards: • Chemicals, fumes or gases associated with utilities systems and projects. • Working in and around moving traffic. • Contact with dissatisfied or abusive individuals. Associate Planner— Planning and Development Last Reviewed: 11/5/2024 Last Revised: 11/2012 Packet Pg. 85 8.7.b 4 of 4 JOB DESCRIPTION Associate Planner — Planning and Development Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Associate Planner — Planning and Development Last Reviewed: 11/5/2024 Last Revised: 11/2012 Packet Pg. 86 8.7.c Current Position Allocation vs. Requested Reclassification Salary Grade Annual Salary 2025 Costs Planner NR-32, 4 96,193.48 96,193.48 Reclassified Associate Planner NR-33, 4 100,995.14 99,394.59 -3,201.11 Current Position Allocation vs. Proposed Reduction Administrative Assistant NE-29, 4 85,356.00 85,356.00 Administrative Assistant .9 NE-29, 4 85,356.00 80,376.90 4,979.10 Current Position Allocation vs. Requested Reclassification Planner NR-32, 5 Reclassified Associate Planner NR-33, 5 Annual Salary 2026 Costs 105, 882.00 105, 882.00 111,180.00 111,180.00 -5,298.00 Current Position Allocation vs. Proposed Reduction Administrative Assistant NE-29,6 91,120.00 91,120.00 Administrative Assistant .9 NE-29, 6 82,008.00 82,008.00 9,112.00 IF O r CU y N O CU d O y O a c m E r- CU a m 0 a� _ .E CU Packet Pg. 87 8.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Ordinance Amending Authorized Employee Positions Staff Lead: Finance Department: Human Resources Preparer: RaeAnn Duarte Background/History In 2023, during the preparation of the 2024 Adopted Budget, City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended that the city implement a more structured and formal system for position control. This ordinance stems directly from that recommendation. The 2025-2026 Adopted Biennium Budget highlighted a structural imbalance in the city's General Fund finances, leading to several previously authorized positions being classified as unfunded for this budget cycle. While the position descriptions for these positions remain valid, any positions identified in the following exhibits with 0 FTE approved are considered unfunded and will remain vacant during this budget period. City Council adopted Ordinance 4344 to solidify and transparently acknowledge the number of Full -Time Equivalents (FTE) the City is authorized to employ. This amendment is to reinstate the FTE (full time equivalent) of four (4) Day Camp Assistant positions for this summer to provide a needed summer youth program serving area families; a revenue replacement program; and a recreation program that is projected to generate significant more revenue than expenditure. This action does not require additional department budget expenditure authority nor approval of the lob descriptions. Staff Recommendation Approve the updated authorized position Ordinance reinstating the FTE (full time equivalent) of four (4) Day Camp Assistant positions. Narrative This amendment is to reinstate the FTE (full time equivalent) of four (4) Day Camp Assistant positions for this summer to provide a needed summer youth program serving area families; a revenue replacement program; and a recreation program that is projected to generate significant more revenue than expenditure. This action does not require additional department budget expenditure authority nor approval of the mob descriptions. Attachments: 2025-04-17 Ordinance 43 2025-04-17 Approved FTE list Packet Pg. 88 8.8.a ORDINANCE NO. 43_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE POSITIONS AND PAY RANGES AND SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCES 4386 AND 4388 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.1 1.020, "[t]he legislative body of each code city shall have power ... to define the functions, powers, and duties of its officers and employees; ... , to fix the compensation and working conditions of such officers and employees... "; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.12.090, "[t]he mayor shall have the power of appointment and removal of all appointive officers and employees;" and WHEREAS, with respect to the employee positions that the mayor is authorized to hire, this ordinance, as it may be amended from time -to -time, is intended to be the controlling document; and WHEREAS, previous versions of this ordinance were adopted with Ordinances 4336, 4344, 4359, 4381, 4386, 4387, and 4388; and WHEREAS, a position that is listed in the exhibits to this ordinance while having an associated FTE count of 0.0 indicates that the position description has been approved by the city council but that the city council has not appropriated funds for the position or authorized it to be filled; and WHEREAS, the city council intends to use this ordinance to establish the number and types of employee positions, wage and salary rates and ranges for all the city's employees; and WHEREAS, with this amendment, the city council intends to add 0.75 FTE to be spread across several day camp positions; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 Packet Pg. 89 8.8.a Section 1. Because of the sunset clause in Ordinance 4388, and because the positions approved by this ordinance are not intended to sunset with Ordinance 4388, this ordinance amends Section 2 of both Ordinance 4388 and Ordinance 4386, to ensure that the positions in Section 2 below will endure the sunsetting of Ordinance 4388. Section 2. The number and titles of authorized Full -Time Equivalent employees (FTEs), including full-time and part-time irregular employees, shall be established at 2.82 FTEs, as detailed in Attachment A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. It is the intention that irregular positions are not benefit eligible and/or union positions. At no time should the schedule of irregular positions into which employees are hired be such that it would cause the position to become benefit eligible or covered by a union, unless otherwise called out in a collective bargaining agreement. The mayor is authorized to hire only those authorized positions shown on Attachment B and only pursuant to the salary ranges shown therein. Section 4. This ordinance, as it may be amended from time -to -time, shall be included as an exhibit to every proposed and final budget book, PROVIDED THAT the city council need not take annual action to re -adopt this ordinance unless it deems it necessary to change the number and/or titles of authorized FTEs. Section 5. This ordinance shall control in the event of any conflict between this ordinance and the final budget book or any other action of the city council purporting to authorize the hiring of employees. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abrogate an existing obligation of the City of Edmonds with regard to its various collective bargaining agreements. Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. 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: 2 Packet Pg. 90 8.8.a MAYOR MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 17, 2025 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 21, 2025 PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: 43 3 Packet Pg. 91 8.8.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.43 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 21 st day of April, 2025, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington passed Ordinance No. 43_. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE POSITIONS AND PAY RANGES AND SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCES 4386 AND 4388 The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21st day of April, 2025. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY M Packet Pg. 92 8.8.b Department Parks Parks Parks Information Services Municipal Court Title Facility Attendant Front Desk Receptionist Day Camp Assistant Audio Visual Assistant Pro Tem Judge Packet Pg. 93 8.8.b Pay Grade # of FTE's approved Change H-06 0.40 H-08 1.13 H-07 0.00 0.75 H-13 0.25 H-21 0.29 2.07 2.82 Packet Pg. 94 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Public Hearing on Permanent STEP Housing Code Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Preparer: Michael Clugston Background/History In 2021, Washington state passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and municipal code requirements for housing. The law requires local governments like Edmonds to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels, which includes demonstrating sufficient land capacity for housing at all income levels to meet future housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing. Local governments must also identify local barriers to production of affordable housing and take actions to remove those barriers. Furthermore, RCW 36.130.020 provides that local governments may not adopt, impose, or enforce requirements on an affordable housing development that are different than the requirements proposed on housing developments generally. (Note: Permanent supportive housing is considered a type of affordable housing.) Edmonds, like similar jurisdictions, must update its development codes to comply with HB 1220. To that end, the STEP housing code update was introduced to City Council on January 7, 2025, including draft interim code language. The initial draft was prepared to meet the requirements of HB 1220 using guidance from the Department of Commerce as the baseline (Attachment 4). Some refinements were made to the original draft by Council, who approved the interim ordinance on January 28 (Attachment 1). Council held the required public hearing on the interim STEP code on February 11 and no public comments were received. The Planning Board reviewed the draft interim ordinance on January 22 and discussed possible revisions for a permanent ordinance on February 12 and March 12. The Board discussed a draft recommendation to Council on March 26 and approved their final recommendation on April 9 (Attachment 2). The draft permanent code recommended by the Planning Board is Attachment 3. It includes two proposed modifications to the interim ordinance. The first is for internal consistency with other existing regulations regarding indoor emergency shelters in ECDC 17.105. The second would remove the Expectations language in ECDC 17.125.030(B) with the intent that any public safety and nuisance issues be addressed in other relevant sections of code (e.g. Titles 5 and 6 ECC). Council heard a presentation and discussed the draft permanent STEP housing code on April 16 in preparation for the April 21 public hearing. Staff Recommendation Packet Pg. 95 9.1 No action is required. Take public testimony on the draft permanent STEP housing code. Potential action on the code update is scheduled for May 6. At Council's discretion, an ordinance could be placed on the consent agenda or scheduled for a brief discussion prior to taking action. Narrative HB 1220 requires changes to the City's development regulations to allow four specific housing types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing (STEP housing): "Emergency housing" means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. "Transitional housing" means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. "Emergency shelter" means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. "Permanent supportive housing" is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on -site or off -site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment or employment services. Permanent supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Interim STEP Housing Ordinance 4384 Attachment 2 - Planning Board Recommendation on STEP Housing Attachment 3 - Planning Board recommended permanent STEP Housing Code Attachment 4 - STEP Housing Model Ordinance and User Guide Packet Pg. 96 9.1.a ORDINANCE NO.4384 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING, AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ("STEP" HOUSING). WHEREAS, the Washington state legislature passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) in 2021, which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for housing; and WHEREAS, the law requires local governments like Edmonds to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels, which includes demonstrating sufficient land capacity for housing at all income levels to meet future housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing; and WHEREAS, local governments must also identify local barriers to production of affordable housing and take actions to remove those barriers; and WHEREAS, housing targets were established for Edmonds as part of the recent periodic Comprehensive Plan update; and WHEREAS, Edmonds, as a high -cost community, must plan for 6,814 units of permanent supportive and low-income housing (0-80% of Area Median Income) over the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, these targets informed the development of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding supportive housing; and WHEREAS, this ordinance addresses the supportive housing goal and policies H-9.2, H- 9.5, H-9.6, and H-9.7 by allowing: • Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing as permitted uses in all zones where hotels are currently allowed in Edmonds: Commercial Waterfront (CW) Community Business (BD), Downtown Business (BD), and General Commercial (CG); • Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing as permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed; and Packet Pg. 97 9.1.a WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted without first holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the city council intends to follow this ordinance with a permanent set of regulations that implement HB 1220; and WHEREAS, the forthcoming permanent regulations and related public participation processes will give the city council an opportunity to consider additional housing options for tiny houses and shelters, temporary pallet shelters, tent encampments, and safe parking areas, which are not included in these interim regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 17.125, entitled "Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing (STEP Housing)," is hereby added to read as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Section 2. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 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 January 28, 2025 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. Section 4. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts the "whereas" clauses, above, as the findings of fact justifying this action, as required by RCW 36.70A.390. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance 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. 2 Packet Pg. 98 9.1.a APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: tay CLERK, SC PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: January 23, 2025 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: January 28, 2025 PUBLISHED: January 31, 2025 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 2025 ORDINANCE NO. 4384 Packet Pg. 99 9.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4384 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 281h day of January, 2025, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4384. 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 STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING, AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ("STEP" HOUSING). The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 281h day of January, 2025. 6�7 CITY CLERK, S-e&TT PASSEY E Packet Pg. 100 9.1.a ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing Chapter 17.125 Page 1 of 2 Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing (STEP Housing) Sections: 17.125.000 Purpose. 17.125.010 Applicability. 17.125.020 Definitions. 17.125.030 Regulations. 17.125.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Ensure compliance with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act and other laws. B. Support the implementation of Edmonds's comprehensive plan. C. Encourage the development of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing consistent with best practices for these development types to help address local housing needs. D. Direct STEP development to areas with existing amenities, like jobs, services and transit, to ensure occupants have access to opportunities. E. Protect the health, safety and welfare of the individuals served by these development types and the broader community. 17.125.010 Applicability. A. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter prevails. 17.125.020 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter: A. "Emergency housing" means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. [RCW 36.70A.030(14)] Packet Pg. 101 9.1.a ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing Page 2 of 2 B. "Emergency shelter" means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. [RCW 36.70A.030(15)] C. "Permanent supportive housing" is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on - site or off -site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment or employment services. Permanent supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW. [RCW 36.70A.030(31)] D. "Religious organization" means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls real property. [RCW 36.01.290(6)(c)] E. "Temporary", as applied in this chapter, applies to the person and how long they reside in STEP housing, not the structure or length of time for the land use. F. "Transitional housing" means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. [RCW 84.36.043(3)(c)] 17.125.030 Regulations. A. Permitted zones for STEP Housing. 1. Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing are permitted in all zones in which hotels are allowed. 2. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing are permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. B. Expectations 1. Nuisances and criminal behavior are subject to enforcement to the full extent of the city's code and state law. 2. Evictions of residents for unsafe actions are not precluded by city codes. Packet Pg. 102 9.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being fast 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 EDH1008568 ORD SUMMARY 4383-5 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 01/31/2025 and ending on 01/31/2025 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount the fee fear s h publication is $41.28. Subscribed and sworn before me on this 1 S•!- day of i Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS I t4101416 SCO TPASSEY RECEIVED F_? 112 RECD EDMONDS CITY CLERK Packet Pg. 103 9.1.a Classified Proof Q IDINANCE SUMMARY et the r o dm'S,"L'Ca13WCgton On the 28th Day of January, 2025, the Ctry Council of the City of Edmonds, passetl me Ibllowing Ordinances, the summary of said ordinancos eonsls8ng of titles are provided as follows. ORDINANCE No — AN AN ORDINANCE F T E Clr OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE AND JUDGES PRO TEM. ORDINAN E O. g384 AN ORDINANCE F THE NCITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING, AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ('STEP- HOUS114% ORDINANCE NO A385 AN ORDINANC R t OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY CODE PROVISIONS FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. DATED this 28th Day of January, 2025. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Published: January 31, 2025. EDH1008558 Proofed by Pospical, Randie, 01/31/2025 08:44:14 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 104 9.1.b March 31, 2025 Memo To: Mayor Rosen and Edmonds City Council Members From: Edmonds Planning Board Members (PB) Subject: STEP HOUSING EDC RECOMMENDATION 1. Edmonds PB began work on implementing the Comprehensive Plan in January of 2025. The first topic presented for our consideration was STEP Housing. The following source documents and information was considered; Washington State HB 1220 (STEP Housing requirements), Washington State Department of Commerce STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report, proposed/enacted STEP Housing legislation from other nearby jurisdictions, and ECDC Chapter 17.125 (Draft Permanent, Rev 1), Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing (STEP Housing). 2. The consensus of the PB is that the proposed EDC (Draft Permanent, Rev 1) for STEP Housing meets the requirements of HB 1220 and the Growth Management Act (GMA). However, we do recommend removing Section 17.125.030 Para B from the Draft. 3. PB is aware that some nearby jurisdictions have added specific code to address potential neighborhood health, safety and security issues. We also recommend that City Council review existing statutes to consider how these potential issues are addressed for our city. Lee Hankins Planning Board Chair Packet Pg. 105 9.1.b a w a Packet Pg. 106 9.1.c ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing (Draft Permanent, Rev. 1) Page 1 of 3 Chapter 17.125 Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing (STEP Housing) Sections: 17.125.000 Purpose. 17.125.010 Applicability. 17.125.020 Definitions. 17.125.030 Regulations. 17.125.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Ensure compliance with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act and other laws B. Support the implementation of Edmonds's comprehensive plan. C. Encourage the development of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing consistent with best practices for these development types to help address local housing needs. D. Direct STEP development to areas with existing amenities, like jobs, services and transit, to ensure occupants have access to opportunities. E. Protect the health, safety and welfare of the individuals served by these development types and the broader community. 17.125.010 Applicability. A. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter prevails. 17.125.020 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter: A. "Emergency housing" means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. [RCW 36.70A.030(14)] Packet Pg. 107 9.1.c ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing (Draft Permanent, Rev. 1) Page 2 of 3 B. "Emergency shelter" means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. [RCW 36.70A.030(15)] C. "Permanent supportive housing" is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on - site or off -site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment or employment services. Permanent supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW. [RCW 36.70A.030(31)] D. "Religious organization" means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls real property. [RCW 36.01.290(6)(c)] E. "Temporary", as applied in this chapter, applies to the person and how long they reside in STEP housing, not the structure or length of time for the land use. F. "Transitional housing" means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. [RCW 84.36.043(3)(c)] 17.125.030 Regulations. A. Permitted zones for STEP Housing. 1. Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing are permitted in all zones in which hotels are allowed. a. Indoor emergency shelters operated by a religious organization or located in a local public facility are subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.105, not ECDC 17.125. 2. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing are permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Packet Pg. 108 9.1.c ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing (Draft Permanent, Rev. 1) Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 109 .y 7 MODEL ORDINANCE AND = COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT a FOR STEP w Q v3.5 Packet Pg. 110 9.1.d Acknowledgments Washington State Department of Commerce Laura Hodgson, Housing Planning and Data Manager, Growth Management Services Unit (GMS), Local Government Division (LGD) Anne Fritzel, AICP, Housing Section Manager, GMS, LGD Kirsten Jewell, Housing Policy Manager, Housing Division (HD) Melodie Pazolt, Managing Director, Apple Health and Homes Permanent Supportive Housing Unit, HD Kathy Kinard, Managing Director, Homelessness Assistance Unit, HD Abt Global Lindsey Elam, AICP, Senior Analyst Jill Khadduri, PhD, Principal Associate Katie Kitchin, Director, State and Local Housing and Asset Building Candace Baker, Associate Nam Ha, Associate Analyst Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, Associate Analyst Frances Walker, Research Assistant The Corporation for Supportive Housing Theresa Tanoury, MSW, Seattle -based Senior Program Manager Lori Gutierrez, MSW, Senior Program Manager Debbie Thiele, Western Region Managing Director Sharon Rapport, California State Policy Director Angela Brooks, FAICP, Illinois Program Director 1011 Plum St. SE P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 www.commerce.wa.gov For people with disabilities, this report is available on request in other formats. To submit a request, please call 360-725-4000 (TTY 360-586-0772). STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Advisory Committee: Alliance for Housing Affordability at Housing Authority of Snohomish County Association of Washington Cities (AWC) City of Bellingham City of Port Townsend City of Spokane City of Vancouver City of Wenatchee Dee Caputo, FAICP, Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services (Retired) Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC) Futurewise GS Consulting King County, Health through Housing Mercy Housing Northwest Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Local jurisdictions and organizations that participated in the interviews that informed this report: City of Federal Way City of Kenmore City of Kent City of Langley City of Olympia City of Spokane City of Vancouver City of Wenatchee GS Consulting King County Lewis County Plymouth Affordable Housing Development Snohomish County Washington State Department of Health Packet Pg. 111 9.1.d Table of Contents Chapter1: Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................4 Background...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 0 EmergingBest Practices..........................................................................................................................................................................................................6 = •L Chapter2• Background 7 = ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2021 Updates to the Growth Management Act......................................................................................................................................................................7 RelevantState and Federal Laws............................................................................................................................................................................................8 a Stateof the Practice in Washinaton......................................................................................................................................................................................10 a) Chapter3: Planning for STEP 101......................................................................................................................................................................13 STEP Definitions ..................................... STEP Financing and Development Process ................ Supporting STEP Projects and Operations .................. 13 15 17 Chapter4: Comprehensive Planning for STEP....................................................................................................................................................18 Chapter5: Permitting STEP...............................................................................................................................................................................19 Chapter6: Model Ordinance...............................................................................................................................................................................22 Chapter7: Accommodating Enough STEP..........................................................................................................................................................31 Demonstrating Sufficient Land Capacity 31 ReducingDevelopment Barriers............................................................................................................................................................................................32 Addressing Potential Community Concerns........................................................................................................................................................................35 Chapter8: Adoption and Implementation...........................................................................................................................................................39 Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 3 Packet Pg. 112 9.1.d Chapter 1: Introduction The Washington State Department of Commerce created the STEP User Guide and Best Practices Report to assist planning staff, elected and appointed officials, and other representatives of Washington's jurisdictions as they develop local ordinances and regulations pertaining to the siting and development of Emergency shelter, Transitional housing, Emergency housing and Permanent supportive housing (STEP) Definitions for these types of housing and shelter are in the Growth Management Act and other statutes. Emergency shelter means a facility that provides a temporary' shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. RCW 36.70A.030(15) Transitional housing means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families for up to two years' and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living. RCW 84.36.043(3)(c) Emergency housing is temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless and is intended to address basic health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement.3 RCW 36.70A.030(14) • Permanent supportive housing is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy. It utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to The HUB on Third in Walla Walla (co -located emergency shelter, health care and childcare services), Source: Blue Mountain Action Council (BMAC) The PAD House in Whatcom County (emergency housing), Source: Northwest Youth Services Gonzaga Family Haven in Spokane (permanent supportive housing), Source: Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington 1 For STEP, temporary applies to the person and how long they reside there, not the structure or length of time for the land use. However, when planning for STEP, it is best for communities not to limit lengths of stay because it could be inconsistent with a project's funding requirements. 2 Although transitional housing is designed to move people into permanent housing in less than two years, some transitional housing programs do not limit the stay to two years. 3 Any STEP project that requires a lease or occupancy agreement is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW (Landlord Tenant Law). STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 4 Packet Pg. 113 9.1.d entry than typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on -site or off -site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment, or employment services. RCW 36.70A.030(31) c Background CU 0 Washington experienced a significant 19.9% increase in homelessness from 2007 to 2023 a one of the main reasons for this is the state's lack of affordable housing, resulting in housing prices rising faster than the lowest incomes.1, 6 To address this crisis, state and local governments must 3 encourage a variety of shelter and housing options, including STEP, to meet the unique needs of individuals, families, unaccompanied youth, a seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and other subpopulations who are at the greatest risk of losing their housing in these market conditions. a Fully planning local governments are required to identify sufficient land capacity for future housing needs of all economic segments and must address barriers such as zoning and other rules that affect housing production (RCW 36.70A.070(2)). Cities are also required to allow STEP housing in certain zones (RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430). This report provides an overview of information local governments may need to plan for their local STEP housing needs, including: • Emerging best practices for planning for STEP, • Relevant state and federal laws for regulating STEP, • Information on STEP housing types, development processes, planning steps, and permitting processes for STEP, • A model ordinance for jurisdictions to use in developing their local STEP regulations, • Guidance for local governments as they develop their regulations for STEP, and • Strategies local governments can employ to encourage STEP development. Commerce contracted with Abt Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing to create this report that localities can use throughout Washington. To ensure the effectiveness of these efforts, an advisory committee consisting of local government representatives, developers and non-profit organizations provided guidance and feedback. The development of the report's contents also considered public input and emerging best practices from communities in Washington and other parts of the country. 4 de Sousa, et al. The Annual Homeless Assessment (AHAR) Report. 2023. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar.html 5 TVW. Governor's Results Washington Initiative. Homelessness and Housing Crisis, March 2024. https://tvw.org/video/governors-results-washington-initiative- 2024031242/?eventlD=2024031242 6 Washington State Department of Commerce. Homelessness in Washington. March 2024. httos://aoo.lea.wa.aov/ReDortsToTheLeaislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=CommerceReDorts2023 HID _Homelessness _in_Washinaton 24def55e-7087-43fc-adOc- 7894a56106ab.pdf STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 5 Packet Pg. 114 9.1.d Emerging Best Practices Communities can use the following strategies to accommodate local housing needs, prevent perpetuating discriminatory practices that make it difficult to site and develop STEP, encourage affordable housing production, and support STEP developers, residents and staff. Additionally, these strategies can benefit some of Washington's most vulnerable populations, increase housing stability, promote community integration and c contribute to larger initiatives to tackle homelessness and housing insecurity in the state. _ L CU • Allow STEP developments outright as a permitted use in designated zones = • Encourage STEP development in locations close to healthcare services, transportation, jobs and other amenities to promote economic mobility a and access to services • Reduce and clarify requirements to streamline permitting steps and reduce barriers for STEP development • Provide land use and financial incentives to encourage more STEP production • Expedite permitting processes for STEP projects, thereby providing quicker, more predictable timelines that help prevent cost increases caused by project delays • Encourage developers to have pre -development application meetings with local planning staff to ensure they are aware of all the local regulations and processes that apply to a project • Understand the development process and funding requirements for STEP • Partner with local service providers to create STEP regulations that are responsive to their needs and remove barriers to STEP development • Facilitate communication between developers, providers and community members • Use consistent definitions for STEP • Partner with neighboring jurisdictions to create consistent regulations for STEP STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 6 Packet Pg. 115 9.1.d Chapter 2: Background The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to develop comprehensive plans and development regulations for their communities. This chapter provides an overview of recent changes to the GMA for STEP, relevant state and federal laws for STEP, and the state of the practice for regulating STEP in Washington as of 2024. 2021 Updates to the Growth Management Act In 2021, Washington state passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and municipal code requirements (RCW 36.70A.070(2). and RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683, respectively).' The law requires fully planning local governments$ to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels, which includes demonstrating sufficient land capacity for housing at all income levels to meet n .olm 0 2024 DW Dec«nber 31- M 2025 Due December 31» 2026 Due Juno all" M 2027 Dua June 30 * Started counties ate perbnity planning ur4w the Growth Manapen»nt Act future housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing.' Local governments must also identify local barriers to production of affordable housing and take actions to remove those barriers. They must complete these plans and associated updates to zoning and development regulations based on the periodic update schedule identified by the state legislature (see above right). In addition, municipal code changes in 2021 required changes to specific zoning and development regulations in cities for four different housing types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing (STEP). These updates were required by September 2021.10 However, some cities were unable to address the requirement to permit STEP by the required deadline and others were waiting for their comprehensive plan periodic update to complete the work. Some lacked the necessary resources to implement the state laws, some were ' For more information on the Growth Management Act and other relevant state and federal laws pertaining to STEP, see the STEP State of the Practice Report. 8 Fully planning communities are all those jurisdictions in dark blue, light blue and green on the GMS Regional Variations map. 9 Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs and land capacity guidance. 10 Defer to local jurisdictions' ordinances to determine if your community has updated its regulations for STEP. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 116 9.1.d waiting for Commerce to project housing needs for each county, and some implemented policies that created additional barriers to increasing in Washington. In addition to the requirements about where STEP must be allowed in cities, state law was updated to state that any local restrictions on spacing, occupancy and intensity of use for these developments must be linked specifically to public health and safety reasons (e.g., reference emergency response times, building code, etc.) in their ordinance's findings section. Any such requirements on occupancy, spacing and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each city's projected need for such housing and shelter under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii). Additional state laws and guidance for occupancy, spacing and intensity are as follows. Occupancy: Cities and counties may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons who may occupy a dwelling unit except as provided for in state law for short-term rentals or by occupant load per square foot, RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227. Spacing: Spacing can refer to the distance between similar uses or the proximity to services (e.g., transportation). Any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing required by RCWs 9.94A.030, 9.94A.703 and 9.94A.8445, which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. Intensity: With respect to STEP, intensity can refer to the density of people, transportation, and/or services needed by the participants who live in a single location or facility. Relevant State and Federal Laws In addition to the Growth Management Act, other state and federal laws apply to STEP; Table 1 provides law summaries and links. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 117 9.1.d Table 1 - STEP Types and Applicable Laws 0 The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 require fully planning local governments to plan for and accommodate Y Y Y Y 0) housing affordable to all income levels. S •L RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 requires cities to not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in Y Y Y M Y = zones where hotels are allowed. Cities must allow permanent supportive and transitional housing in zones where residential v dwelling units or hotels are allowed. These regulations may limit occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements to protect public health and safety so long as such limits allow the siting of a sufficient number of units/beds to accommodate each city's 0 projected housing needs. d Y RCW 35.21.689 and RCW 35A.21.305 require cities to allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted. (9 RCW 36.130.020 prohibits any local government from having requirements on an affordable housing development that are different Y* Y* Y from those imposed on housing developments generally. N L RCW 35.21.682. RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 prohibit any local government from having requirements related to unrelated Y Y Y Y = persons that may occupy a unit. to d Y RCW 36.70A.545 requires fully planning cities and counties to allow increased density bonuses for any affordable housing on real Y* Y* property owned or controlled by a religious organization. c RCW 35.21.915, RCW 35A.21.360. and RCW 36.01.290 prohibit any local government from regulatory limits on encampments, safe Y Y parking, overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. O RCW 36.70A.540 gives authority to local governments to offer incentives in exchange for providing development for low-income Y* Y* Y housing units. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c) requires fully planning local governments to document how they have sufficient land use capacity for all Y** Y Y future housing needs by income level. RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e) requires fully planning counties to have countywide planning policies that consider the need for housing for Y Y Y Y all economic segments and the parameters for its distribution. RCW 9.94A.030(6) regulates where level two and three sex offenders may not live. RCW 36.70A.390 states public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to regulations that prohibit building permit applications for transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwellings or hotels are allowed or prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits requirements imposed on STEP that violate civil rights protections. Y Y Y Y Washington State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act includes laws landlords must follow. Y. Y. Y Y Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires all branches of government in the state to examine their laws' environmental Y Y Y impacts. At the local level, this requires an assessment of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and project permits unless specifically exempted by the act. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 9 Packet Pg. 118 Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provides enforceable standards to address discrimination. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prevents the implementation of land use regulations that impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person. *Only applicable when the housing has a rental agreement, occupancy agreement or lease. A "rental agreement," "occupancy agreement" or "lease" establishes or modifies the terms, conditions, rules, regulations and other provisions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit. **Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs. State of the Practice in Washington Commerce spoke with a number of communities to learn how they developed and regulated STEP. This section reflects these findings. In Washington, many communities use local land use policies to influence the development of STEP. It is appropriate for local governments to apply land use and development regulations to these housing types, as with all other developments, by law. While some recently adopted STEP regulations are consistent with state and federal laws and encourage the production of STEP to meet their local housing needs, some existing local regulations and processes conflict with state and federal laws. In general, local regulations in Washington state could align better with state requirements, provide more flexibility and greater opportunities for establishing STEP, and remove barriers to this affordable housing need." The following are examples of observed regulatory and process barriers for STEP development in the state of Washington: Permit processes: Generally, local authorities permit STEP development in areas that already have access to services such as transit, which is a best practice. However, some jurisdictions still require a conditional use permit for all STEP, which is inconsistent with state laws for permanent supportive housing and STEP housing with leases (RCW 36.130.020), but also creates a barrier to siting any STEP project. Under this permitting process, these projects must meet certain criteria and go through a special approval process that can delay the project's timeline and increase the likelihood that a hearing examiner or the city council will not approve the project following public opposition. These additional conditions and delays result in significant costs to the project sponsors and public funders and may discourage a STEP developer from pursuing projects in their jurisdiction. • Occupancy, spacing and intensity requirements: Local regulations for STEP often include rules related to occupancy, spacing, intensity or density, parking, environmental standards and other development and operational requirements that could create barriers for STEP production >> All fully planning local governments are directed by RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d) to "make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community," STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 119 9.1.d Typical restrictions on the occupancy, spacing and intensity of use of STEP in local jurisdictions include limits on the number of clients a project can serve, the number of staff and the distance between STEP projects. Most jurisdictions also do not have special provisions regarding density bonuses for STEP sponsored by religious organizations (RCW 36.70A.545). Some communities have distance restrictions that prohibit the construction of emergency shelters or emergency housing within one-half mile of another existing or proposed shelter or emergency housing projects. Variations of this requirement are common in Washington's jurisdictions. c a� In most cases, jurisdictions have not shown in their ordinances' findings how their spacing, occupancy and intensity of use regulations are L a linked to public health and safety (e.g., referencing local building and fire code), therefore they are not in compliance with state laws that require = this demonstration and possibly in violation of federal fair housing laws. Their spacing requirements are also not consistent with the Department of Commerce's recommendations that any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing already required by RCWs a 9.94A.0301 9.94A.703 and 9.94A.8445, which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. a) Jurisdictions with spacing and intensity requirements have also not identified how they will have sufficient capacity for their future housing needs at each income level in their 20-year comprehensive plans and development regulations, which is inconsistent with state law requiring this demonstration if communities adopt these types of regulations.12 A combination of density and spacing requirements for STEP can easily result in a community not having enough sites available with the capacity to meet local housing need allocations, impacting the jurisdiction's ability to make adequate provision for this type of housing and adhere to state law. Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)(ii) states that jurisdictions must assess barriers, such as development regulations, gaps in local funding and other limitations, as part of documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability in their comprehensive plans. Barrier assessment should consider factors that may negatively affect production for each type of housing allowed in the jurisdiction.13 Parking minimums: STEP projects are commonly required to meet similar parking minimums as other housing, mixed -use or other development types. Because STEP residents or clients may be less likely to own a car, especially in urban environments near transit, these requirements may limit or create barriers for STEP development. In some Washington communities, the planning director and/or city engineer determines STEP projects' parking requirements or approves a parking study for required parking; this process may support flexibility and reduce barriers for STEP projects.14 Other communities have parking minimums specific to STEP (e.g., one parking space for every two employees and every four beds). 12 RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 note these restrictions shall not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each [code] city's projected need for such housing and shelter. Additionally, fully planning cities and counties are required with their periodic update to show sufficient land capacity for housing needs at all income levels. (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)) 13 Strategies that jurisdictions can consider implementing to help STEP overcome development barriers are discussed staring on page 32. 14 Planning director and/or city engineer approval may also create ambiguity if there are not clear standards or examples that developers can reference. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 11 Packet Pg. 120 9.1.d Operations plans: Many communities also require STEP or certain STEP types, such as emergency shelters or emergency housing, to submi operations plans or agreements before they can be permitted. The required information for operations plans varies by jurisdiction. However, common documentation requirements include: • Contact information for key staff and their roles and responsibilities c • A facility management plan, including security policies and an emergency management plan = • Site and facility maintenance policies a • Occupancy policies = • A staffing plan • A community engagement plan a • Documentation of record -keeping processes • A description of transportation either provided or accessible to residents t� These requirements can create barriers to STEP production and are inconsistent with state law generally when required of permanent y supportive housing, as well as transitional and emergency housing with leases, unless they are required of other housing generally because the state considers these affordable housing (RCW 36.130.020). To encourage STEP, local developers said jurisdictions can be more flexible regarding their specific requirements, such as reducing or waiving parking minimums when projects anticipate a high ratio of tenants who use public transportation or have alternate modes of transportation and do not need onsite parking. Jurisdictions can also help by only requesting STEP projects provide operations plans when there is sufficient local government capacity and expertise to review the plans and only asking for necessary information that can be important for local government to have on file (e.g., emergency contact number and a safety plan). If a local government requires any of these additional plans or information, Commerce recommends that local governments require only basic information and that they provide examples of the plans for local developers to reference and understand what is required. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 12 Packet Pg. 121 9.1.d Chapter 3: Planning for STEP 101 Jurisdictions should use Washington state's definitions for STEP to ensure consistency across the state and encourage STEP development by making definitions and policies more straightforward for developers. When planning for STEP, it is also helpful to consider the various processes involved in planning, siting, funding, permitting, building, licensing and operating STEP projects. c a� CU STEP Definitions Washington state uses specific terms and definitions for STEP that are used throughout this report; see Chapter 1: Introduction. For the purposes of 2 the state's model ordinance and this report, STEP refers to developments that meet the Washington State Residential Building Code based on the n 2021 International Residential Code, which includes rules for a permanent foundation, safe plumbing and electrical practices, insulation, weather tightness, energy efficiency and safety (smoke alarms and egress). With regard to emergency housing and emergency shelter, RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 state that jurisdictions must not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in all zones in which hotels are allowed. "Indoor," as used in the definition of indoor emergency housing (RCW 36.70A.030), and "indoor" with respect to indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelter in RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430, is interpreted in this report and the state's model ordinance as a subset of all of the possible building forms in which shelter can be provided. Indoor implies buildings that are affixed to the ground and have indoor plumbing, and therefore would exclude forms on wheels (e.g., recreational vehicles) or that lack internal sanitation and/or cooking facilities, such as tiny shelters or pallet shelters.15 Non-standard types: Local jurisdictions have observed many organizations proposing non -building code compliant structures or structures that may not have indoor plumbing, such as temporary pallet shelters, tent encampments and safe parking areas. This sometimes presents challenges for jurisdictions because their local codes may limit these types of structures. An additional challenge observed is that there are no adopted statewide standards for safe human habitation of these structures, but building codes for some temporary emergency shelters should be available by July 2026.16 Tiny homes and park model homes" may also face barriers because their size and dimensions may not conform to standard building codes, or local governments may limit where these homes are allowed as primary dwellings. Non-standard STEP types cannot be counted towards a jurisdiction's local housing need allocations, because they are more like sanctioned encampments than emergency shelters. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Washington State Department of Commerce's Homeless Assistance Unit currently do not fund these projects as "emergency shelters." Furthermore, depending on the shelter and 15 Therefore, cities are not required to allow non -building code compliant structures as STEP, but the Department of Commerce encourages local governments to allow non-standard types of STEP as an alternative to sleeping outside to provide safer places for people experiencing homelessness. 16 The Washington Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5553 in 2023, which directs the state building code council to adopt standards for temporary emergency shelters and make them available for local adoption. Adopting these state building code standards may assist local governments with their building code questions for unique shelter accommodations. 17 Park model homes are recreational vehicles intended for permanent or semi -permanent installation. They are used as a primary residence (RCW 59.20.030). STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 13 Packet Pg. 122 9.1.d services offered, occupants may still be considered "unsheltered" under federal definitions. For example, HUD considers someone living in their car as experiencing unsheltered homelessness.'$ However, the Department of Commerce encourages local governments to allow non-standard types of STEP as an alternative to sleeping outside to provide safer places for people experiencing homelessness. These non-standard housing types could include, for example, safe parking and other non-standard projects that offer occupants sanitation services, connections to community services and support in finding permanent housing.19 Local governments may consider making land available for non-traditional projects, taking into consideration other potential uses of public land.20 While there are currently no state or federal standards for non-standard shelter types, some existing federal, state and local laws apply to this issue, for example: • In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the City of Boise's petition regarding its Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances, which upheld the law that people experiencing homelessness cannot be punished for sleeping outside on public property if adequate alternatives are not provided. The ruling in Martin v. Boise encouraged local governments to plan for alternatives to homelessness. However, on June 28, 2024, in the case of Grant Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that jurisdictions could criminalize camping and sleeping in public, overturning the Grant Pass case's previous decision and the Martin v. Boise ruling.21 • RCW 36.70A.540 states that local governments may use their development regulations and other means to expand opportunities for low- income housing units, including tiny home communities. • Some local jurisdictions have implemented regulations for these non-standard housing types. Thurston County recently finalized its interim homeless encampment facility regulations, and the City of Bellingham has regulated temporary shelters, including encampments, safe parking areas and tiny house shelters, since 2018. The City of Port Townsend created new regulations to support STEP, including wooden tent villages. Before adopting these code changes, Community Build, a nonprofit, built "wooden tents" (one -room structures serving as effective shelters that do not meet the legal definition of a dwelling unit) in Port Townsend. Permitting these tent encampments kept people sheltered and safer than the alternatives (e.g., sleeping outside). Port Townsend staff reported fewer conflicts than expected between wooden tent encampments and neighboring uses. However, the project did face several challenges. It needed to be approved through a temporary conditional use process, 18 HUD defines unsheltered homelessness as an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport or camping ground. For more information, see Unsheltered Homelessness on the HUD Exchanoe. 19 Currently, there are no state or federal guidelines in place for the use of safe parking areas as permitted emergency shelter options. This absence leaves jurisdictions to determine their own policies for integrating safe parking into STEP planning. At least ten jurisdictions in Washington have established safe parking programs; for more information, see the National Vehicle Residency Collective's National Parking Program List. 20 The Portland State University's Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative for the Joint Office of Homeless Services found that tiny home villages only cost less to develop when land is free, compared to more traditional forms of STEP (motels and congregate shelter). It also found that operating costs for villages vary because of their staffing needs. Operating expenses for tiny home villages are higher than congregate shelters. However, this study found that alternative shelter types, like these villages, are more successful in transitioning people out of homelessness and meeting their needs than congregate shelters. The most appropriate shelter type for a community varies and can be based on a number of factors (e.g., client needs and preferences, land suitability, properties available for acquisition, and a project's lifespan). 21 For information on combating the criminalization of homelessness, see the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance's toolkit. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 14 Packet Pg. 123 9.1.d which required the project's managing agencies to extend the permit or move to a new location every six months. The city reported this was costly and inefficient. Housing vs. facilities: Some residential types are sometimes confused with STEP, particularly permanent supportive housing. Residents residing in permanent supportive housing are subject to all the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW, also known as the Washington State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act. A person residing in permanent supportive housing has full rights of tenancy through a lease with their landlord, but this is not the case in licensed residential facilities, such as licensed adult family homes, group living homes for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities, or assisted living facilities for seniors where residents must pay towards the cost of their care." Disaster Relief / Recovery Shelter: While STEP may be used in the event of a disaster (e.g., floods, wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes) to meet immediate needs, disaster relief and recovery shelters established by FEMA, local governments or others in response to a disaster (before or after) is not considered STEP. Disaster relief/recovery shelters have different funding sources, managers, and operators and can trigger different regulations and local processes. Local governments can consult their emergency preparedness plans and FEMA's Planning Considerations: Disaster Housing for more information on disaster shelter and housing planning. STEP Financing and Development Process STEP projects often face significant financial barriers and have complicated funding sources, each with its own requirements. When considering development regulations, jurisdictions should take these funding sources and their requirements into consideration and try to avoid creating potentially duplicative or overly burdensome standards that may overlap with the other requirements projects need to meet to obtain funding and be viable.23 Some common funding sources for STEP include: • Washington State's Apple Health and Homes Initiative, Housing Trust Fund and Consolidated Homeless Grant • Support from county and local governments, financial institutions and philanthropic organizations (e.g., tax -increment financing, grants, loans, reduced impact fees and system development charge waivers, free or reduced price land, cash and materials donations) • Low -Income Housing Tax Credits, Historic Tax Credits and New Markets Tax Credits • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (e.g., Home Investment Partnership Program and Community Development Block Grants) and Rental income, Housing Choice Vouchers and Medicaid (for leased units)24, 25 22 For more information on STEP and other housing types, seethe Department of Commerce's STEP Housing Definitions Factsheet. 21 Small cities and counties who need assistance with STEP planning or regulations can reach out to the Department of Commerce or their Regional Planner as a resource. 24 The Urban Institute, in partnership with the National Housing Conference, developed an interactive tool that helps illustrate how affordable housing developments "pencil out" and discusses how these types of projects typically need some form of government support. 21 For more information on funding sources, see the Department of Commerce's STEP State of the Practice Report and STEP Operations Guide. _ 0 a) CU a� x a STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 15 Packet Pg. 124 STEP project sponsor or another partner identifies STEP project partners create a detailed development plan STEP project partners make any necessary revisions to community needs (e.g., reviewing existing community plans, studies and date and engaging (e.g., architectural drawings, engineering plans, and other the development plan after it is reviewed by local relevant documentation) and apply for a building permit. government departments, such as building, zoning and the local Continuum of Care lead agency and fire safety, to ensure compliance with all relevant public housing authority) and develops a design concept to help address those needs. regulations to receive permit approval. STEP project sponsor or another partner Identifies additional key partners (e.g., architect, attorney, development consultant, funders, tax credit syndicator if using Low Income Housing Tax Credits, general contractor and management company) and begins securing financial com mit mec" tw Maie" COO'MWAion STEP project partners identify an appropriate Location (e.g., where the project complies with zoning code, development regulations and funding requirements) and obtain site control. A project's funding can drive its site selection; for example, some funders' scoring criteria look at neighborhood demographics, amenities, transit options and other location characteristics. STEP project partners secure funding commitments. Developing and operating STEP projects requires some form of financial assistance from the public sector, financial institutions, private investors or non-profit organizations. Often, a combination of these funding sources is needed, each with its own unique requirements. STEP project partners conduct a site assessment, financial feasibility analysis and other predevelopment activities, like community engagement. In some jurisdictions, neighborhood responses to affordable housing can drive local siting and permitting decisions. Some developers may need to conduct early public outreach and engagement to foster community support for their project. •■I F!N STEP project obtains a certificate of occupancy and opens for operation. In Washington state, most STEP accomodations do not have licensing and operating requirements under state law. However, once STEP opens, operation involves numerous activities, such as developing operating procedures and policies, ordering furniture and supplies, hiring and training staff, marketing services, planning for move -ins, property management, service delivery and responding to fundersllenders reporting requirements. 9.1.d Supporting STEP Projects and Operations Consistent with state funding guidelines for a variety of funding sources,26 Commerce recommends that local governments support low -barrier projects consistent with the "Housing First" model. Low -barrier projects require minimal eligibility requirements and documentation.2I Households experiencing homelessness are not screened out based on the following criteria: having little or no income, poor credit or financial history, poor or lack of rental history, involvement with the criminal 'S CU justice system, active or history of substance use, disability -related services support, lacking ID or proof of US residency or behaviors perceived as = indicating a lack of "housing readiness," including resistance to receiving services. Low -barrier projects have realistic and clear expectations. Rules 2 and policies are narrowly focused on maintaining a safe environment and avoiding exiting people back into homelessness. a Low -barrier projects do not have work or service requirements. If the project requires households to pay a share of rent, they allow reasonable flexibility in payment. Emergency shelters may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Households in low -barrier programs are not terminated because they will not participate in supportive service programs. In addition, alcohol and/or substance use in and of itself is not considered a reason for termination. If a household is terminated from a low -barrier project due to violating rules focused on maintaining a safe environment, there must be a process in place for the household to be considered for re -enrollment if the household demonstrates unsafe behavior is unlikely to re -occur (i.e., engaged in new treatment plan, mental health services, medical care, etc.). Housing First is a philosophy and approach to housing and services that is often associated with permanent supportive housing, but it is applicable to all STEP types. Housing First revolves around several core tenets including entry that is not conditioned on sobriety, previous service participation, credit or evictions; housing is provided as quickly as possible; and the participant has a choice in housing selection within the bounds of available options. Housing First provides voluntary, tenant -driven supportive services to residents to help them comply with lease terms and to address behaviors that impact housing stability.28 Housing First is a trauma -informed practice that recognizes that an individual's life events or circumstances that they experience as physically or emotionally harmful have lasting adverse effects on that individual, mentally, physically, socially or emotionally.29 The design and operations of STEP projects should be trauma -informed, which includes an emphasis on safety in the physical environment, promoting self -efficacy and control over one's belongings and daily activities, and ongoing education of staff on trauma -related behaviors and trauma -informed practices. 26 For example, according to Guidelines for the Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG). Updated March 2024, "By July 1, 2025, no less than 80% of a county's CHG funded projects (programs and facilities) must be low barrier." 27 The description of low -barrier projects in this paragraph come from Commerce's Guidelines for the Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG). Updated March 2024, pages 9 and 10 28 This "Introduction to Housing First" contains more of the basics of the "Housing First" principles. Additional resources on Housing First can be found on Commerce's Housing Division Grantee Training webpaae under "Housing First." 29 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA's Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma -Informed Approach. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/smal4-4884.pdf. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 17 Packet Pg. 126 9.1.d Chapter 4: Comprehensive Planning for STEP Homelessness and housing affordability is a challenge that affects an entire county and requires solutions that often go beyond the resources of one city or town government. Therefore, many planning and implementation efforts start or take place at the county level in Washington.10 0 Revisions to RCW 36.70A.070(2) in 2021 updated requirements for how jurisdictions should plan for housing in their comprehensive plans. To = implement the new law, the Department of Commerce provides projections of housing needs for each county, including emergency housing and M permanent supportive housing .31 Each county must decide how to allocate these projections among its local jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction must = then document its share of countywide housing needs by income level and plan for and accommodate that share of housing needs in its comprehensive plan.32 a Each county that is fully planning under the Growth Management Act must have countywide planning policies and processes for allocating their countywide housing needs to local jurisdictions (RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e)).33 Many communities are still in the process of allocating countywide projections of need to local governments. Countywide collaboration in this process is vital to ensure a coordinated approach to planning for housing for all income levels. As counties decide where overall population and housing should be directed, most communities use data on employment locations, transportation accessibility, service availability, infrastructure and land capacity to determine the appropriate percentage of housing growth to plan for in each area. Local governments then use this information and the Department of Commerce's Housing for All Planning Tool to determine a distribution of housing needs by income level to each jurisdiction or to inform a local -designed method of allocating housing needs. Counties may use their countywide planning policies about where overall growth should be directed within the county to assist with this work or local data such as information about where existing support services are located or likely to locate, where existing affordable housing and STEP housing are located, and other local factors to inform their decisions. 30 In addition to comprehensive planning for housing of all income levels under the Growth Management Act, Washington state law (RCW 43.185C.050) requires that each county local homeless housing task force develop and recommend to its local government legislative authority a five-year homeless housing plan for its jurisdictional area. Each county's 5- year plan can be found on Commerce's website. 31 Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs. 32 Resources for projected housing needs are in Book 1 of Commerce's Housing Element Guidance. Projecting housing needs by income level begins on page 34. Information on how to allocate the countywide housing needs from the countywide projections to individual jurisdictions begins on page 60. 33 RCW 36.70A.210(3): A countywide planning policy shall, at a minimum, address policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 127 9.1.d Chapter 5: Permitting STEP The local permitting process for STEP can vary depending on the jurisdiction and their permitting procedures. The approval process for a land use permit typically depends on whether the permit is classified as Type I, II, III or other permit. While the number of permit types and their terminology c may vary by jurisdiction, in general, the more complex the project, the greater the level of public notice and review is needed. sa. ss, sb For example, _ simple building permits are administratively approved under a Type I permit, while permitting for projects requiring a higher level of review such as CU conditional use permits, commonly fall under Type III and higher. _ Project permit decisions can involve different decision makers and levels of public input. Projects permits approved by local planning staff without a public hearings are considered administrative decisions. More complex projects may involve review by a hearings examiner, public hearings and may include discretion in permitting decisions. These permit types are called quasi-judicial because additional procedures are factored into the permitting decision. Generally speaking, quasi-judicial permitting proceedings provide for public notice, public testimony and decisions based on 0 adopted criteria. Conditional use permits and variances heard and decided by a hearings examiner are common examples of quasi-judicial permits. a� Table 2 provides recommendations for permitting processes related to STEP, including information on whether the level of permitting might be considered a permitted or conditional use in land use tables. 34 For more examples of local permit procedures, read MRSC's Streamlining Local Permit Review Procedures (2024). 35 For resources on local planning, project review, and permitting, read the Department of Commerce's A Short Course On Local Planning Resource Guide Version 5.3 (2017). 36 The Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B) codified into state law a series of best practices for the local land use permit process to better enable citizens and developers to know what to expect and to provide for more timely and efficient permit issuance. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 19 Packet Pg. 128 9.1.d Table 2 - Example of Local Permit Processes by Project Types Approval Process Recommended review process for STEP Type Permitting Table Administrative Emergency shelter and emergency housing that meet local development standards in areas zoned for hotels Transitional housing and permanent supportive housing that meet local development standards in areas zoned for other housing types and hotels Outdoor encampments, safe parking, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization Permitted Administrative Discretionary Emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing that require an exemption to local development regulations Affordable housing developments on property owned or controlled by a religious organization seeking an increased density bonus consistent with the community's housing needs allocation Permitted, sometimes with footnotes, OR Administrative Conditional Use (emergency housing and emergency shelter ONLY, not PSH or transitional housing)37 Quasi -Judicial Projects that do not meet the requirements for a Type 1 or Type II Permit. Conditional Use* * Commerce recommends allowing emergency housing and emergency shelter as permitted uses whenever possible, instead of conditional uses The permit type for STEP facilities is mainly determined when a jurisdiction amends its zoning regulations and determines whether STEP facilities are a permitted use, administratively approved use or a conditional use in particular zoning districts. Jurisdictions should give particular attention tc the code development process and make concerted efforts to notice and involve the public so that the public has been engaged on decisions on where STEP facilities may be located and their applicable permit process. To reduce barriers to siting STEP facilities, Commerce recommends local governments adopt development regulations as follows: 37 PSH and transitional housing should not be an administrative conditional use unless other housing generally is permitted as an administrative conditional use (RCW 36.130.020) STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 20 Packet Pg. 129 9.1.d • Allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing to be permitted using the same process as housing development genera y (RCW 36.130.020). • Use the lowest level permitting type for STEP (e.g. Type I permit process is preferred to Type III). • When a conditional use permit process is required for STEP, clearly specify the required standards STEP facilities must meet to address = compatibility and impacts. This will facilitate a STEP project's ability to meet the criteria for approving the permit. ° a� When permitting projects, it is important for jurisdictions to effectively communicate to the public when they do and do not have influence over the CU permit decision -making process. For example, communities can consider including this information in the messaging for public notices. If a = jurisdiction plans to organize an informational meeting about a STEP project, jurisdictions should be careful with the wording of notices to explain that these are informational community meetings to present the facts of a project and local feedback cannot affect the permitting decision. n STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 21 Packet Pg. 130 9.1.d Chapter 6: Model Ordinance The model ordinance presented here supports jurisdictions in developing ordinances that are consistent with state and federal laws, implement their comprehensive plan, help address their county's allocations of housing needs and encourage STEP. The model ordinance provides sample regulatory language. The primary components of the ordinance are: • Section 1 General: Ordinance number and title, recitals or whereas clauses, enactment clause and statement of purpose. • Section 11 Definitions: Definitions of the terms used in the ordinance. • Section III Substantive Provisions: More detailed guidance on zoning and development regulations and a zoning matrix. • Section IV Concluding Sections: Effective date, corrections/repeals, savings and severability clauses. Table 3 outlines each section and its sub -sections. Jurisdictions can use the relevant language, fill in information specific to their community in the red text, and edit the ordinance further to fit local needs if necessary. Table 3 also includes additional information for jurisdictions to consider as they develop their regulations, including legal considerations, instructions on how to tailor the language to fit a variety of contexts across the state, and a discussion of strategies that help reduce regulatory barriers for STEP. Table 3 - Model Ordinance and Additional Considerations and Options L General i. Ordinance Number and Title AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SITING AND DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. Nil AN ORDINANCE amending [chapter number amended] of the municipal code. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Ordinance Number and Title: The model ordinance provides sample language that local jurisdictions can use to develop their own ordinances for regulating STEP. For general guidance on developing local ordinances, including the Ordinance Number and Title section, jurisdictions can read MRSC's Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties (2015) In general, the model ordinance and its guidance are written with both counties and cities in mind. The model ordinance highlights areas in red where communities can customize the language. In most cases, guidance that applies to cities also applies to counties. Packet Pg. 131 ii. Recitals or Whereas Clauses Whereas, A) The Washington Growth Management Act requires fully planning local governments to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels. All cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act must update their comprehensive plans and development regulations according to the schedule in RCW 36.70A.130. B) RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 require that cities shall not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Cities also shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, except in such cities that have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one -mile proximity to transit. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed by ordinance on permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelters to protect public health and safety. Any such requirements on occupancy, spacing and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each city's projected need for such housing and shelter. These regulations were effective September 30, 2021. C) Cities must allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted. (RCW 35.21.689, RCW 35A.21.305) D) All fully planning jurisdictions must document sufficient land capacity for emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing. (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)) E) Public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to ordinances or development regulations adopted by a city that prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed or prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. (RCW 36.70A.390) F) City and county regulations may not limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit except for lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or building code limits. (RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227) G) Any restrictions and requirements imposed on the siting and operations of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing must not violate civil rights protections provided by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Recitals or Whereas Clauses: Local recitals or whereas clauses in Washington state often include relevant state requirements, facts justifying the ordinance, references to the comprehensive plan and information on the process of developing the ordinance and regulations. The model ordinance provides excerpts from relevant state and federal laws. Jurisdictions could also cite relevant local data on housing needs regarding STEP (e.g., housing needs allocations from their county or the county's overall housing needs allocations), or housing policies from their comprehensive plan. Jurisdictions could also include statements summarizing the process of developing and approving the regulations, such as what information was considered when the ordinance was drafted, what the planning commission recommendations were, whether there was a public hearing(s), and when Washington State Environmental Policy Act requirements were considered if applicable. 23 Packet Pg. 132 H) A city or county is prohibited from imposing different requirements on affordable housing developments (e.g., permanent supportive housing, transitional housing or emergency housing with a lease) than those imposed on housing developments generally. However, exceptions are allowed for preferential treatment towards affordable housing developments aimed at specific groups such as individuals experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, persons with disabilities, seniors or low-income households. Preferential treatment may include fee reductions or waivers, adjustments to architectural or site development requirements, or other measures aimed at reducing development or operating costs. (RCW 36.130.020) 1) If a city, county or other local government entity is a funder of the project, the city can put regulations or restrictions on operators of affordable housing. J) Any city or county must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local needs for any affordable housing development of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization. (RCW 36.70A.545) K) Regulatory limits on outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization must be consistent with RCW 35.21.915 and RCW 36.01.290. iii. Enactment Clause Therefore, the [approving entity, for example, City Council or Board of County Commissioners, and community name] does ordain as follows: iv. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to: A) Ensure compliance with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act and other laws. B) Support the implementation of [community name]'s comprehensive plan. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Enactment Clause: The enactment cause includes who adopted the ordinance. Statement of Purpose: A statement of purpose typically discusses the ordinance's goals, such as ensuring compliance with state and federal laws and the comprehensive plan. Goals might incorporate specific excerpts from laws and the comprehensive plan that the ordinance addresses. Specific goals will vary by jurisdiction but might include a goal related to ensuring STEP tenants and clients have access to 24 _ 0 am L CU m 2 3 a Packet Pg. 133 C) Encourage the development of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing consistent with best practices for these development types to help address local housing needs. D) Direct STEP development to areas with existing amenities, like jobs, services and transit, to ensure occupants have access to opportunities. E) Protect the health, safety and welfare of the individuals served by these development types and the broader community. ll. Definitions The following definitions shall be applied. Words in the singular number shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular. Statutory required definitions: 1) Emergency housing means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. (RCW 36.70A.030(14)) 2) Emergency shelter means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. (RCW 36.70A.030(15)) 3) Permanent supportive housing is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive housing is paired with on -site or off -site voluntary services designed to support a person living transportation, jobs and other services, and a goal related to supporting the broader community with the code. Definitions: Commerce intends for this model ordinance to support jurisdictions in following requirements established by the Growth Management Act and the state's definitions of STEP To ensure consistency across the state, jurisdictions should use Washington state's definitions included here under statutory required definitions; while the other definitions are optional.38 Jurisdictions may define housing and shelter types not defined by the state, so long as they are not inconsistent with state law. If there are questions, consult with your jurisdiction's attorney or with Commerce staff. For example, one county and city in Washington state made conscious efforts to align their language and processes to help reduce development barriers like unclear or inconsistent regulation language. Other jurisdictions worked with local housing providers to develop language for additional terms and definitions for temporary shelter and accommodations that the providers intended to develop. Jurisdictions should also avoid vagueness in their definitions and throughout their ordinance. 38 Cities and counties are not required to use the exact same terms as the state statutes. However, using different definitions than those in the state statutes may result in inconsistencies and noncompliance with the law. Therefore, Commerce recommends following the definitions included in the state statutes as this poses the least risk. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 _ 0 0 CU m 2 3 a 25 Packet Pg. 134 with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment or employment services. Permanent supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW. (RCW 36.70A.030(31�) 4) Religious organization means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls real property. (RCW 36.01.290(6)(c)) 5) Tiny houses, including tiny houses on wheels, are defined as dwellings to be used as permanent housing with permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation built in accordance with the state building code. (RCW 35.21.686) 6) Transitional housing means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. (RCW 84.36.043(3)(c). updated by Commerce) Statutory optional definitions: 7) Affordable housing means, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, residential housing whose monthly costs, including utilities other than telephone, do not exceed thirty percent of the monthly income of a household whose income is: For rental housing, 60 percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban development; or For owner -occupied housing, 80 percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban development. (RCW 36.70A.030(5)) STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Religious organization: The definition provided in the model ordinance applies to counties and "hosting the homeless." It is likely that a local government may need to use a broader definition than just one that owns or controls property in other c contexts. This definition is just for the purpose of RCW 36.01.290 and RCW 36.70A.545. It is not required to be used S CU more broadly. x Temporary: The definition included in the model ordinance P applies to the person and how long they reside there, not the structure or length of time for the land use. a Affordable housing development, with respect to RCW 36.130.020, means a housing development in which at least twenty-five percent of the dwelling units within the development are set aside for or are occupied by low-income households at a sales price or rent amount that is considered affordable by a federal, state or local government housing program. (RCW 36.130.010) Indoor emergency housing or transitional housing that is administered through a lease or occupancy agreement and permanent supportive housing are determined to be affordable housing under RCW 36.130.020. (Draft WAC Changes - 365-196-Part 4 - March 2024) Tiny shelters: Because communities are seeing non-standard types of STEP being purposed, some may consider adding a definition for tiny shelters. Tiny shelters are temporary shelters that do not have the amenities of a single dwelling unit and rely on shared facilities for dining, laundry and bathrooms. The structure may or may not be on a foundation. 26 Packet Pg. 135 III. Substantive Provisions Locations for STEP: Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing are permitted in any zone in which hotels are allowed [relevant code section numbers]. [OR] Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing are permitted in [XX, XX, and XX zones], representing more than 50% of zones within one -mile proximity to transit [relevant code section numbers]. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing are permitted in any zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed [relevant code section numbers]. Zoning Matrix: Jurisdictions can use the zoning matrix to update their land use tables. Emergency Shelter P* Transitional housing P Emergency housing P* Permanent P supportive housing P = Permitted *Unless an ordinance has been adopted authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in over 50 percent of zones within one mile of transit. Same treatment: Transitional housing and emergency housing with a lease and permanent supportive housing should be treated the same as other housing types in local regulations. RCW 36.130.020 states a city, county or other local governmental entity or agency may not adopt, impose or enforce requirements on an affordable housing development that are different from the requirements imposed on housing developments generally. Therefore, the substantive provisions section may be most applicable to emergency shelter and emergency housing regulations. Preferential treatment: However, this law does not prohibit local governments from extending preferential treatment to affordable housing developments, including, but not limited to a reduction or waiver of fees, changes in applicable requirements, or other treatment that reduces or is likely to reduce the development or operating costs of a development. If a local government provides preferential treatment to affordable housing developments of any kind, they must also provide the same benefits and conditions to permanent supportive housing and transitional housing and emergency housing with leases. If a jurisdiction provides a benefit for these development types, it may include requirements proportional to that benefit. For example, if a project receives a Multi -Family Tax Exemption, it will need to meet the requirements of that program.39 If a project receives a parking waiver, a jurisdiction may request the project submit a parking management plan. These requirements must apply to all projects that receive the benefit (not just a subset). By right zoning and conditional use processes: To support STEP projects, jurisdictions can clearly outline the permitting process in their ordinances, including what approvals are required, who makes the decision and what the decision criteria and expected timeline are. Conditional use processes and public hearings for STEP permit applications can create uncertainty for applicants and add extra time and costs to projects. Therefore, if an application meets all the requirements, it is recommended it be subject to administrative review without a public hearing to avoid misleading community members. An emerging best practice is to designate STEP as a permitted use outright in the zones highlighted in the zoning matrix on the left. To support classifying STEP as a permitted use outright with an administrative review, a jurisdiction can adopt clear criteria for review to aid judgment in making decisions. Recognizing that communities may still utilize conditional use processes to address community concerns in some zones, the Department of Commerce recommends jurisdictions limit STEP permit applications to administrative review whenever possible. Additionally, jurisdictions' ordinances and regulations should be consistent with and implement local comprehensive plans, which must document sufficient land use capacity for STEP. (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)) Occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements: Communities may only impose reasonable occupancy, spacing and intensity of use limits on STEP to protect public health and safety, and any such limits must allow the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing units and emergency housing beds necessary to accommodate se For more information, see the Department of Commerce's Multi -Family Housing Property Tax Exemption Program webpage. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 _ 0 0 L CU m x 3 a 27 Packet Pg. 136 Additional Regulations: Indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and permanent supportive housing must meet the same development and operating regulations as permitted residential dwellings, including adhering to building and fire codes and American Disability Act requirements [relevant code section numbers], to ensure consistency in health and safety for all residents. Minimum parking requirements are waived for all indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and permanent supportive housing [relevant code section numbers]. Exemptions: Exemptions to development regulations [relevant code section numbers], including but not limited to setback requirements, density limits, restrictions on support spaces inside buildings (e.g., office space for tenants) and public noticing requirements, for indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing may be permitted with administrative approval by [approving administrative entity, e.g., the planning director or city engineer] to address [community name]'s housing needs allocation through shelter and housing forms that do not meet building codes or other requirements. These types may include, but are not limited to, pallet shelters and tiny shelters. Regardless of the form, the housing or shelter must be indoors and allow access to bathrooms and showers. Special Provision for Religious Organizations: Any affordable housing development [relevant code section numbers], including permanent supportive housing and transitional housing with a lease, of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization is allowed an increased density bonus consistent with local housing needs allocation with administrative approval by [approving administrative entity, e.g., the planning director or city engineer]. projected needs. These requirements to protect public health and safety must be justified, for example, by including a reference to the local building and fire codes in the ordinance's findings section, to be consistent with state law and reduce litigation risk. 0 Reasonable for the purposes of RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683 and this report, includes only those requirements imposed to protect public health and safety. Requirements that prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters are not reasonable. CU m In addition, reasonable requirements must comply with any applicable civil rights protections provided by the = Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Fair Housing Act, and the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable 2 requirements can vary with geographic size and population of the jurisdiction and the current siting of these housing 3 types. Any occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements should be justified by reference to building code, fire a code or other citations within an ordinance a, Occupancy: Commerce recommends occupancy for emergency shelters and emergency housing be established as required by the jurisdiction's adopted building, fire and safety codes for other similar uses. For example, if a jurisdiction does not have police and fire limitations for hotels, then it is not appropriate to require it of STEP types where residents stay for short periods. Also, RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 state cities and counties may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a dwelling unit except as provided for in state law. Spacing: Any spacing requirements must be directly tied to public health and safety and documented in the ordinance's findings. Any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing requirements in RCW 9.94A.030 and RCW 9.94A.7031 which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. Intensity: With respect to STEP, intensity refers to the total number or density of people, transportation and/or services in a single location or facility. Commerce does not recommend any blanket intensity regulations for these use types. Standards adopted to encourage a scattered approach to the siting of these services to ensure they are not located in only one area of the jurisdiction should consider the accessibility of services for residents, be accompanied by documentation of sufficient land capacity and be consistent with state and local policies. Parking requirements: These requirements should be less extensive for STEP than typical housing, as most residents do not have vehicles. Parking should be considered for employees based on context (e.g., the development's proximity to transit). STEP near a transit stop would require very few off-street parking spaces. If parking is required in the municipal code, Commerce recommends that the jurisdiction accept parking studies from the applicant documenting the number of parking spaces that are needed by the land use. Jurisdictions should look at comparable STEP developments in similar contexts to determine projected parking needs. Required documentation and plans: These types of regulations are only acceptable for emergency shelter, emergency housing and transitional housing without leases under state law (RCW 36.130.020). Unless documentation and plans are required for other similar facilities and housing types (e.g., adult family homes, nursing homes, or multfiamily housing generally), Commerce discourages jurisdictions from adding these additional requirements for STEP and encourages them to defer to the project's funder and insurance requirements rather than asking for them in local code STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 28 Packet Pg. 137 Outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelter and temporary small houses [relevant code section numbers] are permitted on property owned or controlled by a religious organization and must adhere to state regulations in RCW 35.21.915 and RCW 36.01.290. If jurisdictions require specific documentation, like operations, safety, training plans or something else, Commerce recommends that they provide a sample document to further support those applying to develop STEP. It should be clear to the applicant what is needed and who will review these documents. The reviewer should be someone with sufficient capacity and qualifications to understand the needs and challenges of STEP, and they should use objective c approval criteria. c L CU Jurisdictions should also limit what they require in these plans to help streamline the permitting of STEP projects. For example, an operations agreement may provide the following: _ • One phone number for emergencies a • Operating funding information to inform local governments of existing requirements and support a project may have m • Services plan (i.e., a description of on -site services, identification of service providers, and staff -to -client ratios) 0 Requirements to receive services: Because STEP funders already have project requirements for requirements to m receive services, Commerce recommends jurisdictions do not add additional requirements STEP participants need to D comply with to receive services or to access a project (e.g., IDs, documentation, income verification, etc.). M Exemptions/exclusions: Jurisdictions can review their existing regulations and any other STEP requirements to consider types of projects that might be suitable for an exemption. For example, some jurisdictions require public noticing requirements, but waive those for projects with confidential locations to prevent adverse effects on clients served by domestic violence shelters and housing. Special provision for religious organizations: Jurisdictions must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local housing needs for any affordable housing development on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. State law also limits jurisdictions' ability to regulate outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters and temporary tiny shelters on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. To be consistent with state law and allow more STEP to meet local housing needs, jurisdictions can ensure provisions are included for religious organizations and permitting processes are outlined in local ordinances. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 29 Packet Pg. 138 IV. Concluding Sections i. Effective Date [Insert code section number]. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect [insert month, date, year]. ii. Repeals [Insert code section number]. Repealer. The following are hereby repealed: [Insert a list of any ordinances being corrected/repealed] ill. Savings Clause [Insert code section number]. Savings Clause. [insert ordinance number being repealed], which is repealed by this ordinance, shall remain in force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. iv. Severability If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 O •L M a� 2 Concluding sections: These generic sections of the model ordinance can be used if applicable. Otherwise, a they can be left out of a local ordinance. For general guidance on developing this section of local ordinances, jurisdictions can read MRSC's Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties (2015). 30 Packet Pg. 139 9.1.d Chapter 7: Accommodating Enough STEP To accommodate enough STEP units to address local housing needs, jurisdictions must demonstrate they have sufficient land capacity and reduce development barriers to STEP. It is also recommended jurisdictions resist addressing all community concerns and potential project impacts with their ordinances and regulations, and defer to funder requirements and clear communication processes with housing and service providers. Demonstrating Sufficient Land Capacity One of the first steps for jurisdictions to accommodate enough STEP after permitting the uses is to review if they have sufficient land zoned for these development types, as required by state law. Local comprehensive plans must identify "sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, [and] permanent supportive housing," RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c). Therefore, all fully planning jurisdictions must do a land capacity analysis to show land capacity for permanent supportive housing and emergency housing/shelters, not just those jurisdictions that have occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements.40 The land capacity for emergency housing can overlap with the land capacity information for other housing types .41 This assessment is also an opportunity for communities to examine the gap between their housing needs and existing inventory and consider if land suitable for STEP is in areas with sufficient infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and other services. To determine whether jurisdictions have the land capacity for STEP, local governments can refer to Guidance for Updating your Housing Element Book 2 for specific steps, starting on page 41 for emergency housing and emergency shelters, grouped together in emergency housing steps, and starting on approximately page 31 for permanent supportive housing. Approaches to determine land capacity for siting STEP can vary, but, in general, include reviewing existing housing supply; reviewing vacant and redevelopable land in areas with access to infrastructure, transportation, jobs and other services; and identifying if based on both intensity of STEP likely to be developed and restrictions, such as spacing or occupancy requirements, there is sufficient capacity for STEP. Examples of land capacity analyses are also available on Commerce's EZView website. 40 This updated standard for when a land capacity analysis is required for emergency housing will be updated in Guidance for Updating your Housing Element (Housing Element Book 2) by August 2024. 41 For example, if a jurisdiction has 2.5 acres of vacant land in the zones that allow emergency housing and emergency shelter, they can use that area in the land capacity analysis for permanent housing needs and the land capacity analysis for emergency housing. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - DRAFT (MAY 2024) 31 0 0 L CU a Packet Pg. 140 9.1.d Jurisdictions can also engage their local Continuum of Care (CoC)42 to understand specific STEP demands, constraints and opportunities within their communities. These groups can share where they think STEP is more likely to be developed and at what densities.43 Jurisdictions must document their findings of sufficient land capacity for emergency housing, which includes emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing in their housing element, supported by more detailed analysis in supporting appendices. If jurisdictions have any occupancy, o spacing or intensity of use requirements, they must demonstrate with a quantitative and spatial analysis that there is sufficient capacity for their = housing needs allocation. a x Reducing Development Barriers Many barriers exist for developing STEP and affordable housing in general, including but not limited to: a • Rising costs of land, labor, materials and insurance • High permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees • Burdensome or unclear zoning and development regulations • Slow local permitting and approval processes • Lack of clear and accessible information on processes • Limited capacity at local jurisdictions to process applications quickly • Limited developer and workforce capacity • NIMBY (Not -In -My -Backyard) attitudes • Neighborhood covenants and restrictions • Limited subsidized funding sources • Requirements to fund new infrastructure While local jurisdictions do not set property prices, the number of construction hours needed to complete a development or the cost of building materials and insurance, they do control several aspects to development. Jurisdictions set permit costs, control internal approval processes that can add to development timelines, grant fee waivers, control publicly owned land and can provide public funding for affordable housing and STEP." 42 A CoC is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services for people experiencing homelessness. It consists of representatives from service providers, local governments and other organizations, and it is responsible for planning and allocating resources to address homelessness. (National Alliance to End Homelessness. What is a Continuum of Care?. 2010. https://endhomelessness.ora/resource/what-is-a-continuum-of-care/) 43 Visit HUD's Grantee Contact Information or the Department of Commerce's Continuum of Care webpage to find the right CoC contact. Commerce is the Collaborative Applicant for the Washington Balance of State Continuum of Care, consisting of 34 small and medium-sized counties. 44 The Homelessness & Housing Toolkit for Cities, produced by the Association of Washington Cities and Municipal Research and Services Center (2022), provides resources and case studies on various strategies to help communities address homelessness and affordable housing issues. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 32 Packet Pg. 141 9.1.d One of the most important powers of local governing bodies that can be used to lower barriers for STEP production is their ability to control loca zoning and development rules. To encourage more STEP development, jurisdictions can consider including regulatory or permitting incentives for STEP, such as reduced or waived parking minimums, impact fees, linkage fees" and system development charges (i.e., tap fees). They can provide density bonuses, streamline and o expedite permitting processes and help fund STEP (e.g., passing an affordable housing sales tax or property tax levy). They can also pay for site c improvements and utility connections and donate land for STEP projects." a x Even more important than positive incentives is avoiding local requirements that hinder rather than promote STEP development. Table 4 provides .2 examples of local regulations and requirements that can create barriers for STEP development and recommendations for what to do instead. a Table 4 - Local Regulatory Barriers and Alternatives Unclear rules and requirements that are inconsistent with state and federal laws Regulations different from those for general housing development Spacing requirements (e.g., minimum distances from parks, schools or other facilities) Make it very clear where STEP uses are allowed and what process needs to be followed for permitting. Review the state's minimum requirements for STEP regulations to ensure they are incorporated into local ordinances. Jurisdictions are encouraged to use STEP definitions that are consistent with the state's definitions to make regulations more straightforward for STEP developers operating across the state. If specific requirements are adopted for STEP, avoid vagueness that may lead to arbitrary action or is too difficult for the average citizen to understand. Treat transitional housing and emergency housing with leases and permanent supportive housing the same as other affordable housing types, as required by law (RCW 36.130.020). Also, ensure any additional regulations for emergency shelter and emergency housing are limited to restrictions or requirements that are consistent with state and federal laws and have a legitimate purpose of protecting public health and safety. Do not include spacing requirements or minimum distances from public uses; instead, encourage STEP development in areas with access to these types of amenities, especially public transit when it is available. Encouraging STEP development in locations near schools, healthcare services, transportation, job prospects and other amenities helps promote economic mobility and access to services. If jurisdictions 45 Impact fees and linkage fees are costs developers are required to pay to support shared infrastructure and services. Jurisdictions can reduce development costs for STEP and other affordable development projects by reducing or waiving these fees. RCW 82.02.060(3) authorizes cities, counties and towns to grant impact fee exemptions for affordable housing. RCW 35.92.380 authorizes a city or town to waive or delay collection of tap -in charges, connection fees or hookup fees for low-income persons connecting to water, sanitary or storm sewer service, electricity, gas and other means of power and heat, and RCW 36.70A.540 authorizes affordable housing incentive programs, including fee waivers or exemptions. 46 Jurisdictions offering these benefits should always consider tax loss information and possible repercussions on city taxes for the year. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 33 Packet Pg. 142 9.1.d _ Limiting maximum densities or minimum have any restrictions on occupancy, spacing or intensity of use, they must demonstrate with a quantitative and spatial analysis that there is sufficient capacity for their housing needs allocation and include reasoning for how these requirements protect public health and safety in the findings of their ordinance. = ° a� Do not place restrictions on STEP that are not placed on other housing or shelter types, unless it is c I- square footage specifically tied to public health and safety. For STEP projects owned and/or operated by religious x organizations, allow density bonuses that are consistent with local housing needs allocations and waive c, floor area ratio requirements for STEP projects with administrative approval from the local planning director, city engineer or another local decisionmaker with sufficient capacity and expertise. a - High off-street parking requirements and Waive or significantly reduce parking minimums for STEP projects because they serve individuals who often ) ground -floor retail requirements lack a vehicle. Waive ground -floor retail requirements for STEP projects in mixed -use zones to help make projects easier to develop and allow them to serve more people. m Limits on occupancy Do not limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit except for lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or building code limits. Jurisdictions looking for assistance should consult their building official/applicable building codes. If jurisdictions choose to have overall occupancy requirements, they must demonstrate with a quantitative and spatial analysis that there is sufficient capacity for their housing needs allocation and include reasoning for how these requirements protect public health and safety in the findings of their ordinance. Restrictions on support spaces, such as Waive restrictions on support spaces, which may be considered a non-residential use, within permanent office space, within a permanent supportive supportive housing properties in residential zones to provide its tenants with greater access to services and housing building in a residential zone amenities that can help them become self-sufficient and stably housed long term. Facility operating and reporting requirements Requirements for coordination with local police and fire departments Defer to projects' funding requirements and do not set requirements for STEP operations and reporting. Often, jurisdictions do not have the expertise on staff to thoughtfully review and evaluate whether plans for operating these types of housing and shelter are appropriate. Instead, it is recommended to defer to the projects' funders' requirements, which often include standards for client -staff ratios, staff training and certifications, services provided, progress reporting and more. Do not require new coordination plans with local police and fire departments; instead, defer to the preferred coordination plans of local police and fire departments. If such plans do not exist or STEP operators already have existing preferred operations regarding coordination with local police and fire departments, defer to these rather than requiring new plans developed specifically for each project to prevent adding a potentially duplicative, burdensome requirement for STEP. Arbitrary limits on operation times or It is best to defer to projects' funding requirements instead of requiring operations plans or additional occupants (e.g., total occupants allowed or specific plans of the STEP project. Do not set arbitrary limits on STEP projects' operation times or requirements for client background checks or occupants or include requirements for additional plans or agreements. Often, jurisdictions do not have the sobriety) and/or requirements for additional expertise on staff to thoughtfully determine operations requirements or plan details for these types of STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 34 Packet Pg. 143 9.1.d plans or agreements (e.g., operations plans or good neighbor agreements) Conditional use permits, design review requirements47 and discretionary review processes48 housing and shelter, so it is best to defer to the projects' funders' requirements, which often include client eligibility requirements and standards for these projects' operations and services. _ 0 Allow STEP outright as a permitted use ("by -right" zoning) in designated zones, do not include requirements c and permitting steps different from those for other affordable housing types, and expedite permitting L_ processes for STEP projects when possible.49 To support classifying STEP as a permitted use outright with = an administrative review, a jurisdiction can adopt clear criteria for review to aid judgment in making 2 decisions. 3 P.m. Addressing Potential Community Concerns As jurisdictions develop and implement their ordinances, community concerns related to perceived challenges of STEP may arise. To encourage STEP development, jurisdictions can use strategies outside of their local zoning and development regulations to address many of these concerns. Informational community meetings can be one way to identify community concerns in advance, connect housing providers and residents and raise public awareness about the benefits of STEP. Some community concerns are already addressed or can be without creating additional local regulatory or permitting requirements for STEP. For example: • A lack of outside oversight for STEP (e.g., requirements for financing, staff behaviors, client or resident codes of conduct, training and services): In Washington, most STEP projects do not have any state licensing or operating requirements, which has led to community concerns about the quality of their services, the behavior of their clients and a lack of oversight. However, STEP projects require some form of public subsidy or funding from sources that comes with specific eligibility requirements (e.g., requirements for client -staff ratios, staff training or 47 RCW 36.70A and RCW 36.70B were updated in 2023 to streamline local design review processes, requiring "clear and objective" standards that do not reduce development capacity otherwise allowed. Any design review process must be conducted concurrently, or otherwise logically integrated, with the consolidated review and decision process for project permits set forth in RCW 36.7013.120(3). No design review process may include more than one public meeting. A county or city must comply with these requirements beginning six months after its next periodic update required under RCW 36.70A.130. Local governments are encouraged to expedite permits that include affordable housing, as defined in HB 1293 (2023), which provides additional flexibility in defining affordability. The provisions do not apply to regulations specific to designated landmarks or historic districts established under a local preservation ordinance. 48 For a list of uses that require a public hearing, see Appendix C, page 31, of Local Ordinances For Washington Cities and Counties. 49 The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County worked closely together to expedite the permitting for a specific project that incorporates safe parking, a tiny house village and permanent supportive housing on the same piece of county -owned property. Seattle also has implemented an expedited permitting process to encourage STEP production, including exempting permanent supportive housing projects from design review. For more information on how jurisdictions in Washington are helping reduce development barriers for STEP, see the Department of Commerce's STEP Case Studies. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 35 Packet Pg. 144 9.1.d certifications, documentation and reporting). The funders who make STEP projects possible often have their own service, client and staff standards, so additional local requirements can be duplicative and become burdensome for STEP projects. In most cases, it is not possible to build STEP projects without some form of public funding (e.g., a combination of state and LIHTC funding), and all public sources of funding have regulatory requirements developers must meet.so 0 Making support services optional: Some community members may be concerned about making support services optional for STEP clients. 0 _ However, support services should not be mandatory so that STEP projects do not unintentionally discriminate against clients for religious CU reasons or because they are hesitant to receive outside assistance. When these services are optional, tenants can drive the type, duration and initiation of services. Studies also show voluntary services are more effective at engaging people to participate in services than mandatory services.51 Additionally, while services are optional for the participant in permanent supportive housing, they are a core component of it and thus a not optional for the operator. • Unfair evictions: Washington residents are concerned about unfair evictions for renters in leased STEP projects. However, any rental requiring leases must adhere to laws established by Washington State's Residential -Landlord Tenant Act, so tenants are already protected under law." • Lack of behavioral health support: The shortage of healthcare professionals, such as clinicians, long-term care support and social workers, is not only affecting the homeless population in Washington but also everyone else. Instead of imposing difficult staffing or service requirements for STEP, defer to the requirements of the entity funding the project for specific requirements for providers and staffing because they understand the needs of residents, best practices and support and staff availability. • Unaddressed health and safety concerns of shelter and housing (e.g., unmaintained buildings and littered properties): All residential development projects, including STEP, should prioritize the safety and maintenance of their properties for the benefit of their clients, tenants and staff. To ensure that all Washington residents are equally protected, local code enforcement should enforce the same occupancy requirements (e.g., max persons per room) and minimum health and safety standards for all residential projects. • NIMBYism (i.e., Not -In -My -Backyard mentality): In Washington communities, some residents may be opposed to the development of affordable housing in their neighborhood, which can be a major obstacle for STEP in jurisdictions where public input has the power to influence or prevent a project from being built. To overcome this, local governments can reduce discretionary review processes53 for STEP permitting and allow STEP to be permitted administratively, and they can help educate the public about the importance of affordable housing and STEP. The so See "Requirements Associated with State and Federal Funding" in Chapter 3 of the STEP State of the Practice Report for more details on these requirements and links to specific program requirements. 51 For studies on the Housing First model that show voluntary services work, see Data Visualization: The Evidence on Housing First from the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 52 For more information, see the Benton -Franklin Rental Owners Association's Summary of the Residential Landlord -Tenant Act of 1973. 53 These processes leave permit approval up to a local decision -maker's discretion and may require a public hearing. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 36 Packet Pg. 145 9.1.d Department of Commerce's Housing Division developed the Permanent Supportive Housing Communications Toolkit, which includes the following helpful materials: • Permanent SuDDortive Housing 101 Factsheet • Benefits of Permanent Supportive Housing Factsheet c • Building a Community of Support guidance = • Common Community Concerns FAQ: Understand and Respond CU • Considerations for Rural and Urban Communities = • Amplifying the Voices of People in Need of Permanent Supportive Housing Factsheet • Lessons Learned Factsheet a • The Importance of Messaging Factsheet • Understanding how Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Operates Factsheet Local authorities can help residents become open to unfamiliar housing types and encourage STEP developers and operators to become actively involved in the community by inviting them to attend local meetings and events. Regularly convening residents and STEP partners to discuss community needs and concerns can be an effective strategy to help address NIMBYism. It is important to control how large these meetings between residents and STEP partners are (e.g., max 15 people), who is invited (e.g., neighborhood leadership, local service providers and advisory groups) and what the format is (e.g., local planning staff serve as conveners and facilitate the meeting, serving as a mediator, if necessary, between residents and STEP partners). Lack of control over neighborhood character: In Washington, some residents may feel that they have no control over the development that takes place in their neighborhood. To address this concern, local jurisdictions can involve community members and STEP partners in discussions about local policies and regulations that guide future development. Jurisdictions should already include robust public engagement opportunities as part of their comprehensive planning processes to ensure that residents have a say in the future of their community. Local ordinances should align with jurisdictions' comprehensive plans and development of local ordinances usually includes an opportunity for community input, so these opportunities are a way residents can influence neighborhood regulations and character as well. It is important to note that local ordinances that mandate public outreach and engagement for affordable housing projects but not for other residential projects may violate fair housing laws and other state and federal regulations. The Department of Commerce encourages jurisdictions to plan for and raise awareness about the benefits of STEP in their housing planning processes. By taking this proactive approach, jurisdictions can reduce the need for engagement related to specific projects and streamline permitting processes for STEP. Assuming that a STEP project is to be administratively approved, local planning staff can also host a community meeting to help inform residents about a specific project in their neighborhood. A community meeting differs from an open record hearing/public hearing because community members cannot influence whether the STEP project moves forward, and the meeting is only for informational purposes. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 37 Packet Pg. 146 HI When When STEP providers do not comply with funders' requirements: In situations where STEP service providers/property owners do not comp y with funder requirements or standards, a local government should first notify the property owner of the concerns to determine whether the issues could be rectified. If the owner's response is not sufficient, the local government may consult with the relevant state agency/funder to understand whether state oversight or resources could be used to address the concerns. Lastly, if providers/property owners remain out of compliance, a local government may utilize its code enforcement tools, as it would with any other nuisance property or landlord. C Sex offenders near children: Some local regulations in Washington currently impose potentially discriminatory distancing requirements for CU STEP related to parks, schools and daycare centers. Community protection zones for STEP projects are not needed because Washington state law already establishes an 880-foot community protection zone around public and private schools to regulate the residency of level two and three sex offenders (RCW9.94A.030(6)). Furthermore, policies that prevent STEP from being built near parks, schools or other public uses can a unintentionally affect other populations experiencing homelessness such as children that need access to these services. Crime and substance abuse: STEP that is well managed can be a neighborhood asset that creates the conditions necessary for everyone to thrive and have access to support services. Many STEP developments also provide resources to the community regarding any concerns that may require immediate intervention. These developments employ staff with expertise in supporting people in transition from homelessness, including crisis intervention and security. Staff work with STEP clients and residents to comply with shelter and housing rules and are trained to de-escalate difficult situations before they become emergencies through onsite or mobile support. Staff serve as a point of contact for community members to discuss and address concerns as they emerge.54 Several studies on permanent supportive housing found no evidence that the development of these facilities leads to increased rates of crime." While sobriety is an important goal for many individuals, many studies56 have found that imposing strict sobriety requirements as a condition of housing can be counterproductive and exacerbate homelessness. By providing stable housing and other services, STEP projects can help individuals take the steps to improve their health and well-being, address the root causes of their substance use, and connect with counseling and other supportive services. Additionally, fair housing laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act protect people with criminal histories related to past substance abuse.57 54 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Permanent Supportive Housing: Evaluating the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes Among People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2018. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25133/permanent-supportive-housing-evaluating-the- evidence-for-improving-health-outcomes 55 San Mateo County Health System, Behavioral Health and Recovery Services. The Impact of Supportive Housing on Neighborhood Crime and Property Values. www.smchealth.ora/sites/main/files/file-attachments/imoact of su000rtive housina on neiahborhood crime and orooery v2.Ddf?1468431099 56 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing First: A Review of the Evidence. 2023. www.huduser.00v/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer- 23/highlight2.html 57 For more information, see The Americans With Disabilities Act. Addiction, and Recovery for State and Local Governments. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 38 Packet Pg. 147 9.1.d Chapter 8: Adoption and Implementation To encourage the development of STEP in the state of Washington, the adoption of Commerce's model ordinance and other recommendations in this guide is highly encouraged. While the use of the model ordinance is voluntary, state laws require cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act to ensure their local regulations adhere to the minimum state requirements. c a� General tips for adoption and implementation of STEP regulations include: a x • Plan for adoption at the beginning: Preparing for adoption should begin with establishing how this work will fit into your jurisdiction's upcoming annual work plan or periodic update work plan. Establish a critical path and work backward from desired legislative action dates with the city a council, board of county commissioners or other approving entity. Allow for some cushion in case more time is needed to respond to public and decision -maker comments, as well as provide time to consider land capacity if spacing, occupancy or intensity of use restrictions are considered. Engage decision makers along the way: Addressing critical housing needs and defining regulations for STEP can raise concerns from a range of stakeholders, including elected and appointed officials. Engaging with decision -makers early and continuously will create a smoother path for the adoption process. Work with attorneys: Jurisdictions should work with an attorney or the Department of Commerce to ensure their local ordinances are consistent with state and federal law before adoption. After adoption, jurisdictions may still need to work with attorneys to deal with compliance issues in administering the ordinance. For example, an issue may arise requiring legal support to articulate a policy or procedure within the ordinance. Jurisdictions can ensure their permit requirements for STEP are as objective as possible to ensure their decisions are legally defensible. Raise awareness about the benefits of STEP: To further support jurisdictions in the adoption and implementation of their ordinances related to STEP, the Department of Commerce is developing the STEP Communications Toolkit, including a sample staff report and other materials to help local planning staff, appointed and elected officials and others communicate the benefits, challenges and best practices associated with planning for STEP. These tools will be coordinated and consistent with the Department of Commerce Housing Division's Permanent Supportive Housing Communications Toolkit. Commerce's STEP Communications Toolkit is available on the Updating GMA Housing Elements webpage. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 39 Packet Pg. 148 9.1.d Appendix Methodology From February 2024 through July 2024, Commerce is working with Abt Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing (the project team) to create a STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report and Communications Toolkit. The following includes the project team's methodology for drafting the STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report. Establish an Advisory Committee To inform the model ordinance and its supplemental materials, the project team established an advisory committee including representatives from individual jurisdictions who have regulated types of STEP in their communities, STEP developers, and stakeholders who were involved in the development of HB 1220 or overall housing policy development in Washington. The project team convened this committee three times throughout the process to gather information and guidance. Members include: 1. Adrian Smith, City of Port Townsend 2. Ali Brast, City of Spokane 3. Blake Lyon, City of Bellingham 4. Bryan Snodgrass, City of Vancouver 5. Bryce Yadon, Futurewise 6. Carl Schroeder, Association of Washington Cities 7. Chris Collier, Alliance for Housing Affordability at Housing Authority of Snohomish County 8. Colin Morgan -Cross, Mercy Housing 9. Curtis Steinhauer, Washington State Association of Counties 10. Dee Caputo, FAICP, Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services (Retired) 11. Glen DeVries, City of Wenatchee 12. Lauren Fay, Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC) 13. Mario Williams -Sweet, King County 14. Mary May, GS Consulting Analyze the Existing State of the Practice To better understand the current environment and best practices regarding STEP, the project team cataloged relevant state and federal laws, reviewed other communities' model ordinances and analyzed local jurisdictions' existing regulations from February to April 2024. The project STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 M Packet Pg. 149 9.1.d team's research included conducting virtual interviews and small groups with representatives from local planning departments and other STE stakeholders, including: • City of Federal Way • City of Kenmore o • City of Kent • City of Langley L • City of Olympia • GS Consulting, Affordable Housing Consultant • King County a • Lewis County • Snohomish County • Plymouth Housing • Washington State Department of Health AM documented and synthesized the results of these information -gathering activities in a State of the Practice Report identifying best practices and local needs to guide the design of the model ordinance and its supplemental materials. Study Local Implementation Successes In March and April 2024, the project team studied the successful implementation of STEP ordinances and development in four different jurisdictions in Washington state, including the City of Spokane, the City of Vancouver, the City of Wenatchee and King County. The team selected localities of varying sizes and locations throughout the state to conduct interviews and gather information for case studies. The lessons learned from these studies informed the model ordinance and its supplemental materials and are compiled in the STEP Case Studies Report. Facilitate a 30-day Public Comment Period and Targeted Engagement The project team facilitated a 30-day public comment period before finalizing the STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report. To gather feedback during this time, Commerce broadly distributed the draft model ordinance to Washington's local governments, behavioral health providers and other interested parties to give them the opportunity to provide comments. The team also conducted an online webinar on May 14, 2024, and presented at existing meetings with targeted groups. The project team analyzed all the comments collected over the public comment period and used that feedback to inform the final model ordinance and its supplemental materials. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 150 10.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Interim Ordinance to Prohibit the Removal of Certain Landmark Trees on Private Property Staff Lead: Councilmember Susan Paine Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History The history of the Landmark Tree Ordinance (Ord.4217) of 2021 is described through the whereas clauses and the meeting minutes which are attached. Timeline: On March 2, 2021 the Emergency Interim Landmark Tree Ordinance was adopted. This was done in conjunction with the discussions about tree preservation through the subdivision process. On April 21, 2021 the Findings of Fact were adopted through Resolution 1471. These findings are referenced in this proposed ordinance. On August 3, 2021, Ord. 4217 was rescheduled. On August 24, 2021, after much discussion the interim ordinance was allowed to lapse on September 2, 2021. No revisions were made to ECDC 23.10 Tree Related Regulations (attached). Recommendation Approve the Interim Ordinance. Narrative This interim ordinance is proposed to preserve large trees on private property, which provide canopy cover, wildlife habitat, and supports the Climate Action Plan's goals of maintaining tree canopy. The timing of this proposed ordinance will also allow the preservation of big trees to be incorporated into the building code updates allowing for some flexibility in building placement which would allow for the preservation of Landmark trees. This interim ordinance would provide exemptions for trees which have already been vested through the permitting process, hazard trees, and nuisance trees. Attached is a list of reference points to supportive City of Edmonds planning documents. Attachments: 2025-04-02 interim ordinance - landmark trees v4 2025-04-02 Work. Plan.Draft.2025-26.Rvsd Ordinance 4217 Resolution 1471 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 2 2021 pages 17-22 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 24 2021 pages 15-20 ECDC 23.10 Tree Related Regulations Supportive Planning Documents reference Packet Pg. 151 10.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING ONE YEAR AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION AND ADOPTING A WORK PLAN. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4217 on March 2, 2021, establishing an interim regulation to temporarily prohibit the removal of certain landmark trees; and WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 1471 on April 27, 2021, adopting findings of fact to justify the earlier adoption of the interim ordinance and extending its effectiveness until September 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4217 was intended to be temporary while the city continued work on drafting permanent revisions to the tree code; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4217 was not renewed or extended after it expired on September 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, the tree code amendments that were contemplated in 2021 were delayed due to various staffing changes and reductions in the planning and development department and the need to prioritize the periodic update of the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the 2023 Climate Action Plan, adopted on March 21, 2023, via Resolution 1518, reinforces the importance of protecting and maintaining the city's tree canopy; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to renew the effort to protect landmark trees in conjunction with its ongoing development code update, which arises from the recently adopted periodic update to the city's comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, this ordinance will provide temporary protection to trees that have a diameter at breast height of thirty inches or more; and WHEREAS, it will take about a year for the City to evaluate and consider the merits, scope, and details of its permanent regulation; and WHEREAS, the city council desires to adopt the following interim regulation to temporarily protect landmark trees while this work can be done; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Pg. 152 10.1.a Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this interim regulation is to temporarily protect certain landmark trees from "tree removal" as that term is defined in ECDC 23.10.020N. This temporary protection is intended to be in place while the city establishes permanent regulations to govern the removal of such trees. For the purposes of this ordinance, a "landmark tree" shall be defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of thirty inches or more. Section 2. Applicability. The permitting exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall not extend to landmark trees. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a complete building permit application that has already been submitted. This ordinance shall not apply to trees proposed to be removed in conjunction with development activity pursuant to ECDC 23.10.060. This ordinance shall not apply to a tree removal permit that has already issued. Section 3. Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree, as that term is defined in Section 1, above, unless the landmark tree also meets the definition of hazard tree in ECDC 23.10.020.H or nuisance tree in 23.10.020.N. Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the interim regulations, the interim regulations shall not terminate until one year after the effective date of this ordinance, unless it is repealed sooner. The city council hereby adopts the work plan attached as Exhibit A hereto to justify the one-year period of this interim ordinance pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390. Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim regulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this interim regulation within Packet Pg. 153 10.1.a sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on May 27, 2025, unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. Section 6. Findings of Fact. The city council hereby incorporates by reference and adopts the findings stated in subsections 1 A, 1 B, and 1 C of Resolution 1471 as its findings of fact justifying the adoption of this ordinance. In addition, the city council finds that this initial step to protect landmark trees is consistent with the city's 2023 Climate Action Plan and 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan. Section 7. 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 8. 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 ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 154 10.1.a APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 155 10.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2025, 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, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING ONE YEAR AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION AND ADOPTING A WORK PLAN. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2025. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 156 10.1.b Exhibit A Work Plan for Developing a Permanent Tree Code to Protect Landmark Trees • Study case law application of "takings" issues related to trees (June -July 2025) • Analyze city's tree permit types and trends in recent years (July- August -2025) • Identify and evaluate specific problems with the existing tree code (August - September, 2025) • Clarify intent in updating the tree code (October 2025) • Clarify key definitions, including definition of landmark trees October 2025) • Study options for tree removal and replacement requirements (November - December 2025) • Analyze types of tree permits needed and the processes to make them effective (December 2025-January 2026) • Study options for enforcement of tree regulations (January 2026) • Identify level of staffing needed to implement and enforce permanent tree code ordinance (February 2026) • Develop specific draft language for updating tree code and get input from Planning Board and public (February -March 2026) • Bring draft code to City Council, have public hearing, and adopt final version (March -April 2026) Packet Pg. 157 10.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.4217 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City Council is in the process of adopting new tree regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council wants to consider adopting an additional regulation that would provide greater protection to trees of especially significant size; and WHEREAS, such additional regulation for the City Council's consideration may apply to all private properties in the City; WHEREAS, it will take several months for the City to evaluate and consider the merits, scope, and details of such a regulation; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the following interim regulation to protect landmark trees while this work can be done; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this interim regulation is to temporarily protect certain landmark trees from tree removal as that term is defined in ECDC 23.10.020.S. This temporary protection will allow the City adequate time to adopt a permanent regulation to govern the removal of such trees. For the purposes of this ordinance, a "landmark tree" shall be defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty-four inches or more. Section 2. Applicability. The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall have no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree Packet Pg. 158 10.1.c removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval. Section 3. Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree, as that term is defined in Section 1, above, unless the landmark tree also meets the definition of hazard tree in ECDC 23.10.020.G or nuisance tree in 23.10.020.K. Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations. The interim regulations imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the interim regulations and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the interim regulations (as contemplated by Section 5 herein), the interim regulations shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim regulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this interim regulation within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on April 20, 2021 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. W Packet Pg. 159 10.1.c Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without the immediate adoption of these interim regulations, the City faces the possible removal of landmark trees. Therefore, the interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the removal of landmark trees. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 9. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: M OR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Cl "ERfrSCEY Packet Pg. 160 10.1.c APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 2, 2021 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 2, 2021 PUBLISHED: March 5, 2021 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDINANCE NO. 4217 Packet Pg. 161 10.1.c SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4217 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2„d day of March, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4217. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2021. Cl Y CLERK, SCOT ASSEY Packet Pg. 162 10.1.c Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH921288 ORDS 4216-4218 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 03/05/2021 and ending on 03/05/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publi tion is S42.0 . Subs *bed and sworn before- me on this 2:7 ��— day of Z-�2r ' - r Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOW PASSEY Packet Pg. 163 Classified Proof 10.1.c •l,i.�i. - .:.e t J;,;ti sr-xs-,.,L L. _��a...:�..�,t. , �-,?. it>��:�. ORDINANCE SUMMARY of the City or Edrnunds, Washlnt7ton On the 2nd day of March, 2021, 41! City Council of the City, dl Edmonds, passed 11,e 11,10 ln, OrdIrdi 3, the summaries ors3ld 17rdlnanCas conslsU, et tdles are prwlded as follows: ORDINANCE.NO. W0 AN ORDINANCE -OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4211 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE NO. 4217 AN ORDINANCE- OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK. TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. SETTING SfX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO.4218 AN ORDINANCIITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND The full text of these Ordinances will be mallpa upon request. DATED this 2nd Oily of March, 2 02 1. CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY Published: March 5, 2021, EDH921288 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 03/08/2021 09:45:49 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 164 10.1.d RESOLUTION NO. 1471 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217, WHICH ESTABLISHED INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4217 on March 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on Ordinance 4217 on April 20, 2021 to determine whether the interim development regulations adopted by that ordinance were justified and should continue for the remainder of its six-month period of applicability; and WHEREAS, several people spoke at the above -referenced public hearing, both for and against the ordinance: and WHEREAS, many of the arguments offered in favor of the ordinance made points consistent with the whereas clauses of Ordinance 4217; and WHEREAS, many of the arguments offered against the ordinance were less persuasive due to the temporary nature of the ordinance; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The city council hereby adopts as its findings of fact to support the adoption and continuing effectiveness of Ordinances 4217 the Whereas clauses contained in Ordinances 4217 as well as the following supplemental findings: A. It takes a long time for a tree to grow from its planted size to a size of twenty-four inch DBH or larger. B. The permanent landmark tree regulations to be adopted later this year may allow for some removal of landmark trees in certain circumstances where removal is deemed appropriate. C. Careful thought and deliberation should be given to the crafting of those permanent landmark tree regulations to ensure that any future removal of landmark trees is not harmful to the public, health, safety, and welfare or that such harm is offset by other competing societal values and benefits. D. Extending the effectiveness of Ordinance 4217 for roughly another four months until September 2, 2021 is reasonable considering how long it would take to replace Packet Pg. 165 10.1.d landmark trees that may be cut without sufficient justification if the ordinance were to be repealed now. Section 2. CONTINUANCE OF MORATORIUM. In light of the findings of fact adopted in Section 1, above, the effectiveness of Ordinance 4217 shall continue and not terminate until September 2, 2021, unless it is expressly repealed by earlier council action. RESOLVED this 27th day of April, 2021. CITY OF EDMONDS I MQ6R, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: C TY CLERK, SCQTT ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 23. 2021 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 27. 2021 RESOLUTION NO. 1471 2 Packet Pg. 166 10.1.e canopy around the trees which he assumed was relative to the DBH size, but he doubted they actually measured the tree crown diameter. Surveyed locations of tree are not always required and he assumed the tree canopy diameter would be estimated. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that it would be a best guess rather than a measurement. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan that illustrate tree locations with the DBH with some sort of canopy around it. He pointed out a 40" tree and the canopy, a smaller tree with a smaller canopy, an 18" tree with a slightly bigger canopy, and a grove of trees and their canopy. Site plans typically show a canopy but he assumed it was an estimate rather than measured. Councilmember Distelhorst observed that would be acceptable under Council President Paine's amendment. Mr. Lien said he would expect to see that but rather than estimated crown diameters it would be a little related to what was actual on the ground. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD "ESTIMATED" PRIOR TO "TREE CROWN DIAMETER." COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said she will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that the tree crown for conifers is insignificant compared to the drip line which show the broadest part of the tree. Confers' more global shape is equivalent to the crown line of tree. She viewed this as an added step that developers did not need to provide as the current regulations were adequate. For trees more closely associated, the site plan illustrates protection for groups of trees. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.II TO ADD "AND ESTIMATED TREE CROWN DIAMETER." UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Paine suggested continuing the discussion next week and moving on to the remaining agenda items. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. NEW BUSINESS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY INTERIM REGULATIONS RELATED TO LANDMARK TREES Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the packet contains an emergency interim ordinance for six months that can be revisited prior to six months. The intent of the ordinance is to apply not only to development but apply broadly to all private properties and prohibit the removal of trees greater than 24" diameter at breast height (DBH) during the interim period unless they are hazardous. The intent of the ordinance, proposed by Council President Paine and Councilmember L. Johnson and supported by Mayor Nelson, was to recognize the Council intends to revisit private property tree regulations. As that will take several months to complete, the emergency interim ordinance will preclude cutting of those trees during the interim period. Ms. Hope explained the ordinance also sets a public hearing date of April 20, 2021 to discuss continuing or changing the ordinance. If approved by a super majority, the ordinance could go into effect Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q March 2, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 167 10.1.e immediately upon adoption. She referenced Section 3 Prohibition, which states, "For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree." A landmark tree is defined as 24" DBH unless it meets the definition of a hazard tree or nuisance tree. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how the ordinance will be enforced. She recalled driving down the street recently and seeing that a row of trees had been removed from the backyard of a house and asked how that will be prevented. Ms. Hope agreed that was the most challenging issue with this prohibition. If a tree code is adopted in the future that applies to all properties, it will also raise issues related to review criteria, enforcement, etc. and will require extra resources. There are definitely fewer 24" DBH trees so it will not necessarily affect all the properties in the City. Enforcement would be via seeing it or someone reporting it. If the emergency interim ordinance is adopted, the City will try to get the word out but violators could be subject to penalties. Councilmember K. Johnson said she often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood and trees greater than 24" DBH being topped or cut down. She pointed out once you hear a chainsaw, it is too late as the tree is already being cut down and they usually start at the top and work their way down unless they are logging it for the wood. She suggested once this is adopted, sending a notification to the major tree companies so they know not to cut those trees in Edmonds without permission. Council President Paine said she was glad to have this emergency interim ordinance drafted that protects and preserves landmark trees which are the biggest. She was hopeful it would maintain the status quo and allow the subdivision tree code to be completed as well as put together the resources and planning for an effective urban forestry program, look at canopy data through the canopy study and develop a thoughtful tree code via an extensive public process like was done in 2015. The ordinance will provide that time and prevents impacts on the tree canopy. A lot of the tree canopy has been removed in the last couple years and it would be a shame to lose more. The ordinance will provide time for a more thoughtful tree code that covers all properties. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was excited about this, but it should not use a definition that is not in the code; she suggested rather than "landmark tree," using "significant tree", and instead of 24" DBH, using 12" DBH because a 12" DBH is 60 years old. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's concerns and referred to an application for tree and vegetation removal that the applicant applied for after the fact to remove 2 hazard trees and 11 additional trees. She emphasized tree are being cut down and she preferred to err on the side of caution and use language already in the code. She concluded this is a great step and she applaud the Council for taking it. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the Administration for hearing their concerns and for working with them to put this together. At the bare minimum, this will protect old growth trees that could never be replaced and grown to the size they are in our lifetime. This is the minimum that can be done; it is really important and should have been done a while ago to protect those trees. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson, Council President Paine, Councilmember L. Johnson and the Administration for their work on this. He appreciate the landmark tree and the focus on the 24" DBH. He feared going down to 12" DBH would be more difficult and may be too broad a focus for an emergency ordinance. As with the moratorium, his preference is not to legislate via emergence ordinance and moratorium in general. He hoped having this in place for six months provided the time necessary for public outreach and a process by the Administration and whatever resources the Administration needed to complete that work and to work with residents to have a fuller code and ensure the Council did not continue to legislate via emergency ordinance and moratorium. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q March 2, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 168 10.1.e Councilmember Olson said her concern with things that arise on short order is the unanticipated consequences. She asked if this would apply to someone doing a renovation on their property or was that covered in another way related to the development aspect. She asked if there could be an exception or caveat that would allow a Council hearing for a tree that someone feels they need to address in the six month period and would provide some flexibility for things that may arise that the Council is not thinking about right now. Ms. Hope said the ordinance does not cover trees going through a permitted development process because that has different requirements. This is related to other areas where people are choosing to cut trees for various reasons. As written, the ordinance would apply to roughly 90% of properties in the City. Mr. Lien clarified it would not impact trees being removed with a reviewed development. This ordinance does not apply to any tree removal associated with a permit through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. It is intended to preserve large trees on developed single family properties while the other regulations are being developed. He concluded trees reviewed with a development proposal could still be removed. Council President Paine said she asked similar questions of Ms. Hope regarding a smaller tree diameter. The challenge is there is not enough code enforcement as well as seeking a balance between preserving large trees and hoping to have good compliance with the understanding the City is seeking greater tree canopy and the ability to monitor it. She had inquired about 12" or 16" DBH and was convinced the 24" DBH during the interim period would be more successful and not overstrain resources. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that trees associated with a permit for a short plat or subdivision could be removed because the moratorium ends March loth. She expressed interest in extending the moratorium because she was uncertain the code would be approved by March loth. She concluded if a developer submitted a permit for a subdivision for a property with a lot of trees, they could be removed regardless of size after March loth when the moratorium expires. Mayor Nelson said the issue before the Council is the emergency interim ordinance, not the emergency moratorium. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Mr. Lien's statement that this ordinance would not apply to tree removed as part of a subdivision. She asked whether subdivisions should be included in this emergency ordinance since the moratorium ends March loth. Mr. Lien answered the thought was that the regulations that the Council reviewed in the previous agenda item would be adopted; the new Section 23.10 referenced in the emergency ordinance has regulations that preserve trees with development. If that regulation is not adopted by the time the moratorium expires (Ordinances 4200 and 4201), the regulations would revert to the current tree code. This ordinance may need to be amended if it is adopted prior to the other ordinance because it specifically references Section 23.10. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained when the emergency interim ordinance was drafted, it was assumed the tree code would already be adopted and this would be next. Realizing the Council potentially wants to make more amendments to the tree, he proposed adopting the tree code tonight with the amendments that were made and come back next week and continue to make amendments. The result would be instead of making amendments to a draft code, the Council would be amending an already adopted code. That would address the concern about the moratorium expiring. He believed if the Council waited until next week, the moratorium would be expired at the time of next week's Council meeting. Council President Paine said as she understands the emergency moratorium, when the conservation subdivision code is adopted, the moratorium will expire. Ms. Hope answered yes, the way it is currently written. Mr. Taraday said there is a repealer section in Section 4 of the tree code ordinance that expressly repeals the tree moratorium because the new tree code goes into effect. An argument can be made [Mr. Taraday discontinued participation in the virtual meeting]. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q March 2, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 169 10.1.e COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday and she have been discussing the fact that approving the tree code repeals Ordinances 4200 and 4201, the moratorium on subdivisions and short plats. If the Council approves the tree code as Mr. Taraday suggested, she has more amendments that she feels would solidify the tree code. She was leery of approving the tree code tonight. Ms. Hope said the tree ordinance in the packet specifically repeals the moratorium which otherwise would expire March 10t1i. If the Council adopts tree regulations as amended, and comes back next week to make further amendments, that may be preferable to extending or creating a new moratorium. Mr. Taraday said there is language in Ordinance 4200 that tries to avoid this situation from occurring by stating something like the ordinance will not be presumed to have been repealed or expired but the Council will do that by ordinance. He was uncertain that language had been tested in court; it was included as a potential safety net. He would prefer not to rely on that language and would rather the Council not accidentally allow the moratorium to expire. Ms. Hope said by adopting the proposed tree regulations with the amendments approved tonight, the moratorium would be ended, but next week Council could consider making additional amendments to the adopted tree code. That would prevent the unintended expiration of the moratorium expiring or creating a new moratorium on the fly. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council has gotten off subject. The issue before the Council is the emergency ordinance and the Council should make a decision on that before deciding on other things. Councilmember Buckshnis explained if the Council approves this emergency ordinance tonight, it refers to definitions in the tree code which haven't been approved. If the Council approves the tree code, it removes the moratorium. She asked if the Council could approve the tree code and remove Section 4. Mr. Taraday said Section 4 of the tree code ordinance could be removed. He did not want to represent to the Council that the moratorium was bulletproof and remained in effect by virtue of removing Section 4 because Ordinance 4200 specifically states it is a 4 month moratorium and the 4 months expire on March loth. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTERIM EMERGENCY TREE ORDINANCE FOR LANDMARK TREES AND MOVE BACK TO DISCUSSING THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION CODE WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE SO FAR AND COME BACK NEXT WEEK. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the emergency ordinance references code that does not yet exist until the Council adopts the tree ordinance which is why the tree ordnance needs to be adopted first. Mr. Taraday said the ordinances certainly were not intended to be adopted in the order that is currently being considered but a few minutes' difference would not be a problem. Councilmember Olson suggested an option would be holding an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss the remaining tree code amendments and the existing moratorium issue. Mayor Nelson said he was not available on Friday. Councilmember Olson said the Council could have a meeting without the Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she also was not available. Council President Paine restated the motion: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q March 2, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 170 10.1.e TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO CHANGE "LANDMARK" TO "SIGNIFICANT" AND CHANGE "24" DBH" TO THE DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TREE WHICH IS 12" DBH. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ADOPT THE AMENDED DRAFT TREE ORDINANCE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was leery of doing this when it was not complete. There have been examples in the past where there has been an attempt to bring ordinances forward and the minority could not get it done. She hoped there was a promise that additional amendments could be considered, noting she has about nine more amendments. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, "ORDINANCES 4200 (MORATORIUM) AND 4201 (ASSOCIATED INTERIM REGULATIONS) ARE HEREBY REPEALED." Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the Council would spend quality time to consider all the amendments and address the moratorium next week or when it expires. She felt it was premature to have Section 4 in the ordinance. As City Clerk Passey began to take a roll call vote (Councilmember K. Johnson abstained and Councilmember Distelhorst voted no), Councilmember Olson raised a point of order that the original moratorium stated the moratorium would expire when the tree code was passed or when it expired, whichever came first. Ms. Hope recalled it stated a 4-month period which would be March 10`h unless Council acted to repeal it sooner. Mr. Taraday read from the ordinance, "The moratorium imposed by this ordinance shall commence on the date of adoption of this ordinance. The moratorium shall not terminate until four months after the date of adoption unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have to occurred." He explained that is the language he referred to earlier as untested. He suggested if the Council's intent is not to have the moratorium repealed right away, amending Section 4 to read, "The effectiveness of Ordinance 4200 shall be extended to March 24, 2021" which would give the Council two more weeks to resolve anything outstanding in the tree code. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with waiting two weeks, anticipating at 10:14 p.m., the Council could be meeting half the night trying to make all the amendments. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q March 2, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 171 10.1.e TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, REPEALING ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "ORDINANCE 4200 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 202L" Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the motion needed to include Ordinance 4201. Mr. Taraday recommended they be handled as a package as they were originally adopted as a package. He requested adding "effectiveness" so the motion stated, "The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 will be extended to March 24, 202 L" Council President Paine restated the motion: TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021." Councilmember K. Johnson asked which ordinances these were, whether it was the moratorium ordinance. Council President Paine answered yes and Ordinance 4201 was the associated interim regulations. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO. 2. 4T1 AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PUBLIC PROCESS Due to late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported today the President and Governor announced additions to those eligible for immediate access to the vaccine - school educators and licensed childcare workers. As more people become eligible, hopeful the availability of vaccines will also increase. The numbers in Snohomish County continue to drop, yesterday's report was 109 cases/100,000 (previously 119/100,000). That is still not enough fast enough so he encouraged the public to continue wearing masks, washing hands, and watching their distance. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson wished all be well and happy. Councilmember Distelhorst said March is Women's History Month. He is honored to serve alongside his colleagues on Council. International Women's Day is March 8t1i, a big day in his household because in Mongolia where his wife and two daughters are from, it is actually a national holiday. While he lived in Mongolia, it was a widely celebrated holiday Anyone interested in learning more about notable figures, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q March 2, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 172 10.1.f when they get to Edmonds, but there will be subtext via color, font, and other elements that can match and contrast to tell a story about Edmonds. He recognized it was important to the Council to have cohesiveness with the existing signs and certain elements should resonate, but they do not have to be exactly the same. The team will do their best including more outreach to determine if the signs are on right track and bring that information back to Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the vertical signs better than the horizontal signs. The city of Shoreline is on 205t1i and the Edmonds sign will be across the street. She agreed the signage should be unique and she like inspiration signage that brings color, texture, artistic. 2. LANDMARK TREE ORDINANCE EXTENSION City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there is an ordinance in the packet that was presented for Council consideration; however, he recommend the Council not take action on it tonight because the Council needed to have a public hearing before it can be extended. Mr. Lien and he had a discussion about the ordinance when he was heading out of town on vacation and did not had the statute in front of him. He apologized for not realizing that earlier. When this ordinance was first adopted, there was a thought that only six months would be needed to develop something more permanent and move on to adopting a permanent regulation governing landmark trees. The City is obviously not at that point. His recollection was staff has sought direction regarding where the Council wants to go or what staff should be trying to draft, but the Council has not yet given staff clear direction to staff on that issue. From his perspective the Council was not even close to being able to adopt a permanent regulation governing landmark trees. To frame the discussion, Mr. Taraday suggested after hearing from Mr. Lien tonight, the Council deliberate on whether they want to reprioritize some work in order to get a permanent landmark tree code developed in the next six months which he understood would require a significant reprioritization of work, or whether to just allow things to return to the way they were six months ago and allow the landmark tree regulation process to work its way through the normal course of business. There is a lot of work going through the Planning Board and Planning Department and it was not clear to him whether this was a high enough Council priority to be the subject of another interim ordinance. If so, he requested the Council advise staff. He was concerned that in the absence of a priority change and given the trajectory that this effort has been on, there could be repeated extensions without making any real progress which is not how interim regulations are intended to be used and he would advise against doing that. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said the key part of what Mr. Taraday said related to the timeline for the next stage of the tree code. The general direction received during the first stage of the tree code update was the Council wanted a tree code that applied more broadly to all properties in the City whether they was being developed or not. The first stage of the tree code update was implementing the first goal of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Clear direction was provided on that and the first update was tree regulations that strictly focused on development. He provided that focused code update to the Planning Board last September and the Council adopted the last version in July 2021, a total of 10 months. If there is a tree regulation that will apply more broadly throughout the City and have a larger impact/reach, Mr. Lien said that type of update needs to have broad public engagement and will take more time. Staff does not have a lot of clear direction regarding that next stage. The interim ordinance that was being considered tonight was for landmark trees but during discussion of the next stage, there was interest in reviewing all tree removals. There was also discussion about potential view impacts but not a lot of clear direction. Another approach would be to begin the public engagement before drafting code; getting input from Edmonds citizens regarding what they would like to see in a tree code that applies more broadly and weave that into the next phase of the code update. 0 N r N 0 CD M a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q August 24, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 173 10.1.f Mr. Lien advised that interviews were conducted for the urban forest planner position yesterday and an offer will be made to a really good candidate. It will likely be at least a month before that person can be hired. Having one person solely focused on trees will help this move forward rather than adding it to his job. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was currently not at home so she did not have the history of the Tree Board's efforts at hand. She recalled there was a designated timeframe and she asked for that to be sent to her today. She expressed concern that suddenly staff was saying Council had not provided clear direction, but she felt the Council had. She would like to further define the language in the flexible subdivision design in 20.048.075. She was perplexed by tonight's discussion and asked if the intent was to start over at square one and what happened to all the planning documents initiated through the Tree Board and the Council last year or this year. Mr. Lien said the code Councilmember Buckshnis was referencing was 20.75.048, the flexible subdivision design; that is in code and has been adopted. That first stage of the code update was based on Goal lA of the UFMP strictly focused on reducing clear cutting and other development impacts on the urban forest. When Stage 1 of the code update started, staff presented the scope to Council in July 2020; began discussion with the Planning Board in September, the Planning Board held a public hearing in December and forwarded a recommendation to Council in January 2021 and the Council begin discussions in January//February. During that review, there were a lot of comments that the code update was not broad enough and needed to be expanded to cover situations beyond development. In June 2021, staff brought back the Stage 2 topics to be considered such as tree removal not associated with development. A few options were discussed at that time. With regard to review on other properties, there was consensus that the Council wanted that review, but not what that review would look like such as requiring a permit for all tree removals. With regard to views, the discussion was all over the board regarding how views would be addressed in the next stage of the update. He concluded many of the topics were discussed, but he did not feel clear direction was provided at that time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if he was referring to clear direction from Council or from citizens. She thought Council has been giving clear direction for a long time. Mr. Lien answered from the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council approved 20.75.048 but never any language for amendments. She would like to discuss and refine the development aspect of things. The landmark tree ordinance is backfiring because trees are going down all over and there is no enforcement. She recalled she did not vote the last two times because it penalizes citizens instead of developers. She thought Stage 2 of the tree code would be done by September/October and now it sounds like there's nothing. She concluded she was completely mystified. Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about enforcement since there was a moratorium for landmark trees. Mr. Lien answered staff has been implementing the landmark tree interim ordinance; landmark trees can still be removed if they are nuisance or hazard trees. Staff has been reviewing arborist reports with regard to nuisance and hazard landmark trees. Staff does enforce the tree code including the landmark tree interim ordinance. People call frequently when tree cutting is occurring and planning staff, code enforcement or building officials in the field visit those properties. Mr. Lien clarified some of the tree cutting that has occurred since the interim ordinance went into effect was the result of developments vested prior to adoption of the new tree code and prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. Subdivisions have five years from preliminary approval to begin development; for example, a development that was approved 2-3 years ago under the old tree code is just now getting to the development stage and removing trees. He assured staff was enforcing the tree code and the interim ordinance. 0 N U) r N 0 CD M a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q August 24, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 174 10.1.f Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many violations had been cited. Mr. Lien answered he knew of two violations in regard to the interim ordinance, only one may have been related to the landmark tree ordinance or potentially the other moratorium on subdivision properties that restricted cutting trees on properties being subdivided. He did not think any were related to the landmark tree ordinance, one was a critical area and the other was related to the moratorium ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how practical this moratorium has been. Mr. Lien answered it has prevented 24" trees from being removed. The word is out, staff get calls all the time from property owners that haven't heard about it until told by their neighbor. Nuisance and hazard 24" trees are being cut as well as trees on developments vested prior to the adoption of these codes. Councilmember K. Johnson commented it was great news that an urban forester had been hired. She supported getting more public input even after this has been discussed for years. She personally thought the moratorium had done more harm than good; she hears so many trees being cut down in her neighborhood and although they may not be landmark trees, the word is out, if you want to get rid of a tree, do it now. She would not support this ordinance when it comes back because she believed more needed to be done to protect citizens and there needed to be better enforcement. She loves trees, particularly protecting large native trees, but did not see that this has accomplished that goal. She will keep her mind open to that possibility based on Mr. Lien's comments, but she did not see that the moratorium had done what it was intended to do, save trees. Councilmember Olson said she came to tonight's meeting with three reasons for not supporting this and Mr. Taraday's comments addressed a lot of them. She originally voted for a six-month Band-Aid until a code for private property could be developed because that seemed reasonable, but not only has that part of the code not been started, a public input process is planned which she totally supports. Ms. Seitz' comments have been valuable to her thought process and there are things that could help direct a code that is better received and more incentive based rather than enforcement based. She also expressed concern with treating this like an emergency ordinance when it wasn't and holding a hearing until after fact. From her personal case studies, she did not share the opinion that this has been more of a positive than a negative. Possibly some bigger trees are being protected, but there are a lot of big trees between 12-24". She recalled three parties making comment to the effect that they were going to take down the 12-24" trees before they would be protected forever. She was not sure the bigger trees were always the better trees. She supported the ordinance originally, believing it was a reasonable thing to do, but no longer believed it was serving the purpose of protecting and encouraging the tree canopy and is working counter to that. She did not plan to support the ordinance tonight and was unlikely to support it in the future. Councilmember Distelhorst said he would definitely like see it prioritized as he preferred not to regulate through ongoing temporary extensions. He voiced his support for a reprioritization if necessary so there can be a permanent code regarding landmark trees, trees that have been here the longest, can be here into the future and take the longest to grow. Recognizing the exponential benefit these trees provide, he was interested in prioritizing a long term landmark tree code and expressed support for shuffling work if necessary. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson said she was also perplexed because she remembered sitting through numerous Council meetings and meeting with directors on this and being repeatedly shown a schedule of how this would be accomplished and the Council providing input. This emergency ordinance was supported by the Administration. The message the Council is receiving now is totally different than the message they received before. She has been communicating her desires to protect the old growth as much as possible. It was not particularly comfortable protecting them through emergency ordinance and she had hoped the City was well on the way to a real plan to accomplish this and now is hearing staff has 0 N U) r N 0 CD M a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q August 24, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 175 10.1.f no idea what the Council wants. She recalled staff describing at meetings how this would be accomplished and other meetings where Council provided feedback. She concluded she was really confused and said there needed to be better communicating between the two branches. Mayor Pro Tern Paine expressed frustration, commenting this was the first she was hearing about this and feared a lot of momentum had been lost. She was unclear where the momentum was lost, recalling the City was marching down a great path, having an interim approach to preserving the largest trees, the ones that will not easily grow back due to the climate crisis. So much progress has been made this year; it was a priority for the Administration and the Council to do tree preservation in large blocks. She said some of her questions have never answered; for example, how many permits are vested where everything can be removed, including every last blade of grass. Mr. Lien said he did not have that information, but could track it at least for subdivisions that are vested and maybe multifamily sites. Mayor Pro Tern Paine said it was terribly frustrating to see large swaths of trees coming down. Another thing the Council wanted to prioritize was the use of incentives such as stormwater fees to reduce the impact of preserving tree canopy. The Council has been supportive of alternative methods and doing updated subdivision planning for land use practices to build housing in a more creative way. She did not want to throw the baby out with bathwater and did not understand why the process was returning to zero. She asked when the tree canopy assessment would be available, anticipating that would assist with database decision making as most properties are privately held and not under development. Mr. Lien answered the tree canopy assessment is underway and should be completed by the end of September. Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked for a practical timeline to complete Stage 2 of the tree canopy work. She acknowledged it involved the Planning Board and other staff and Administration time. She recalled there was a path to get this done in a year or so. She recognized COVID had slowed things, and asked what would be a reasonable time to go through the Planning Board and public hearings. Mr. Lien asked if she was talking about the code or the canopy assessment. Mayor Pro Tern Paine answered she meant the Stage 2 of the code. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave said there is a short summary in the cover memo in the packet describing some of the things that are underway. The problem is there are a lot of moving parts. Staff has been working on a number of things such as the tree canopy assessment, street tree plan, establishing a tree fund, and hiring a urban forest planner who can devote all their time to this effort. The one thing that will take the most time because it will require a lot of public outreach is any code regulating private property which is different from a landmark tree ordinance. He recalled the last time a proposal generated by the Tree Board came forward, it created a hailstorm of criticism from general public. Mayor Pro Tern Paine interrupted, saying she was on the Tree Board at that time and part of their charter was a comprehensive tree code which included private property. Mr. Chave said a lengthy public outreach is critical before bringing forward a tree code that addresses what happens on private property. The Planning Department has been inundated with people asking questions, wanting assessment done of their trees, etc. There is a lot of engagement by the community but there are a lot of different opinions and it is difficult to know what the community expects until that outreach is done. The regulations related to landmark trees can be completed sooner, but without clear direction regarding regulating trees on private property, it will take a lot of time to figure out. There are a lot of pieces of the tree code that are moving forward, but the private property piece, other than landmark trees, is a big question mark. Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked what would be required and how much time would it take to resuscitate and extend the landmark tree interim ordinance one more time. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can use the ordinance in the packet to do that, there just needs to be a public hearing first. The only real question is how quickly that public hearing can be noticed and he deferred to Planning staff to answer that question. Alternatively if that timeline was not acceptable, the Council could entertain the possibility of an 0 N U) r N 0 CD M a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q August 24, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 176 10.1.f emergency ordinance of a different scope adopted at a special meeting in the next few days that would take immediate effect. The exact same substance cannot be adopted without first holding a public hearing. Mr. Lien advised the soonest a public hearing could be scheduled would be September 14t1i if notice was sent to the Herald tomorrow. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed two requests, 1) Mr. Taraday hold an executive session to discuss the legal ramifications; this had been requested but it had not been scheduled, and 2) consider alternatives to the landmark tree moratorium, specifically ways to incentivize retaining landmark trees. The Council has typically put aside $300,000 in the budget for open space; the Council could consider during the budget process making one-time payments to people who own landmark trees to reduce their taxes. She was interested in alternatives that were more palatable, helpful and positive to the community. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson requested an update on what was referred to at one time as upcoming tree related items and timing. She recalled this was last reported to the Council on June 1 st and was what the Council has been using to gauge progress. The upcoming tree related items included view corridors, open space acquisition, and other things that staff mentioned earlier that they had not received direction on. She disagreed that direction had not been given. She requested an update on that timeline and whether the timing of some items needed to be adjusted from what was reported in June. Mr. Lien He displayed Stage 2 Upcoming Tree -Related Items: Item Timing Inventory of downtown street trees Q2 2021-Q3 2021 Inventory of other public trees 2022 or TBD Street Tree Plan update Q2 2021-Q4 20221 Tree canopy assessment Q2 2021-Q3 2021 Heritage Tree Program Q3 2021-Q4 2021 Tree Canopy Goal Q3 2021 Assessment of staffing and other resource needs Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions Q4 2021-2022 or TBD Exploration of other incentive programs 2022 or TBD Open space acquisition Q4 2021-2022 or TBD Tree retention on private property (not related to development) Q4 2021 Partnerships with other organizations Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD Annual reports on City tree activities Q2 2021 Tree give-away program 2022 or TBD View corridors 2022 or TBD Wildlife & habitat corridors Q3 2021-Q4 2021 Expanded public education & Information Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD Stormwater & watershed Analysis Q4 2021-2022 or TBD Other tree -related issues 2022 or TBD Mr. Lien explained the above was a timeline developed by former Development Services Director Shane Hope. He commented on the items highlighted in gray which were discussed at the June 1st Council meeting: • Heritage Tree Program - clear direction was provided about moving forward and it will potentially be completed in Q4 2021 • Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions - identified for Q4 2021 — 2022 • Tree retention on private property - will require robust public engagement. Director Hope identified that as potentially being completed in Q4 2021; when this list was developed, he thought that a little ambitious. 0 N N d CD M a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q August 24, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 177 10.1.f • \View corridors - identified for 2022 or TBD. • Wildlife & habitat corridors - identified for Q3-4 2021. He is tying wildlife and habitat corridors to the tree canopy assessment which will be completed in late September. Mr. Lien commented on the progress of other items on the list: • Street plan update — in process • Inventory of downtown street trees — completed • Assessment of staffing and other resource needs — ongoing. Hopefully Urban Forester starting soon • Tree give-away program — tied to tree fund. Some current subdivisions applications will have fee - in -lieu Mr. Lien referred to a May 18, 2021 memo regarding Tree Code Stage 2 and options identified for Tree Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development. Goal LA of the UFMP provides: A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations Mayor Pro Tem Paine interrupted, stated this is not the time for an update. She suggested they work tomorrow to identify a date for an update and a solid outreach plan to discuss this with the community. Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson clarified her request was for staff to come back with an update as given the information the Council was provided tonight, she assumed some changes had been made. She recalled a slide provided to the Council at one point stated outreach and public engagement would start Q3, it is now the middle of Q3. She was not expecting those answers tonight, but requested some thought be given to it. If staff felt they did not have clear direction, although she felt she has given direction, she was perplexed why they did not ask again because the Council has been clear this is a priority. She recalled speaking rather passionately at the beginning of the year about her frustration that the Council just keeps talking about this and not doing anything. She thought staff and the Council was on a path to doing something and now it feels like they are moving backward. She concluded she was confused and frustrated as well. Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized many cities have very good tree codes that address private property. This was one of criticisms that Council had of the Administration when the UFMP was prepared as well as the Tree Board because it glossed over the private property aspect. She thought the Council had provided clear direction and now she is baffled. Mayor Pro Tern Paine proposed concluding this discussion and she will work with staff to find a date to come back quickly with more information, an update and to get questions answered. The Council agreed. MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE ITEM 9.4, COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, TO OCTOBER 5TH. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the rules could be considered in September since their approval has been put off for over a year. Mayor Pro Tern Paine said she would try for September 28t1i. Councilmember K. Johnson acknowledged there were more agenda items than time allowed. She suggested delaying outdoor dining because the Council was unlikely to finish by 10 p.m. at rate they were going. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES; AND 0 N U) r N d CD M a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q August 24, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 178 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 1 of 17 Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Sections: 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. 23.10.010 Administration authority. 23.10.020 Definitions. 23.10.030 Permits. 23.10.040 Exemptions. 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. 23.10.080 Tree replacement. 23.10.085 Protected trees - Notice on title. 23.10.090 Bonding. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 23.10.110 Liability. 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan; C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 179 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 2 of 17 G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during development; J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds. L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.010 Administration authority. The planning and development director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 4299 § 65 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.020 Definitions. A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including four -inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DBH. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 180 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 3 of 17 D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one- half feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)." F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant. H. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. "Improved lot" means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property. L. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/ or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials: International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 181 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 4 of 17 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans. For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional. T. "Tree" means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. V. "Tree removal" means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. W. "Tree topping" means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. X. "Viable tree" means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021] 23.10.030 Permits. A. Applicability. No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter. B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in ECDC 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 182 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 5 of 17 C. Procedural Exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.040 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. Removal of nonsignificant trees that are not protected by any other means. C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and/or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of- way permit may be required. D. Removal and maintenance of trees within city of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the parks department E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 - 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone, provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public safety or tree health. F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections (A) through (E) of this section may be removed with supporting documentation: Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 183 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 6 of 17 2. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 3. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8). [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 20211. 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, or through an approved modification of a landscape plan. B. Vacant Lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. A. Introduction. The city's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the city requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision; 2. Subdivision; 3. New multifamily development; 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family house; and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 184 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 7 of 17 B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan. 1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection (A) of this section must submit a tree retention and protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense. 2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter; iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.); v. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required); iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an "X" or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with subsection (C)(5) of this section. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner must be provided. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 185 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 8 of 17 c. An arborist report containing the following: A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions. Phased Review. i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a tree retention and protection plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. ii. A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements. General Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows: Table 23.10.060.C. Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, 30% of all significant short subdivision, trees in the developable or subdivision site The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 186 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 9 of 17 Table 23.10.060.C. Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required Multifamily 25% of all significant development, unit trees in the developable lot short site subdivision, or unit lot subdivision 2. Trees that are located within native growth protection areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(E), hazard and nuisance trees, and ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC), or the shoreline master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 5. For developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One. a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 18 inches DBH. 2. Priority Two. a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 187 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 10 of 17 c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Tree Retention Procedures. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to: Maximize the retention of higher priority trees; and b. Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection (C) of this section. 2. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section must be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the proposed development infeasible In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. 3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements must be retained at least to the number of trees required by subsection (C) of this section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees. 4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy subsection (C) of this section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows: a. Planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (C) of this section; and b. If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of trees, the applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection. G. If a development retains 50 percent of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021] The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 188 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 11 of 17 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows: 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines. B. Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state, at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited," and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 189 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 12 of 17 7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a two -foot -deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. D. Grade. 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 190 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 13 of 17 F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.080 Tree replacement. A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 191 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 14 of 17 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area. E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to planning and development that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the city's tree fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required. 4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area. [Ord. 4299 § 66 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 J. 23.10.085 Protected trees - Notice on title. The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.090 Bonding. A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 192 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 15 of 17 retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15 percent of the performance bond or estimate in subsection (B) of this section. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this code. B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties. 1. Aiding or Abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection (C)(2) of this section. 2. Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the city may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); C. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter; d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12 inches in diameter and the appraised value of trees 12 inches or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the city arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions; The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 193 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 16 of 17 e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s); f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the city. The notice shall describe the violation, the approximate date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the city's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.110 Liability. A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.10.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 194 10.1.g Ch. 23.10 Tree Related Regulations I Edmonds Community Development Code Page 17 of 17 The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by General Code. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4379, passed January 14, 2025. Packet Pg. 195 10.1.h Urban Forest Management Plan, July 2019 Plans I LongRang_e Planning - City of Edmonds, WA https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development services/planning division/plans_Long range planning Climate Action Plan, 2023 Climate Action Plan - City of Edmonds, WA https://www.edmondswa.gov/cros/one.aspx?portatld=l 6495016&pageld=17296262 2024 Comprehensive Plan Everyone's Edmonds - City of Edmonds, WA https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development services/planning_ division/everyones_edmonds Supportive City of Edmonds Planning Documents April21, 2025 Packet Pg. 196 10.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/21/2025 Priorities for 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ideas Staff Lead: Council President Tibbott Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 2024, after a two-year update process. To address minor changes that were not able to be considered earlier, City Council approved a special process on March 4 for potential 2025 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The process included Council members submitting ideas for minor Comprehensive Plan amendments in 2025.Consistent with the approved 2025 amendment process, Council members submitted to the Council's legislative executive assistant their ideas for Comprehensive Plan amendment ideas to study. Those 28 ideas were consolidated into a table and shared as part of the Council's March 25th meeting. At the Council's March 25 meeting, the 28 ideas --in abbreviated form --were divided into five categories. It was discussed that Items from Category 5 ("Code Updates/Other") should not be considered as Comprehensive Plan amendment ideas. Also some items could be combined (such as four different ideas about the same neighborhood hub). At its April 1 meeting, the Council took action to advance two ideas for further consideration and study - 1. North Bowl Hub (four councilmembers proposed amendments for this, #1 (Eck) #4 (Olson) #10 (Chen) and #19 (Dotsch) 2. Establishing Critical Areas Program (#14). The remaining topics were proposed to be brought back at a later date. (Minutes, attached) During the April 15 Committee of the Whole, Council discussed consideration for councilmembers wishing to remove one or more of their proposed Comp Plan Amendement ideas. Director Hope explained how Council could docket the remaining comprehensive plan amendment ideas. The spreadsheet of Councilmember's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ideas has been updated to reflect Council's April 1 action, staff's recommendation of those ideas more fitting for code updates or other, and those ideas proposed to be removed for consideration at the request of the councilmember who brought the idea forward. Recommendation Motion to remove from further consideration comprehensive plan amendment ideas #1, #2, #3, #6, #26, #27, #28 as requested by Councilmembers who proposed them; as well as amendment ideas #9, #11, #12, #20 as suggested by staff to be better addressed by code or other means rather than as comprehensive plan amendments. Motion to docket remaining comprehensive plan amendment ideas: #5, #7, #8, #13, #15, #16, Packet Pg. 197 10.2 #17, #18, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25 for future consideration. 3. Motion to direct Council staff to draft a resolution documenting the Council's action to advance North Bowl Hub and Establishing a Critical Areas Program for further consideration and study for 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and those items docketed for consideration in the future. Narrative Consideration to Remove: Councilmember Vivian Olson has requested to remove three of her proposed amendment ideas, specifically #2 concerning Hummingbird Park, #3 regarding BD2 rezoning between 6th/8th/Main/Dayton, and #6 about Meadowdale Clubhouse. Council President Neil Tibbott has proposed to remove three amendment ideas; #26 regarding City Hall, #27 regarding Francis Anderson Center and #28 regarding the Wade James Theater. Councilmember Chris Eck requested to remove her amendment idea #1 regarding the North Bowl Hub, as the narrative was submitted prior to input received from that community. She maintains support of further study of the North Bowl Hub. Staff suggested four ideas were better addressed by code or other means than as Comp Plan Amendments; #9 (hotels) #11 (neighborhood cafes/stores) #12 (displacement) and #20 (requirements for more commercial in hubs and centers. Consideration to Docket: Those amendments not deemed to be urgent to the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be docketed for future consideration. Council Previous Action to Advance and Next Steps: On April 1, Council voted to advance the study of two ideas: 1. North Bowl Hub - this is the collective of 4 3 council proposals (1, 4, 10, 19) to review the North Bowl Hub 2. Establish Critical Areas Program (#14) If council agrees to docket the remaining ideas for future consideration, these two ideas will advance as follows: Next Steps: After Council has determined which ideas to advance forward, a study period will begin for items on the Council -approved list. Results of the study will be reported by the end of June. The planning department will be working on related development codes, including Neighborhood Centers and Hubs (July 2025), Critical Areas Ordinance (2025), Interim Ordinance concerning Landmark Trees (202512026). In early July, the Council will decide on which ideas to formally propose as Comprehensive Plan amendments. Packet Pg. 198 10.2 The proposed amendments will go through a public process (including Planning Board) and other steps. In early September, the Council will vote on adopting any of the proposed amendments into the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: 2025-04-01 City Council - Full Minutes-3874 pages 6-8 4.21.25 Comp Plan Amendment Ideas Council updated fit 4.21.2025 Summary of approved, proposed docket and proposed remove Process. Legislative.Amend ments,Rvsd Ideas.By. Category. Packet Pg. 199 10.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING ACTION MINUTES April 1, 2025 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Council President Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney (remote) Shane Hope, Interim PDS Director Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Dotsch read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. ANNUAL PRESENTATION FROM THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS The Edmonds Public Facilities District / Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA), as a component unit of the City of Edmonds, shared an annual presentation with City Council. Ray Liaw, President began by speaking about who they are and their relationship to the city. Kathy Liu, Executive Director, spoke on their mission, and the three core activities; curating a dynamic performance season, to engage and educate the community, and support and host events. She spoke on their 2024/2025 season, giving examples of their diverse programming. Kathy touched on examples from their education and community engagement. She provided Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 1 Packet Pg. 200 10.2.a examples of the 2024/2025 rentals they secured, the expanding interest, statistics showing the increase in business, and a high-level breakdown of their audience demographics. Their financial update was presented showing their projected outlook to remain much the same as the previous year. She went over some of the one-time costs and capital improvements/investments they have put forward to keep the facility safe, modern and accessible. Kathy closed with presenting their 2023 Audit, which came back with no findings, and what ECA has ahead: their 2025/2026 season, strategic planning, and celebrating their 20th anniversary. 2. MAYOR'S FINANCIAL REPORT With council being up to date, Mayor Rosen opted to give precedence to other council business. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Tim Greiner, Edmonds, objected to the sale of Hummingbird Park and questioned the surplus of four parks. 2. Donald Wayne, Edmonds, objected to the council comment that Hummingbird Park is not utilized, the drainage issue/flooding of the park, proposed a B&O Tax. 3. Jordan Rudd, Edmonds, commented in opposition of considering the sale of Hummingbird Park. 4. Chelsea Rudd, Edmonds, commented in opposition of selling any city park. She mentioned her interaction with the council on the redevelopment of the park. 5. Jack Shull, Edmonds, commented in opposition to the parks being considered for sale as an asset. He touched on litigation if the council chose to move it forward for consideration. 6. Gordon Black, Edmonds, commented on the success of a park and how it is not a commercial space, but how it is used by the community as he has seen it. He opposed the park being considered selling it. He quotes several sections of the comprehensive plan and how it applies to preserving the parks. 7. Bob Ledford, Edmonds, commented on how if you sell a park, you can't get it back. He mentioned the positives from the council walkabouts; urged the council to utilize the community experts to help solve the problem. 8. Phillip & Hanna Witte commented in opposition to Frances Anderson Center and Hummingbird Park being considered to sell. Proposed paid parking, increasing corporate development tax, opening a hotel, increased ordinance enforcement, and property tax increases to offset deficit. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 2 Packet Pg. 201 10.2.a 9. Eric Bidstrop, Edmonds, commented in opposition to sell Hummingbird Park. He stated the sale goes in direct opposition to the comprehensive plan. He encouraged the council to consider ongoing revenue streams instead of one-time funds. He also encouraged the public to vote for the RFA in the upcoming election. 10. Kathy Stahl, Edmonds, commented in opposition to the sale of Hummingbird Park. She has witnessed activities constantly occurring and mentioned the wildlife impacts. 11. Greg Goodman, Edmonds, commented in support of keeping the park. He also spoke on the north bowl hub, reading a portion of the traffic safety, and how the last traffic study designated it as a hazardous and dangerous place. He would like the council to reconsider that area. 12. Kim Siegrist, Edmonds, spoke for the North Bowl Coalition (Marty Renish, Linda Hoad) thanking them for the walk and talk. They asked the North Bowl Hub to be removed or limited to Alternative A. 13. Adam Sindelar, Edmonds, commented in support of keeping Hummingbird Park mentioning how selling this, or any park, is a permanent loss for the community. 14. Georgina Armstrong, Edmonds, commented on what being a `tree city USA' means. She feels the city fails in meeting the `tree city' standards. She commented on the loss of the mature tree, "big red". 15. Robin Wright, Edmonds, commented in opposition of the council considering the sale of community centers and parks. She would rather scale back on replaceable city staff or programs than sacrifice community centers and parks. She wanted them to reconsider the Growth Management Plan:5-Corners proposal and the flooding/gully issues in Yost Park. 16. Glen McPherson, Edmonds, commented in support of saving Hummingbird Park. 17. Jack Faris, Edmonds, commented in support of saving Hummingbird Park. 18. Lindsay Mead, Edmonds, commented on the history of Hummingbird Park and community usage over the decades. He mentions that green space cannot be replaced, all the parks. Parks are not a solution to the budget crisis. 19. Chris Ziobru, Edmonds, commented in support of saving the parks. He feels parks are the public's asset, should not be considered for sale, and improved communication back to the public would be appreciated. 20. Nicki & Juno Barr, Edmonds, commented with her daughter on how they do not want to lose Hummingbird Park. They love the park and spend a lot of time there together. 21. Oona & Kennedy Hall, Edmonds, commented in support of keeping Hummingbird Park. He spoke on hitting rock bottom and how he moved to Edmonds for that park. The value of parks binds us intergenerationally. 22. Dylan Borowski, Edmonds, commented in support of saving Hummingbird Park. He spoke on a one-time cash for a permanent loss is not okay, if the city doesn't consider sustainable revenues, it will find itself in another budget deficit. 23. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, commented on the tree, "big red" and its destruction. She commented on the benefits of heritage trees. 24. Kimberly Wayne, Edmonds, commented in opposition of selling Hummingbird Park. She expressed concern for the environmental impact in developing the park, urging the council to remove it from consideration. 25. Lora Hein, Edmonds, commented on the loss of the tree, "big red". She feels that we do not meet the criteria to be a green city any longer and we preserve our parks and trees. 26. Brian Webster, Edmonds, commented on saving our parks and in opposition to the sale of Frances Anderson Center. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 3 Packet Pg. 202 10.2.a 27. Cristina Teidoro, Edmonds, commented in support of how vital parks are and her concern of the council considering other parks in her neighborhood to sell too. 28. Jamie Gouge, Edmonds, commented on the thriving city and in opposition to the sale of parks. She also spoke on the sale of FAC and the tremendous loss to the community programs if that were sold. 29. Angie Balm, Edmonds, commented on her involvement with the community through the Frances Anderson Center and her childcare business there. 30. Gwen Winterspa, Edmonds, commented on her concern about the state of the city. She felt the city failed to protect the tree, "big red", feels we need to protect heritage trees and their benefits. She also spoke in opposition to selling parks or the Frances Anderson Center. 31. Lee Ledford, Edmonds, commented in support of saving Hummingbird Park. They felt that being semi -disabled, the park provides them an accessible space to enjoy. 32. Mia Vanderveer, Edmonds, commented on the loss of the tree, "big red" and the loss of environmental benefits it provided. She also spoke on the loss of FAC and how it would ruin the years of shared history by the community. 33. Petula, Edmonds, commented on the loss of the tree, "big red" and the sadness and disappointment of the community in its loss. 34. Macy Lawrence, Edmonds, commented on the positive development of the city, but also the disappointment of the loss of the tree, "big red" and in favor or saving Hummingbird Park. She felt there was a lack of transparency with the tree removal. 35. Peggy Man, Edmonds, commented on developing a hub on Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive and how it would negatively affect that community. She doesn't feel there is a capacity to develop density in that hub and opposes the initiative. 36. Kylie Wright, unknown, commented in support of keeping the Frances Anderson Center bringing personal experiences forward to share. She supports the all -ages community activities in that space and would like the council to keep it for future generations. 37. Lee Agle, Edmonds, commented on the Frances Anderson Center and how it is a hub of the community and providing examples of the many different activities there. She is shocked that the sale of the property is even on the table to deal with the city's shortfall. 38. Sarah Davis, Edmonds, commented on the use of the FAC and how she feels she became part of the community by using those facilities. 39. Kim Butler, unknown, commented on the community's support of the environment. She feels the loss of the tree, "big red" is a tremendous loss. She does not feel there is a strong tree protection policy in the city. 40. Lindsay, Edmonds, commented in support of keeping all our parks. 41. Simone Bower, Edmonds, commented on the loss of the tree, "big red". She is angry about the loss of the tree and concerned about the lack of communication. She also feels disappointed in the mayor and council. 42. Mirian Topaz -King, unknown, commented on how we can't save the tree now, but we can save the parks and the Frances Anderson Center. 43. Craig Brewer, Edmonds, commented on the loss of the tree, "big red", feels we need to cut staff deeper, raise taxes, and reconsider the development of the hubs and centers. He urged them to not consider the north hub as the community does not have the ability to handle the capacity of increased development. 44. Bonnie Rogan, Edmonds, commented in opposition of the sale of Frances Anderson Center. She has benefited from the services and community events there, strongly urges the city to keep the community space. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 4 Packet Pg. 203 10.2.a 45. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented on the lack of appropriate polices to protect and preserve our open green spaces. He feels the city has done a terrible job in preserving our spaces. 46. Jim Oganowski, Edmonds, commented on the financial difficulties and wants to see a recovery plan. He feels that there are many community experts that are willing to participate and help to create an informed decision. 47. Kat, Edmonds, commented on how lucky Edmonds is to be a small town in a big city. She is advocating for her children by asking the council to not sell the Frances Anderson Center or parks because that is where generations make memories. 48. Kevin Fagerstrom, Edmonds, commented on the shared responsibility of the community. He commented on the relationship between the RFA vote and the parks; how they are separate items on the ballot. 49. Isabell, Edmonds, commented on the Frances Anderson Center and feels it is the heart of Edmonds. She does not feel it should be considered for sale and should be kept. 50. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, commented on the loss of the tree, "big red" and feels the city should keep their hands off our city parks. The city needs to think creatively about finances rather than sacrifice our community spaces. 51. Grant Hazard, Edmonds, commented on Frances Anderson Center and Hummingbird Park. He feels there is so much good that comes from these community spaces and would not like to lose them. He proposed a short-term rental tax, increased property taxes, and a hotel on the waterfront as a better long-term revenue source. 52. Marietta, Lynnwood, commented on opposing selling the Frances Anderson Center. She does not feel that selling the Frances Anderson Center or parks is an appropriate long- term solution to the budget. She urges the council to reconsider. 53. Taylor Geiger, Edmonds, commented in opposition of selling the Frances Anderson Center or parks. 54. Laura Harper, Edmonds, commented in opposition of selling the Frances Anderson Center or parks. It should not be considered. 55. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented on the loss of "big red". He also commented on the hearing examiner meetings regarding Perrinville Creek. He feels we are selling our parks and giving away our fire stations. 56. Kaitlin Gates, Edmonds, commented on the city taking away the parks and community spaces and how that impacts children. Please be proactive, be creative, and find another solution. 57. Britni Kipp, Edmonds, commented on the idea of selling parks off. She feels getting outside facilitates personal healing and bonding. She urges the council to not take those spaces away. 58. Marie Svendson, Edmonds, commented in support of saving Frances Anderson Center and Edmonds parks. 59. Nicole Ryder, unknown, commented in support of saving Hummingbird Park. She proposed long-term revenue options such as increasing tourism and parking fees. 60. Elizabeth Peck, unknown, commented in support of keeping the Frances Anderson Center and parks. 61. Nate Schmidt, Edmonds, commented in support of keeping the Frances Anderson Center, emphasizing the point from a prior speaker of community daycare needs. 62. LK Sheridan Herber, unknown, 63. Garrett Johnson, Edmonds, commented in support of keeping the Frances Anderson Center and the city parks. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 5 Packet Pg. 204 10.2.a MEETING EXTENSION COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 9:45. MOTION TO EXTEND AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RECESS AT 8:56 PM, MAYOR ROSEN RECESSED THE MEETING UNTIL 9:03 PM. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:03 PM. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 25, 2025 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO TABLE ITEM 9.1. MOTION FAILED 1-5-0 WITH COUNCILMEMER NAND VOTING IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, DOTSCH, OLSON, ECK, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING AGAINST, AND COUNCILMEMBER PAINE ABSTAINING. 1. PRIORITIES FOR 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IDEAS Shane Hope, Interim PDS Director, presented on the approach to address the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ideas provided by Council. Consistent with the approved 2025 amendment process, Council members submitted to the Council's legislative executive assistant their ideas for Comprehensive Plan amendment ideas to study. Those 28 ideas were consolidated into a table and shared as part of the Council's March 25th meeting. The 28 ideas --in abbreviated form --were divided into five categories. It was discussed that Items from Category 5 ("Code Updates/Other") should not be considered as Comprehensive Plan amendment ideas. Also, some items could be combined (such as four different ideas about the same neighborhood hub). COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO UTILIZE THE SHORT LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IDEAS BY CATEGORY IN OUR PACKET FOR THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF ALL THE COUNCILMEMBERS' PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IDEAS. A POTENTIAL FINAL VOTE OR PROPOSED HIERARCHY OR RANKING OF AMENDMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED, WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL AFTER ALL AMENDMENTS ARE PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED." MOTION FAILED 2-5 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 6 Packet Pg. 205 10.2.a DOTSCH AND OLSON VOTING IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, NAND, CHEN, TIBBOT, AND ECK VOTING AGAINST. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOT MOVED TO: 1. START OUR DELIBERATION WITH THE 6 AMENDMENT TOPICS THAT HAVE BEEN PRIORITIZED ON THE COUNCIL AMENDMENT CHECKLIST PROVIDED BY EMAIL AND COLLATED BY OUR EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THAT EACH OF THE SIX BE DESCRIBED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER OR MEMBERS WHO ADVANCED THAT AMENDMENT SUGGESTION. 3. THAT WE RECEIVE CLARIFICATION AS COUNCIL DESIRES FROM THE STAFF 4. AND FINALLY, VOTE ON THESE FIRST SIX AMENDMENTS IN RANDOMIZED ORDER. THE FIRST FOUR THAT GET FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 5. IF FOUR ARE NOT IDENTIFIED FROM THE FIRST SIX, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT THREE THAT WERE PRIORITIZED BY THE COUNCIL. AND DESCRIBED AND VOTED ON IN THE SAME MANNER AS BEFORE WITH ALL PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AMENDMENTS AGAIN CONSIDERED IN RANDOMIZED ORDER. 6. IF FOUR ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY COUNCIL ACTION OF THE FIRST 9, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS BROUGHT FORWARD BY INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS TO CONSIDER, THEN VOTED UPON UNTIL WE HAVE FOUR. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15. MOTION TO EXTEND AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION REGARDING PROCESS FAILS AS A TIE 3-3-0 WITH COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, TIBBOT, AND ECK VOTING IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, DOTSCH, AND OLSON VOTING AGAINST AND COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOT MOVED TO DELIBERATE ON TOP 2 AND HANDLE THE REMAINING AT A DIFFERENT MEETING. MOTION PASSES 5-1-0 WITH COUCNILMEMBERS PAINE, CHEN, TIBBOT, OLSON, AND ECK VOTING IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING AGAINST AND COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. The council deliberated on the top 2 amendment ideas; North Bowl Hub change and Establish Critical Areas Program, to put on the list for further consideration and study. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOT MOVED TO ADVANCE NORTH BOWL HUB FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND STUDY. MOTION PASSES 6-0-0 WITH COUCNILMEMBERS PAINE, CHEN, TIBBOT, OLSON, ECK, AND DOTSCH VOTING IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 7 Packet Pg. 206 COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO ADVANCE ESTABLISHING CRITICAL AREAS PROGRAM FOR FURTHER CONSDIERATION AND STUDY. MOTION PASSES 6-0-0 WITH COUCNILMEMBERS PAINE, CHEN, TIBBOT, OLSON, ECK, AND DOTSCH VOTING IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. The remaining topics will be brought back at a later date. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers commented on various issues. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:20. MOTION TO EXTEND AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30. MOTION TO EXTEND AGENDA CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen provided comments. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 pm. 6;� SCOTT PASSE , CLERK Edmonds City Council Minutes April 1, 2025 Page 8 Packet Pg. 207 10.2. b Chris Eck Of.6., Komi momm.luklA, I I ; I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 ._ Proposal i wouild like to revisit all of the comp pLan arinandments Removed by CM regarding height and area size forthe North Bowi. Eck request Vivian Olson 2 Proposal Removed by CM Olson request Vivian Olson 3 Proposal Removed by CM Olson request 4 Vivian Olson M.- -- - ZU"Id! - - --- -- - ---- - ---- -- - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- ----- - - ---- -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -------- - - - - - -- - --- ---- - --- -- - -- - - - -- ------010 1 - --- ----ELVA K11W-- -- - - -- - - - - --- -- -gillill ELVA Re -look at North Edmonds Bowl Hub Reduce height allowances in the areas where Sound views will be blocked (south of Puget Drive), change rule about not being allowed This upzoning was never appropriate for this hub and the units to re -build single family, remove density on Grandview and would be absorbed with new proposals if some of the new areas northwest of it. Council Action April 1 to advance proposals were embraced. this idea for further study, collectively with other North Bowl ideas. Council and staff walking this area; Community engagement Packet Pg. 208 -- - ZU"Id! - - --- -- - ---- - ---- -- - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- ----- - - ---- -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -------- - - - - - -- - --- ---- - --- -- - -- - - - -- ------010 1 - --- ----ELVA K11W-- -- - - -- - - - - --- -- -gillill ELVA Re -look at North Edmonds Bowl Hub Reduce height allowances in the areas where Sound views will be blocked (south of Puget Drive), change rule about not being allowed This upzoning was never appropriate for this hub and the units to re -build single family, remove density on Grandview and would be absorbed with new proposals if some of the new areas northwest of it. Council Action April 1 to advance proposals were embraced. this idea for further study, collectively with other North Bowl ideas. Council and staff walking this area; Community engagement Packet Pg. 208 Re -look at North Edmonds Bowl Hub Reduce height allowances in the areas where Sound views will be blocked (south of Puget Drive), change rule about not being allowed This upzoning was never appropriate for this hub and the units to re -build single family, remove density on Grandview and would be absorbed with new proposals if some of the new areas northwest of it. Council Action April 1 to advance proposals were embraced. this idea for further study, collectively with other North Bowl ideas. Council and staff walking this area; Community engagement Packet Pg. 208 10.2. b This was another CM's idea that came late in the process and was therefore not vetted. Exploring the possibility of adding a Lake Community engagement, shadow studies, view studies (to 5 Vivian Olson Lake Ballinger height limits View view units in this location by adding one more level of height make sure others closeby are not negatively impacted) is worth considering Vivian Olson recent years; a neighborhood business of appropriate scale may be a real benefit to this neighborhood (perhaps a bodega thia-t- Proposal Meadowdale Beach parks in the stimmer?). If treated as BD! or title assues and cornnitinity engagement with t' 6 Removed by CM neighbors. - Olson request Sale of the propertywouid generate revende and lower City costs for building maintenance of a faciLitythat is (per neighbors) not adding a lot of value to the residents (reventies from this are taxes frorm the residents that we do not need to colieet)-. Westgate CARA/ DensityConcern about underground springs on the northmost side of this Center were brought Environmental protection and setting of expectations of future Environmental study (maybe historically done and needing 7 Vivian Olson up late in the process; if verified, may be reason to revisit buyers about what can realistically be built here to be researched?) the boundaries of the Center Allow building height to be 20 story/floor in the International District with 20% of affordable housing Provide much needed affordable housing, and Generate much Study if market conditions support such building height in 8 Will Chen made available by developers. Affordable housing needed tax revenue the International District. guidelines shall follow state RCW and/or city resolution or ordinance. Will Chen Sorted as CODE/OTHER and not Allow hotel on the Port of Edmonds and the Waterfront Study if market conditions support more hotels at the Port 9 More tourism and increase tax revenue. considered as properties. of Edmonds and Waterfront areas. Comp Plan Amendment Idea Revisit North bowl center and hub. Council Action April 1 10 Will Chen to advance this idea for further study, collectively with Reconsider input from residents. Public input. other North Bowl ideas. ca a) c a Q. 0 U LO N O N L 0 (n d w •L O •L a a� 0_ _ 0 U a� r _ W E a) E a IU a 0_ E 0 U LO N N r _ W E U 0 w a Packet Pg. 209 10.2. b Susan Paine Sorted as 11 CODE/OTHER and Allow neighborhood cafes and stores in all our not considered as neighborhood Hubs and Centers. Comp Plan Amendment Idea Susan Paine Sorted as 12 CODE/OTHER and not considered as Comp Plan Amendment Idea 13 Michelle Dotsch Displacement I'd like to propose that Edmonds adopt a similar code change to Shoreline article - what Shoreline has allowing neighborhood cafes and stores in all https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/12/18/shoreline-votes- of our neighborhood Hubs and Centers. There are 2 differing approaches, my preference is what Shoreline allows, which includes mid -block cafes/stores, the other which comes from Seattle is a corner lot strictly. One more request, when we decided our NHCs, we didn't talk much about displacement as an issue, and I believe that there are only a few areas where that would be a problem. When the issue of displacement comes up in our land use discussions, it would be helpful to bring that forward. Purpose: to insert the environmental protections and policies into the comp plan land use element that the city did not follow the Explicitly state and detail and/or expand the following requirements of the WAC. Under Land Use element. Comp plan mandatory policies in both the Land Use and the will lay out how it is to be dealt with. Housing element increasing Housing Elements of the Comp Plan. density without providing how it will impact the environment. EIS did not look at watershed impacts and critical area impacts. WAC listed under comp plan mandatory elements. Anticipated benefit: to proceed with additional development that will be least impactful to our environment and critical areas. This 1) Avoid environmental impacts through appropriate land will ensure consistency. When such policies are incorporated use designations [WAC 365-196-485(4)]. This could include into the comprehensive plan as part of the Land Use element, the wildlife corridor city map as a starting point. 2) Avoid consistency of the regulations can be readily assessed. This is directing new growth to areas with high probability of directly from the WAC and more information needed to refer to conflicts between new development and protecting critical are the WAC listed above. A previous meeting held with Interim areas [WAC 365-196-485(4)] 3)Identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas for multiple purposes, including those areas needed as critical habitat by wildlife [WAC 365-196-485(1)(c)] Development Director Hope in 2024 gave consideration that these could be of benefit but timing prior to comp plan update approval in 2024 was limited to look at so now could be a great opportunity to consider this. This lines up with the statement in the comprehensive plan that states: "City of Edmonds — Mission to lead in environmental stewardship". to -ditch -parking -mandates/ MRSC (Seattle) article - https://mrsc.org/stay- informed/mrsc-insight/november-2024/corner-stores Packet Pg. 210 10.2. b Purpose is to implement this required WAC as an amendment to provide overarching policy and priorities for protecting critical areas in the comprehensive plan. Benefit: Overarching benefit will protect and enhance our critical Establish a Critical Areas Program and set forth its areas. There has been mention of the need to update the Critical underlying policies and priorities for Land Use [WAC 365- Area Code (ECDC title 23) this year and the current plan polices 14 Michelle Dotsch 196-485(1)(e)], Council Action April 1 to advance this idea should also be reviewed at the same time to ensure they provide for further study. the needed guidance to the updated Code provisions. For instance, ensure expand wetland buffers to be consistent with WDOE and WDFW recommendations. The current policies are very general and not well coordinated with the current Code. Good goals and policies will lead to a better Code. Purpose: This RCW listed above has these goals that area to be Establish proactive goals for the following in the Land 15 Michelle Dotsch considered that were not fully reviewed in the comp plan update Use Element [RCW 36.70A.020]: most likely due to the time constraints in 2024. Benefit: improve both the human and natural environment, that Council states at every meeting we are stewards of these lands. Retaining and Expanding Open Space This would provide policies and standards for managing our tree canopy in Edmonds, lessening any future litigation against the City. Conserving Fish and Wildlife Habitat including protecting wildlife corridors and preventing stormwater adverse impacts on aquatic habitat Preserving Natural Environment including mature tree and tree canopy goals from the Urban Forest Management Plan Enhancing the State's High Quality of Life, Including Air and Surface Water Quality Modify the Land Use Element to include mandatory [RCW 36.70A.070] "REVIEW DRAINAGE, FLOODING, AND Purpose: Bring the Land Use element up to mandatory statutory STORMWATER RUNOFF in the area and nearby 16 Michelle Dotsch requirements. Benefit: Above plus this would avoid losing grants jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to because not adhering to the law. mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state or waters entering Puget Sound." m �a a a E 0 U LO N O N L 0 a r a� a _ 3 0 U �a a� w _ a� E _ a� E a �a a a E 0 U N N w _ a� E s 0 �a a Packet Pg. 211 10.2. b 17 Michelle Dotsch 18 Michelle Dotsch 19 Michelle Dotsch Revise the Land Use Criteria and Zoning Map to designate the Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary open Purpose: to bring that land together in accordance with the City's space zoning (bounded by Hwy 104 to the east; BNSF plans and priorities for the last 10 years. Benefit: to allow Railroad Tracks to the west; Harbor Square to the north; restoration and other activities to proceed with one common and Pine Street up to and then along the base of the Point purpose to restore nearshore wildlife habitat. Edwards bluff to the south). Identify Critical Areas and adjacent buffer areas with an overlay designation on the Future Land Use and Zoning Maps. Purpose: Currently, the City Code (23.40.020) specifies that Critical Area regulations apply as an overlay to other existing development provisions. However, these are not identified on the plan or zoning maps for the benefit of existing and future property owners and residents. They are identified on separate GIS maps, but most residents only know about their existing zoning designation if even that. Benefit: The development process will be better informed if everyone knows about these important critical areas. This is for truth and transparency in planning management. Purpose: The State required count of all housing unit capacity for all centers and hubs in Edmonds was 2400 units. The Council ended up going far above the requirement by an additional 72% to over 4130 units of capacity that ended up being approved. The city is also almost 900 units of excess total capacity for the entire Remove the North Bowl as a Hub Council Action April 1 City. Benefit: The North Bowl neighbors have explained in detail to advance this idea for further study, collectively with how the Hub concept does not comply here for the originally other North Bowl ideas. intended purpose of why this tiny area for a Hub designation and pull in lots on a dead end and narrow lane that was incorrectly labeled a through street. Because we have approved 4132 units and only need 2400 units, this tiny area will be easy to remove and not affect any state requirements so Edmonds will easily remain in compliance. w Q Packet Pg. 212 10.2. b 20 Include much greater commercial/retail/service space Michelle Dotsch requirements in our Centers and Hubs, such as add that Sorted as all Centers and Hubs development that includes 20 or CODE/OTHER and more units must have ground floor commercial/retail at a not considered as minimum. Any housing development with less than 20 Comp Plan units requires a minimum of 20% and the less than 20 units Amendment Idea cannot be achieved by reduced unit count of the parent lot through a lot split or lot hacking if under the same developer. Purpose: To prevent loss of commercial and retail/services that was the purpose of the Center and Hub model by using previous BN and BC zoning areas. Imagine now in this Interim Code Language it eliminates the intentional zoning of 50-90% of existing commercial space in Edmonds ... 50-90% of businesses gone from Westgate, Firdale Village, Five Corners, East Seaview, Lake Ballinger, and the wide swath around the hospital and 3 schools in the Medical District expansion. All replaced by bedrooms and not holding true to the intent of the Centers and Hub concept? This needs to be further discussed and fleshed out how we are planning these areas for current and future residents and business tax revenue. Benefit: Remove the unintended consequence of the loss of revenue, the loss of amenities and services, the growth of population without holding even the commercial and retail spaces that we have for our current population, but claiming they will be more vibrant when all this is promoting in our interim development code is more bedrooms and less business? Packet Pg. 213 10.2. b 21 Michelle Dotsch Remove the lots from the Five Corners Center designation north of Bowdoin Way and west of Summit Lane Purpose: To create a buffer zone of reduced land development intensity from the already damaged and diverted Shell Creek and reduce the impact of Yost Park high storm water events that are impacting degradation of the hillside and loss of tree canopy. Prevent Shell Creek from becoming the next Perrinville Creek before it's too late. This is keeping with the WAC 365-196-485 (4)(a): "avoiding impacts through appropriate land use designations. This complies with "when developing and reviewing the comprehensive plan and future land use designations, counties and cities should use available information to avoid directing new growth to areas with a high probability of conflicts between new development and protecting critical areas." We did this for Perrinville Creek, let's do this for our endangered Shell Creek as well. Benefit: Do no harm and be good stewards of the Land that we have been entrusted with to care for. Not allow the degradation to worsen or at least understand further what is going on with Shell Creek, a fish habitat and restoration project and its natural park surrounding it before we allow for more urbanized development than necessary on its edges. We have plenty of capacity already planned for and this is just excess units that are not counted towards any state requirement. Packet Pg. 214 10.2. b Purpose: These are all dead-end streets that now have urban Land uses that are incompatible. The same types of cul-de-sacs Lots were removed from the East Seaview Hub by the Planning Board due to the incompatible land use planning for this same type of small and narrow cut -de -sacs. Benefit: Keep similar land use types on these cut -de -sacs as is there now to preserve the coordination of the development within those small number of Remove all SF lots west of 80 Ave W from 213 St SW to to cul-de-sacs that we have plenty of excess capacity to do so. This 22 Michelle Dotsch to is an area that has been popular with new and younger families to 218 St SW from the Medical District Expansion area. that Edmonds is looking to provide housing options for with a yard where a swing set can be placed, and light can pass through. This incompatible higher development within the same narrow cul-de- sacs to the East will crowd out those other lots and cast shadows upon incompatible neighboring properties. All these lots will still fall under HB 1110 so they can increase development with ADUs and other middle housing typologies that are coordinated with the rest of the lots on the small cul-de-sacs. Packet Pg. 215 10.2. b Purpose: The Centers and Hubs have already been considered in planning for a higher number of units per lot because of the Location and across all the designation areas within the Centers and Hubs. The location of a transit stop in those areas are not necessarily compatible for additional density over and above what has already been planned for. This would lead to potential increased density zoning of the centers and hubs that the neighbors and the neighborhoods did not consider during the process. We already have incentive zoning across wide areas in Amend Policy H-2.3 Provide for a higher number of units Centers and Hubs to improve affordability. The center and hub per lot around the transit stops in activity centers, areas are so compact that extra transit stop density is 23 Michelle Dotsch neighborhood centers and hubs to read "Consider superfluous. Benefit: Keep the Center and Hubs consistent in providing..." and remove "activity centers" from the policy their publicly noted zoning designation capacity as they are statement. already planned for well above the required units with even additional height bonuses offered in many areas. The Activity Centers are already zoned for growth that is not required to be denser and serves no purpose to grow beyond what is required, as we carefully excluded the Hwy 99 activity center and Downtown activity center for that exact unintended outcome of uncoordinated additional growth. Removing activity center Language here would keep that promise to Hwy 99 and the Downtown core and can easily be fixed by removing activity centers from this statement. Under neighborhood centers, page 44, Remove the sentence "Centers permit a wide range of building types and will offer the ability to accomplish daily tasks without a Purpose: this is not an accurate statement that anyone can 24 Michelle Dotsch car to large sectors of the citv. " 25 Michelle Dotsch 26 NeilTibbott On page 44 under the heading: Some of the key access LARGE sectors of the citv without a car. Purpose: again, accomplishing many daily tasks without a car is not realistic for Edmonds and should not currently plan like it is so. Benefit: compatibility of growth with actual service realities characteristics of the neighborhood centers and hubs are: and Edmonds' preferred method of vehicle travel included to not Please remove the bullet point: "Complementary Uses: create gridlock and limited parking safety issues. Visitors to enable compact building forms, providing the ability to accomplish many daily tasks without a car." Edmonds almost all use personal vehicles to do so, and this will allow for them to participate in economic growth of our city if they can easily access these areas or they will go elsewhere to spend their money. Packet Pg. 216 10.2. b WIFITIMP 27 Removed at CP titilize these properties more fuRy if the aiiowed uses were Tibbott's request expanded beyond their ctirrant designations. i Removed at CP Ytiliz- ---- i ii- -- --� - -- i ■---ir"Yere Tibbott's request expanded beyond their etirrent designations. Packet Pg. 217 10.2.c Approved by Council 4/1/2025 for Further Study: (Items +, 4, 10, 19) North Bowl Hub change (Item 14) Establish Critical Areas Program Proposed to be docketed for future consideration: (Item 7) Westgate Center possible reduction (Item 5) Lake Ballinger site height limits (Item 8) Highway 99 Internation District height limits (Item 13) Add policies re: environment, open space, and limiting growth (Item 15) Establish four new goals in the Land Use Element (Item 16) Modify Land Use Element re: stormwater (Item 17) Revise Land Use Map to designate Marsh Sanctuary area as open space (Item 18) Combine Future Land Use Map with critical area and buffer overlay map (Item 21) Five Corners Hub reduction (Item 22) Medical District Expansion Center reduction (Item 23) Remove "activity centers" from policy about number of units around transit stops (Items 24, 25) Modify language for accomplishing tasks without a car (p. 44 of Comp Plan) Proposed to be Removed: By Councilmember who submitted idea: (Item 1) North Bowl Hub (Items 2) Hummingbird Park —future land use options (Items 3) Frances Anderson Center site —future land use options (Item 6) Meadowdale Clubhouse site —future land use options (Item 26) City Hall —future land use options (Item 27) Frances Anderson Center —future land use options (Item 28) Wade James Theater property —future land use options Suggested better addressed by code or other: (Item 9) Hotels (Item 11) Neighborhood Cafes/Stores (Item 12) Displacement (Item 20) Requirements for more commercial in hubs and centers) Revised 4.16.2025 Packet Pg. 218 10.2.d Outline of Legislative Process For Consideration of 2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendments March 4 • The Council discusses and finalizes a process for Council to propose and consider 2025 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. March 5 to 18 • Council members individually provide their ideas for amendments to the Council's Legislative Executive Assistant so the ideas can be included in a future agenda packet for Comprehensive Plan Ideas to study. (Note: 2025 amendments should be limited in number and scope, especially because a major update just took place.) March 25 • All amendment ideas that have been submitted ahead from City Council members are included in the agenda a packet for the March 25 meeting. a E • At the meeting,City staff provide an overview of the amendment ideas and key y p y points to consider. ° v • For each idea, brief questions or clarification may follow. N April 1 0 N L • Council members discuss and vote on which of the amendment ideas will get further study in the next three ° so months. These ideas represent the Council's approved list for further study. A�.) •L April 2- June 30 ° •L • Staff studies the proposals on the Council's approved study list and identifies key information. a July 8 • Council reviews results of the study and votes on which of the ideas from the study list should become "proposed amendments" for formal consideration. vi • The Planning Board receives this information and begins considering whether/what to recommend to the E Council. a=i August 12 a A public hearing is held on any City Council amendment proposals. Planning Board's recommendation is provided on or about the same time. r N August 19 (Committee of the Whole) • Council may discuss the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. J vi September 9 4) • Council votes on final proposed amendments to adopt into the Comprehensive Plan. ° IL w _ October -November E E • Council separately considers and votes on any Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Capital Facilities Element 5 (e.g., CIP updates). Q Packet Pg. 219 10.2.e Short List of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ideas By Category Ideas for Neighborhood Centers & Hubs • North Bowl 4 conflicting or overlapping approaches (Olson, Eck, Dotsch, Chen) • Westgate Possibly reduce area (Olson) • Five Corners Remove lots (Dotsch) • Medical District Expansion Remove lots (Dotsch) City Property Ideas • City Hall property Consider options for future land use (Tibbott) • Frances Anderson Center site Consider options for future land use (Olson, Tibbott) • Wade James Theater site Consider options for future land use (Tibbott) • Meadowdale Clubhouse site Consider options for future land use (Olson) • Hummingbird Park site Consider options for future land use (Olson) Private Proaerties (not necessarily centers or hubs • Lake Ballinger height limits (Olson) • Greater building height International District Hwy 99 (Chen) Packet Pg. 220 Ideas to Revisit Goals, Policies, etc. 10.2.e • Add certain policies to Land Use and Housing elements re: environment and open space and to limit growth (Item 13, Dotsch) • Add Environmental Program policy (Item 14, Dotsch) • Establish four new land use goals (Item 15, Dotsch) • Modify land use element (Item 16, Dotsch) • Revise land use criteria and map (Item 17, Dotsch) • Amend policy about density by transit stops (Item 23, Dotsch) • Amend language about neighborhood centers (Item 24, Dotsch) • Amend language about complementary uses (Item 25, Dotsch) Code -Specific and Other Ideas • Allow hotels on port and waterfront properties (Chen) • Allow neighborhood cafes and stores in all neighborhood centers and hubs (Paine) • Include requirements for more commercial in neighborhood centers and hubs (Dotsch) • Consider displacement in centers and hub (Paine) CU a� c a a E 0 U LO N O N L 0 m •L 0 a 0 a� d U >, CO 6 0 as c a� E 0 r a Packet Pg. 221