2018-07-24 City Council - Full Agenda-2165Agenda
Edmonds City Council
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JULY 24, 2018, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
July 24, 2018
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2018
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2018
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
4. Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment
5. PRESENTATION
1. Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group Update 2018 (15 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. ACTION ITEM
1. Potential Action on an Ordinance related to the Safe Storage of Firearms; and an Ordinance
related to the Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms (15 min)
8. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing to consider the Historic Preservation Commission's Recommendation regarding
the eligibility of the Yost House located at 658 Maple Street for listing on the Edmonds' Register of
Historic Places. (10 min)
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy (60 min)
2. Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal (25 min)
3. Critical Area Ordinance Update (5 min)
10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
Edmonds City Council Agenda
July 24, 2018
Page 2
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
07-17-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
4.1
Packet Pg. 3
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 1
+
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
JULY 17, 2018
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Carrie Hite, PRCS Director
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (participated
by phone)
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Council President - arrived 7:23 pm
Dave Earling, Mayor
Elected Officials Absent
None
1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM
At 6:15 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(B) and 42.30.110(1)(C).
The City Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room in executive session to discuss real
estate acquisition.
3. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR
COMMISSION
At 6:50 p.m. the executive session concluded and the Council then interviewed Tracy Little, a
candidate for appointment to the Edmonds Cemetery Board.
ADJOURN
At 6:55 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 2
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes
4.2
Packet Pg. 6
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
July 17, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (by phone)
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. Councilmember Johnson
participated by phone.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2018
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENT AND PAYROLL CHECKS
3. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF TRACY LITTLE TO THE CEMETERY BOARD
4. MAY 2018 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
5. FAC PLAYGROUND PROJECT CLOSEOUT
6. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 2
7. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
SNOHOMISH COUNTY NATURAL YARD CARE OUTREACH
8. BELL ST. NO PARKING ORDINANCE
9. 76TH AVE/212TH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL
5. PRESENTATION
1. STUDENTS SAVING SALMON YEARLY COUNCIL REPORT 2018
Erin Francisco introduced members of Students Saving Salmon Club, Edmonds-Woodway High School:
Emily McLaughlin Sta. Maria, Elena Sta. Maria, Aimee Fuji, Miriam Gold, Ava Wilson, and Grace
Yockey. The club had over 30 members this past school year and is expecting 50 students in the coming
year. Students Saving Salmon is a club formed to get Edmonds-Woodway High School students involved
in local watersheds in order to learn about the protection of salmon and their habitat and to get hands-on
experience collecting, interpreting and presenting data and other club findings. Many members of the club
get involved because they wish to pursue similar subjects for careers or because they simply want
experience with field work and community outreach. More importantly, they all care about the salmon and
preserving the environment in Edmonds.
Erin said since their last presentation to the Council, the club has continued volunteering with the Edmonds
Stream Team on monthly water quality monitoring as well as participating in several salmon stewardship
programs which include the salmon surveys, habitat restoration and work at the Willow Creek Hatchery.
They have also done outreach in the community to spread news of their club and how the community can
work toward the goal of saving salmon.
Grace Yockey said students have appreciated the opportunity to participate in a project to collect accurate,
scientific data on stream quality that can be used by government officials and for research. The water quality
data they collect is directly comparable to that used by state agencies and other scientific research projects.
The Edmonds Stream Team uses two electronic instruments, the YSA Pro Plus and the YSI Pros DSS, to
measure factors in water such as pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, etc. to monitor
water conditions for salmon. They now have almost three years of continuous monthly water quality data
that can be analyzed and compared to the Washington State water quality standards. They also continue to
collect water quality samples for analysis by an accredited laboratory for stormwater pollutions such as
petroleum compounds and heavy metals. These lab analyses are very expensive and the funding provided
by the City Council allows them to continue the study every year. They have also continued sampling for
fecal coliform bacteria in creeks and the Marsh in cooperation with the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment
Plant lab. High levels of these bacteria in creeks indicate the potential presence of pathogens that cause
health problems for people and animals.
Grace displayed a map of the monitoring sites, explaining the Stream Team monitors creeks throughout
Edmonds including Shell, Willow, Shellabarger, and along the Edmonds Marsh, a total of 17 monitoring
sites in downtown Edmonds. An additional site in upper Shellabarger Creek was added to improve
monitoring of the entire watershed. Electronic instruments are used to measure water health to determine if
streams are healthy for salmon and other aquatic organisms. Their work is supervised by project leader Joe
Scordino, but all the data is entered by students into a data base that contains over 1000 monitoring events
and further analyzes to determine if A, conditions match the state standards, and B, to look for changes in
water conditions that could later become a risk.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 3
Aimee Fuju provided highlights of several critical parameters. Once of the most important parameters is
water temperature. Salmon native to Washington must live in cold water so water temperature is monitored
to ensure temperatures are low enough. She displayed a graph, Water Temperature – All Sites, explaining
the average water temperature of Hindley, Shell, Shellabarger and Willow Creek ranges from 57.8°F in the
summer to 47°F in the winter. The maximum water temperature for salmon spawning, rearing and
migration, set by the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), is 63.5°F. All the average temperature
recordings from monthly monitoring fell under the maximum requirement; however, there was one reading
in the summer in Hindley Creek of 63.8°F.
Aimee displayed a graph, Water Temperature – Marsh, explaining the average temperature throughout the
year ranged from 62.4°F in the summer to 45.8°F in the winter. All the measurements are under the
maximum requirement of 63.5°F; however, the graph illustrates water exiting the Marsh along the north
edge matched and exceeded the standard water temperature in spring and summer. The Marsh outlet had a
high temperature of 73.3°F in the summer and 68.5°F in the spring. The north edge of the Marsh held a
summer high temperature of 72.0°F. The graph illustrates both the streams entering the Marsh are below
the state standard, however, the water exiting the Marsh at the outlets exceeds the state standard, illustrating
water is warming up while inside the Marsh. Better circulation and vegetation may help address this
problem.
Aimee displayed a graph, Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L), explaining it is important to monitor dissolved oxygen
levels because they must be above a certain level for fish to respire. The average dissolved oxygen levels
in the creeks ranged from a low of 10.0 mg/L in the summer to a high of 11.3 mg/L in the winter. The
lowest average of the year was 9.3 mg/L at the south fork of the upper Shellabarger in the summer. As the
graph shows, all levels are well above the state standard for spawning, rearing and migration of 8.0 mg/L.
Additionally, the dissolved oxygen levels in lower Shell Creek where salmon spawn in the fall and winter
were 11.0 mg/L, the optimum level for salmon eggs in gravel.
Aimee displayed a graph, Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) at Edmonds Marsh, explaining the dissolved oxygen
levels through the main flow of water in Edmonds Marsh average 9.3 mg/L at the outlet which is over the
minimum standard. However, the dissolved oxygen levels measured at the northern edge of the Marsh along
Harbor Square average 3.0 mg/L and was below 2.0 mg/L except during periods of rainfall. Levels this low
are lethal to most aquatic organisms. The southern parts of the eastern edge of the Marsh along Highway
104 had dissolved oxygen levels averages of 5.0 mg/L and 1.6 mg/L, well below the state standard. The
levels at the edge of the Marsh tend to rise during periods of rainfall which suggests a lack of circulation
throughout the Marsh.
Aimee displayed a graph of pH levels, explaining pH was within the Washington State standards of 8.5 to
6.5. The Marsh can be slightly acidic during certain times of the year, but overall pH is not an area of
concern. However, monitoring is only done once a month which does not allow capture of all things that
may flow into creeks outside the monitoring timeframes. There have been reports of foam and suds in the
water as well as a solvent smell coming from one creek which may suggest people are draining detergent
and other substances into storm drains. Although data shows
Emily McLaughlin Sta Maria explained the Stream Team continues to collect water samples to be tested
for fecal coliform bacteria at the Edmonds WWTP lab. Fecal coliform are bacteria found in feces of warm
blooded animals. The graph illustrates varying amounts of fecal coliform have been found at each of the
sampling sites. There are no Washington quality standards for contact with fresh water aquatic life for fecal
coliform; based on the Washing standards for recreational contact for humans for fecal coliform is 100-200
colonies/100mL, some counts were quite high. Although there have been many high counts, there have also
been many low counts, providing no reason or pattern. Higher counts occur after periods of long rainfall,
but samples have been collected several days in a row that yield varying results with no good reason for the
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 4
higher counts. Due to the fluctuation, they hope to do further tests and determine the type of animal the
fecal coliform may be coming from.
Emily displayed a graph, Fecal Coliform Bacteria (colonies/100mL), that illustrates counts from creeks in
the area. The highest counts, 900 colonies/100mL, are from lower Willow Creek and are significantly above
the 100-200 colonies/100mL maximum. Sampling in Upper Willow has found lower fecal coliform levels.
The graph accentuates the fluctuations in Shellbarger and Shell Creek, relatively low counts in 2016 that
increased in 2017 and decreased in 2018. Levels in Willow Creek increased in 2017 and remained high in
2018. They will continue monitoring for fecal coliform bacteria and return next year with a better hypothesis
for the extreme fluctuations and high counts.
Beyond bacteria, they also continue collecting water samples for petroleum hydrocarbon and various heavy
metals at the ALS Laboratory in Everett. The Students Saving Salmon thank the City Council for the funds
to continue that testing. The samples are monitored for 18 specific types of PAHs (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon) that have been identified by the EPA as high priority pollutants; only ten have Washington
quality criteria for human health. Some of the PAHs are carcinogenic and high levels have been found in
some samples. Of the ten PAHs with Washington State criteria, five exceed the criteria. To date 59 different
samples have been collected; of that 59, 39 have shown at least one of the 5 PHAs over the Washington
State criteria. Sites that generally have the highest PAHs are along the Marsh edges including the eastern
edge along Highway 104 near the storm drain and the north edge by Harbor Square which has had industrial
activity in the past which may have contaminated the soil. Fortunately, at the Marsh outlet that leads to
Puget Sound, levels of PAHs have generally been lower, indicating the Marsh is doing a good job filtering
out PAHs.
Emily referred to the graph and one bar that reflected high levels. She noted it is important to note PAHs
have different levels of toxicity. Although a high level, it does not exceed Washington State criteria due to
the high standard. She displayed a graph, cPAHs – Percentage exceeding WA State Criteria, pointing out
benzo(a)pyrene exceeds state criteria in both creeks and the Marsh. She referred to a sample at the Marsh
east storm drain by Highway 104 that exceeded the criteria by 649%. They will continue to collect data on
PAHs with the funding provided by the Council and report on them next year.
Emily displayed a graph, Heavy Metals Detected in Water Samples (except iron), commenting zinc has
been found in the highest amounts. Iron is not shown on the graph because iron is generally found in large
amounts, making it difficult to compare with other metals. High levels of soft iron in waters are expected
because it is naturally found in high levels in the area. They will collect additional samples for heavy meals
and return next year with a more complete report.
Emily explained along with numerical data, they also collect data on habitat around the watershed such as
vegetation and bottom substrate found in the water. There are some areas of concern such as sediment flow
in Shell Creek; the heavy flow has caused gravel to be covered making it difficult for salmon to spawn and
caused blockages that make it difficult for salmon to traverse the creek. There also issues with woody
debris; woody debris is essential for salmon because it creates pools and back currents that give salmon a
resting place. Last winter someone removed all the woody debris from Shell Creek near Holy Rosary
Church; likely with good intention, but it is important the woody debris remain in the creek.
Miriam Gold reported on salmon stewardship in Shell Creek. Salmon surveys done in late November and
December see salmon returning to Shell Creek from the ocean to spawn. Population surveys are taken to
count the number of returning salmon, counting living and dead salmon as well as the places where salmon
may have laid eggs in the gravel. Far fewer salmon were spotted this year than in previous years, both coho
and chum and streamside residents also report they have seen fewer salmon this year compared to past
years. Many streamside residents report they have frequently seen on and off years for the salmon run so it
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 5
is hoped the population will bounce back in this year’s surveys. Students Saving Salmon also do frequent
habitat restoration on private properties in Edmonds such as the area on Shell Creek by Holy Rosary Church.
Habitat restoration includes removal of noxious and invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry,
morning glory and ivy which choke out other native vegetation and replanting with native species such as
dogwood, ferns and spruce. Habitat restoration is funded with grants from Sound Salmon Solutions. This
process has numerous benefits; plants shade the water keeping the temperature optimal for salmon and a
greater variety of vegetation makes provide a better ecosystem for all aquatic life including salmon and the
roots help prevent streamside erosion. A variety of vegetation also makes for a more aesthetically pleasing
streamside.
Miriam explained one of the most significant areas of salmon stewardship is the Students Saving Salmon’s
work with the Will Creek Hatchery, helping to raise the salmon at the hatchery from eggs to fry. This year
the club did its second release of salmon fry into upper Shell Creek that had not seen salmon in decades
due to multiple waterfalls and blockages that stop salmon upstream progress. The club also attempted to
place salmon eggs into a hatch box in Shell Creek; the purpose of the hatch box is to mimic natural condition
of gravel at the stream bottom. This was not successful because the area where the hatch boxes were placed
had too much fine sediment which clogged the hatch box and killed the eggs. Although unfortunate, it
helped educate the club on where to place the hatch box to ensure more success.
Elena Sta. Maria said Students Saving Salmon also spread awareness of how to protect salmon and their
habitat along with spreading awareness of the club. Besides visiting streamside residents on lower Shell
Creek, they have presented analysis of water quality and streams and the Marsh to the Edmonds City
Council annually for three years. They have also made several presentations about their findings to other
community groups such as the Floretum Club, the Puget Sound Anglers, the Olympic Fly Fishers, Trout
Unlimited as well as third graders at Brighton School. Representatives from Edmonds Community College
Public TV interviewed club member Ava Wilson and club advisor Joe Scordino about their experiences.
They have had a booth at the Watershed Festival at the Willow Creek Hatchery for the past three years and
are planning to continue that outreach. They also had a booth at the Edmonds Waterfront Festival last month
and hope to have that opportunity in the future. Both festivals allowed them to interact with kids and their
parents to teach them different ways to help save salmon and streams.
Ava Wilson relayed the Students Saving Salmon’s recommendation that the current water quality
monitoring project continue so that annual trends can be evaluated and baseline information can be
established. This will provide long term data that will allow comparisons in the future to potential
environmental or pollutant driven issues and probable effects of climate change. Additionally, this project
has provided students with field science experience and expertise that will be valuable to future jobs and
possible careers. Fields studies and activities continue to attract new students to the club. Students Saving
Salmon greatly appreciate the continued support from the City and the City Council and their enthusiasm
toward their efforts and hope the annual funding will continue as the funds are vital to obtaining supplies
needed to conduct the project.
Ava explained data gathered while monitoring the local watershed’s water quality indicates the principle
water parameters, temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH in the creeks, meet Washington water quality
standards for salmon. Students Saving Salmon commend Edmonds residents for helping to keep streams in
good condition. The data indicates water quality conditions in the creeks are suitable for salmon and efforts
to reestablish viable Coho and Chum salmon runs should proceed. Unlike the streams, the Edmonds Marsh
did not conform to state standards. Students Saving Salmon hopes their data will be considered in current
studies on ecological function and restoration planning for the Edmonds Marsh. Better fresh water
circulation, increased native vegetation such as trees and shrubs, and year-round tidal influx of saltwater
may help alleviate the problems found in the Marsh. The occurrence of carcinogenic pollutants that exceed
state criteria is an area of concern that warrants further investigation. This year they will collect additional
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 6
water and sediment samples with the funding provided by the Edmonds City Council and report the results
next year. Fecal coliform analysis needs to continue to better understand exactly when and why the spikes
in bacteria counts occur. Although bacterial DNA testing is expensive, it is plausible that determining the
source of fecal coliform bacteria in higher count samples such as dog, birds, humans or other warm-blooded
animals will be beneficial.
The Shell Creek salmon stewardship project should continue because the outreach to residents and
restoration efforts will benefit existing and future salmon that utilize Shell Creek. They plan to continue
raising coho salmon with the Willow Creek Hatchery so that release of juvenile coho salmon into the upper
reaches of Shell Creek can further bolster the resident population. They hope to pursue avenues such as
grants to determine the feasibility and cost of restoration projects to remove salmon passage barriers in
creeks. They also hope to reestablish coho salmon in other creeks in Edmonds. Continued outreach to the
community on the importance of water quality and stream habitat is needed to help restore salmon
populations in Puget Sound. Their participation in events such as the Watershed Fun Fair and the Waterfront
Festival help to get the word out about their efforts and hopefully attract attention and citizens who are
willing to help.
Ava relayed their appreciation for the opportunity to work with the Tree Board to improve vegetation on
creeks and hope to continue working with them. Getting the community involved in projects such as
removing invasive plant species and planting native plants is also a critical part of their community outreach
because it is a way for citizens to actively contribute. The community needs to work together to reduce or
eliminate the use of pesticides and herbicides that can enter waterways and preventing pollutants from
roadways and other sources from entering streams, especially from storm drains that flow directly into
streams and the Marsh. Together we can make the environment better for everyone including the salmon.
She displayed a list of individuals and organizations and relayed the Students Saving Salmon’s thanks for
their help. Without help from the community, grant funding and Council support, the Students Saving
Salmon would not have been able to enjoy the rewarding experience to improve the environment. The
salmon are also thankful.
Councilmember Buckshnis commended the Students Saving Salmon. She asked whether their analysis had
been correlated with the closure of the tidegate. Emily responded they monitor for salinity. Councilmember
Buckshnis suggested the lack of saltwater flow into the Marsh when the tidegate is closed be considered in
their analysis, noting there will be efforts to keep the gate open year-round. She commended the monitoring
that illustrate pollutants from SR 104 and Harbor Square. She expressed support for providing funding to
the Students Saving Salmon in 2019.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to language on page 5 of the report regarding nitrates, “…nitrates generally
increased during the periods that the tidegate was secured open allowing saltwater to enter the Marsh during
high tides. High nitrate levels can cause algal blooms which can deplete dissolved oxygen levels in water
thus impacting fish and other aquatic organisms.” He had presumed daylighting Willow Creek would be a
net positive to the environment, but this language suggests as the saltwater intrusion is increased, it could
cause increased algae blooms and decrease dissolved oxygen, thus harming fish. Joe Scordino responded
that is a valid observation. Puget Sound saltwater carries more nutrients than are currently seen in the
freshwater environment in the Marsh. High nutrient levels and algae blooms is one of issues the Puget
Sound Partnership is addressing and seeking the source. One of the reasons is lawn fertilizer; reducing
fertilizer use would reduce that concern.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the waterfall near the intersection of 7th and Glen on Shell Creek. He
supported installing a fish ladder to allow salmon to transverse the waterfall and reach the upstream habitat.
He asked what the City could do to help achieve that. Mr. Scordino said the first major step is getting the
property owner to agree to have their property modified. Although there was some initial interest in studying
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 7
the feasibility of modifying the property where the waterfall is located, more recently the property owner
has stopped talking to them. With the property owner agreement, they hope to obtain a grant to do a
feasibility study of what would be required to remove the waterfall, install a fish ladder, etc. Councilmember
Teitzel asked if the City could help with the property owner. Mr. Scordino answered possibly.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the egg hatchboxes that were unsuccessful due to the sandy
creek bottom and asked where a better location for the boxes would be. Miriam answered they will try to
place the boxes in an area where the bottom is gravellier. This year’s location included a bit of a back pool
where the water circulated the sediment. When placing the hatchbox, they also take into account human
activity to avoid any interference with the box.
Councilmember Johnson said the Students Saving Salmon have done an excellent job with the assistance
of the advisors and she appreciated the work they have done over the past three years. She asked why they
did not expand to include Perrinville Creek. Mr. Scordino answered that has been considered but it comes
down to the amount of time the students have to be engaged. The students currently give up one weekend
a month to do monitoring; although that does not seem like much, they are involved in an amazing amount
of other activities. Councilmember Johnson suggested with the expected increase to 50 members, they
consider expanding to include Perrinville Creek in the future.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Pence, Edmonds, said he passes the welcome sign daily and has noticed it looks neglected as a
result of deferred maintenance. When he viewed the proposed new sign, he liked that it was larger and
longer and positioned to improve visibility to both roads, but was disappointed in the look and feel of the
sign; it did not reflect the warm and inviting atmosphere of downtown Edmonds. He learned the appearance
of the sign the result of instructions to the designer to follow the wayfinding sign standards. He pointed out
this is not a wayfinding sign; it is an arrival/destination sign that a motorist is entering downtown Edmonds
so the wayfinding standards should not apply. The proposed sign would be more appropriate for a corporate
office park and does not reflect the City of Edmonds. He suggested sending the design back; following a
conversation with Frances Chapin, he was confident a better sign could be designed, one that was more
appropriate to Edmonds.
Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, referred to a stop light on Edmonds Way, commenting they used to be able to
watch until the light on 95th Place turned red which meant the traffic traveling east on SR-104 also had a
red light, but that has changed. As a result, she got in a T-bone accident, was hospitalized and suffered a
traumatic brain injury. She requested the light on SR-104 be red for eastbound traffic when the light on
95th is red.
Sharon Mayo, Edmonds, a resident of Westgate apartments, said the corner at 95th is very dangerous; cars
travel very fast, making it difficult to turn right or left. Every morning and night when she turns into the
apartments, she prays she will not get hit. The speed limit is 35 mph, but no one goes that speed. She
recommended the light be changed so an accident like Ms. Longstaff’s does not happen to someone else;
her car was totaled, and she was lucky she was not killed She requested the City change the light so it is
safer for the residents of the apartment complex.
Bernadine Lee, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Longstaff and Ms. Mayo, commenting she was a passenger in
the car of a friend when they came close to being hit on the passenger side when entering the parking lot.
She agreed something needs to be done.
Carolynne Harris, Edmonds, recalled a meeting at the City Council and a meeting at Edmonds Lutheran
regarding low income housing. The thing most people are afraid of is crime increasing if housing is
constructed that school teachers, police officers and others can afford. She pointed out there has always
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 8
been crime in Edmonds, recalling when they bought their house in Emerald Hills in 1974, one neighbor
was in the Greek mafia and two others were in prison. The neighborhood had block watch which allowed
her to get to know neighbors within three blocks. She recalled living by a rapist for 12 years and another
man who was imprisoned for trying to kill his wife. She recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
commenting about crime on Highway 99 in Edmonds. She requested block watch be reestablished, perhaps
funded from the opioid response fund because crime is usually due to drugs.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, co-lead for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said like MADD
that was established to reduce drunk driving, MDA was created to demand action from legislators to
establish common sense gun reform. They support the 2nd Amendment but believe in and work for common
sense solutions to decrease the escalating epidemic of gun violence that is killing too many children and
loved ones. Her family has not had direct experience with gun violence; however, her kids have grown up
surrounded by the threat of gun violence. Her eldest was born one year after the Columbine shootings and
was in 9th grade when four freshmen students were shot and killed by a classmate at Marysville Pilchuck
Highschool. Her daughter was an acquaintance of one of the victim so the reality of a school shooting no
longer seemed like something that happened somewhere else. Her son was in 1st grade when 20 first graders
and 6 teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. When she had the “I want you to hear it from
me first” conversation with him after the recent Parkland shooting, she noticed he was sad but not surprised.
They both realized he has never known a reality where school shootings were not a semi regular occurrence.
At school her kids regularly participate in active shooter response drills, a program called ALICE, where
students are taught to fight back by causing distraction with the goal of slowing a shooter from going to the
next classroom. In many school shootings, the shooter is a fellow student who acquired the gun from home.
Had the weapon been responsibly secured, they would not have had access to a firearm and the shooting
could have been prevented. It is common sense that gun owners should be required to store their guns
securely and prevent children from accessing them. She applauded Council President Nelson for bringing
forward this common sense gun legislation that will save lives. It does not take away any rights, it simply
requires those who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to do so responsibly.
Carol Megenity, Edmonds, referred to the safe gun storage ordinance, commending Council President
Nelson for bringing this important ordinance to the City. It seems intuitive that gun owners would store
their guns safety, however, almost daily the news reports another tragedy that could have been prevented if
the gun had been safely stored away from the child who shoots another child, the individual with depression
who commits suicide, the person with dementia, rage, etc. When someone dies in such a tragic way, it
affects the extended family for the rest of their lives. Like the seatbelt law or the no texting while driving
law, people seem to need laws to remind of them of their responsibility to use common sense. This is an
important move by the City in the right direction for gun safety and to reduce gun violence. This law will
truly make a difference for quality of life in Edmonds.
Emma Johnson, Edmonds, said kids are tired of being scared and adults not fixing things to protect them.
This year, her U.S. Government class studied the Bill of Right including the 2nd Amendment which states,
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They also studied the Declaration of Independence and her unalienable
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The way that some exercise their interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment is infringing on, or completely ending, someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. A right to own a gun should not be a right to irresponsibly store the gun, allowing a child to play
with it and accidentally shoot, injure or kill themselves or another. A right to own a gun should not be right
to store it unsecured and allow a depressed teen or young adult to find it and in a state of temporary
desperation end their life. A right to own a gun should not be a right to store it irresponsibly and allow yet
another teenage boy angry at a girl to go into a school and kill her and possibly other students. At 15, she
has never know going to a school without active shooter drills. These drills are necessary because
lawmakers have failed to protect students. There is enough to deal with as a teen and she should not have
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 9
to go into a classroom and consider where she would hide, what she could throw to protect herself or where
the nearest window is to escape. She urged the Council to vote in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Tiffany Teasdale, Edmonds, owner of Lynnwood Gun, said she was on KIRO News today. She expressed
concern with the type of locking device cited in ordinance and suggested the Council confer with the
officers in the Street Crime unit about people breaking and entering into homes who steal guns and cut
through the locks suggested in the ordinance. Criminals should be charged for stealing guns instead of
making law abiding citizens criminals for trying to save their own lives. She understood and agreed with
the goal of having guns locked for safety, but people may not have enough money to purchase a lock or
safe. She questioned whether the City would provide a Liberty safe to every resident who owned a firearm.
She preferred to have the fee imposed on a person committing a crime instead of the lawful gun owner.
When two juveniles, both felons with ties to gang activity, stole a firearm from her store, one got 18 days
and the other 52 weeks. When the one got out of jail after 18 days, he committed a strong-arm robbery and
shot and almost killed the homeowner.
Sandra Herman, Edmonds, said in 1982 before it was known the NRA was a front to launder money for
political campaigns, she passed a hunter safety course and received a card that proved she had been
indoctrinated to the most important part of gun ownership - safety. The class taught her how to recognize
the parts of a gun, where the safety was located, how to load, hold, shoot and walk with it, never point it at
anyone, how to unload it and how to safely store it. As a gun-smarts advocate, she reads tragic stories daily
that remind her of the benefit of a hunter safety class. The problem is too many gun owners do not have the
proud heritage of gun ownership in their backgrounds. In her childhood home the doors were unlocked and
keys were stored under the vehicle’s floor mat; the only thing that was locked up were the guns and ammo
separately. Her home also included asbestos siding, knob and tube wiring and lead paint; she didn’t have a
helmet, seatbelts in the back of the pickup, or drunk driving laws. Society has come a long way. The way
we think about keeping our families safe has changed on a variety of issues; when organizations like the
NRA shirk their duty to educate gun owners, something must stand in the void that is left. When dangers
such as secondhand smoke, the need for CO2 detectors, or updated building code were recognized, local
governments have always been the source of changing culture. Sensible gun culture is badly needed. Trigger
locks are incredibly inexpensive and readily available. Gun safes save lives and for those worried about the
“armed boogey man” touted by the NRA, fingerprint handgun safes provide access at the touch of a button.
The proposal will save lives by bringing back the fundamental basic tradition of gun culture - safety.
Rosie Bailer, Edmonds, cited statists: last month at least 14 U.S. children and teens unintentionally shot
themselves or someone else. On June 26 in Missouri, a 3 year old boy fatally shot himself; on June 23rd in
Louisiana, a 4 year old fatally shot himself; on June 23rd in Louisiana, a 3-year old boy shot himself in the
arm; on June 12th in Tennessee, a 13 year old boy fatally shot his 12-year old sister; on June 6th in Kansas,
a 7-year old boy shot his 5-year old sister in the arm; on June 5th in Kentucky, a 6-year old boy fatally shot
himself; on June 5th in Arizona, a 13-year old boy fatally shot his 14-year old friend; on June 4th in
Washington, a juvenile shot a 14-year old boy in the chest; on June 4th in Michigan, a 4 year old girl shot
herself in the finger; on June 4th in Illinois, an 8-year old boy shot a 5-year old brother in the neck; on June
4th in Ohio, a 13-year old boy fatally shot his 2-year old relative; on June 3rd in Alabama, a 16-year old boy
shot himself in the wrist; on June 1st in Louisiana, a juvenile shot a 7-year old girl in the neck; on June 1st
in Louisiana, a 6-year old boy shot himself. Shootings by children can be prevented with responsible gun
storage. The Washington State Department of health reported 47% of the 1.8 million Washington State
adults who have firearms in their homes stated they are stored unlocked; 876,000 people in Washington.
When she was young, she rode in a laundry basket in the car, she never had a bike helmet and she dined in
the smoking section of restaurants. Society no longer considers these things safe for their children; common
sense legislation has changed culture and she was certain common-sense gun storage legislation can do the
same for her grandchildren. A member of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and a registered
voter, she is paying attention.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 10
Heather Damron, Edmonds, parent and co-lead of the Edmonds Mom Demand Action for Gun Sense in
America, said gun violence is pervasive in America, an epidemic. People cry out when mass shootings
occur and beg for those in charge to do something and sadly often see more calls for thoughts and prayers
than actual action from elected officials. She was heartened Edmonds was making strides to curb gun
violence, legitimate efforts to keep the community safe and she applauded the legislation brought forward
by Council President Nelson. Safe storage is simple and effective; it is common sense that storing firearms
securely locked, unloaded and separate from ammunition is an effective safeguard to keep guns out of the
hands of people who should not have them. These simple steps reduce a child’s ability to access guns and
helps protect kids from suicide and accidental shootings. Responsible storage of firearms keeps guns out of
the hands of children who may turn those guns on their peers in anger or frustration. Her first memory of
a firearm was about the age of 7 when some 12-13 year-old boys at her church found a gun in one of their
homes that they thought was unloaded and one boy was killed from a gunshot to the head. A life taken
prematurely, and two broken families left in the wake of a completely preventable tragedy. Children and
unsecured guns are a dangerous and all too often deadly mix. In the United States, 1.7 million children live
in a household with at least one unlocked loaded gun and every year hundreds of kids gain access to one of
these irresponsibly stored firearms and use it to unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else. In the
past three months, three separate instances of gun violence have forever altered the lives of her loved ones.
It is time to set parameters and define exactly what responsible gun ownership means for the health and
safety of the community. She urged the Council to put the ordinance into effect and lead by example and
action and not with thoughts and prayers.
Sierra Johnson, Edmonds, said during training to be a counselor at a day camp this summer, their training
included emergency drills such as active shooting drills. The camp is held in an open park and they were
taught if there was an active shooter, to tell campers to scatter and run as fast and as far as they can. She
plans to continue her studies in elementary education and recently came to terms with the fact that as a
teacher she needed to be willing to risk her life for students, which she is. She accepts that it is the job of a
teacher to both teach and protect kids, just as she expects elected representatives to do their job to pass
legislation to protect the community. In school shootings, it is often a student that does the shooting and
they often acquire the gun at home. This legislation simply requires those who choose to own a gun do so
responsibly so a gun does not fall into the hands of a child and result in a preventable tragedy. She thanked
Council President Nelson for introducing this common-sense gun legislation and she urged the Council to
pass it.
Mike McMurray, said a survey on My Edmonds News found 70% did not like the new sign. He referred
to his emails to the City and appreciated Frances Chapin talking with him. He recommended having more
public debate about the sign including input from local artists. The sign will be in place for the next 40
years and should be considered an opportunity to do better. He hoped the Council would allow the public
to submit design alternatives which could save the City money. He suggested Councilmembers drive by the
mural painted by Mack Bennett at 550 Main.
Mack Bennett, Edmonds, said he has been painting signs for over 50 years. With the advent of vinyl and
digital, a lot of the aesthetics of signs have been lost. He preferred to preserve the welcoming sign, whether
by him or another artists, noting there has been a resurgence and interest in in hand work. He liked the
existing sign in its present state, preferring the worn old sign to a vinyl or computer-generated sign. He
hoped the City would consider a different design. He recalled reading an obituary about a man who had
been a graphic designer and his son said everything he did was cut and paste, he never used computers. One
of his jobs was designing Microsoft’s first logo.
Sharon Mayo, Edmonds, said it’s difficult to walk through the sand at the dog park and requested an ADA
path to a bench.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 11
Marjorie Fields, Edmonds, said the proposed new sign is not reflective of Edmonds’ ambiance. She
supports protecting children from gun violence and urged the Council to pass the legislation quickly as this
is an urgent matter.
Ross Demmick, Edmonds, referred to the ordinance regarding safe storage of firearms, and the
qualitative/quantitative statements on the first page or the ordinance, requesting the source of the statements
be made available to judge the potential efficacy of the ordinance. Section 5.24.070.D of the ordinance
related to reporting of lost/stolen firearms refers to penalties if a lost or stolen firearm is used by a third
party to injure or kill another, stating it is a negligent act on the part of the owner unless the theft is report
and it was stored with an approved device and in a manner to render it inaccessible or unusable to any
person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. He asked how that standard could be met if
the gun was stolen and used in the commission of a crime. He referred to prima facie evidence of negligence
in the ordinance and asked if that same prima facie extended to how the weapon was secured at the time of
its theft.
7. STUDY/POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
1. GATEWAY SIGN REPLACEMENT SR 104 & 5TH AVE S
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite displayed photos of the proposed design, explaining this gateway
sign has been in the CIP for the past two years and funding was included in 2018 to replace the sign. The
Parks & Recreation Department is responsible for wayfinding signs and other non-regulatory signs such as
park signs, interpretive signs, etc. Most of the City’s signage is fabricated and created in the internal Public
Works sign shop. This sign was planned to be fabricated by a sign company; some of the interpreted panels
are also fabricated by a sign company because they weather better in the saltwater air. There have been
some concerns raised this week about the gateway sign. Historically, people in Edmonds are passionate
about signs; so passionate in fact that comments in 2006 about the hodgepodge of signs led to a public
process and an appendix that was adopted in the Streetscape Plan specifically about signs, criteria, aesthetics
and the need for consistency and efficiency in the design. The Parks Department followed up on those
recommendations and developed a wayfinding sign program with design guidelines in 2008. That sign
program is available on the City’s website under Parks Department planning documents. She explained:
The wayfinding sign program includes design standards for directional signs, parks signs, public
parking and other unique signage.
o Goals
Develop design parameters to provide a consistent look to City signage to assist visitors
and residents in wayfinding;
Create design standards that can be replicated by the City Public Works sign shop;
Create affordable and easily maintained signs;
Reflect elements of City design already in use such as the wave pattern and the color blue)
and identify key locations.
o Review: design process in 2008 included presentation for discussion at DEMA meetings, Arts
Commission and Planning Board
o Importance of implementation of the wayfinding sign program referenced in the 2013 Strategic
Plan and the 2014 Cultural and PROS Plans.
Over the past several years the Parks Department has used these guidelines for the implementation
for new signage – for example, large directional signs downtown and in the Westgate District
Gateway signs
o The 2006 Streetscape Plan also identified gateways to the City, including Five Corners, SR 99,
SR 104 & Main at the ferry, and SR 104 & 5th Ave S.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 12
o The SR 104 & 5th Ave S. sign, originally installed in the late 1970’s early 80’s, was identified
for replacement in the 2016 CIP with a $40,000 budget for design, fabrication and installation.
o Location – WSDOT right of way – primary function is as a highway sign for SR 104 in an area
where traffic is moving fast, 30 – 40 mph.
o Goal to meet WSDOT requirements, but also be consistent with existing City sign program.
o City paid WSDOT to review the City’s sign standard and criteria in order to locate a sign on
WSDOT property
Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin displayed a photograph of the proposed sign
superimposed on the site and explained because the Parks Department wanted a more inclusive approach
for this sign and to provide a broader perspective, staff developed a process that included representatives
from the Planning Board, the Arts Commission and the Economic Development as well as Parks and
Economic Development staff. The committee and the designer were tasked with taking into consideration
many things including the functional requirements of the site on a major highway right-of-way, keeping in
mind the purpose of the sign as perceived by WSDOT is an entry to downtown Edmonds that is visible
from both roadways westbound. The committee and designer were also tasked with working with a creative
esthetic related to the existing wayfinding signs and sense of continuity as well as a way to tell a story for
Edmonds. WSDOT’s guidelines regarding size of the marker, size of the message area, potential for traffic
distraction, safety, security, visibility, scale and context compatibility with the landscape and land use in
that area were shared with the committee.
Ms. Chapin displayed the preliminary concepts that the committee reviewed in 2017, explaining they
quickly chose a preferred concept that had appealing elements such as a softer shape and the sign being on
posts which reference the waterfront landscape. The committee then discussed the form, the base, the
materials, visibility from both roadways and the overall setting and the designer further refined the design.
The design was developed in conjunction with adjusting the location of the foundation and the landscaping
to optimize visibility from both roadways and to ensure compatibility with the site. WSDOT did not want
a massive concrete foundation that an out-of-control car could strike so the foundation was designed with
posts set into an underground foundation with rusted Corten steel panels provide a wavelike curve that is
set into the landscaping. Corten steel was also used in the Five Corners roundabout landscaping and the
sculpture, referencing the waterfront, the railway, and other aspects of early Edmonds.
Another important issue to WSDOT was visibility. WSDOT wanted the sign to face westbound traffic on
SR 104, and for the sign to be clearly visible to vehicles traveling to the waterfront was well as to vehicles
on 5th Avenue. The size and simplicity of the lettering was a concern to WSDOT, ensuring it was readily
visible. There is no electricity to the site so consideration was given to solar lighting. She displayed an
image of the sign at light, lit with solar LEDs. The sign form has a wavelike curve or could be interpreted
to mimic the horizon and the lighting provides a glow along that horizon. The sign is constructed using two
panels, a larger panel in the back and a smaller offset panel in front with lighting behind. The architectural
3D letterforms make the sign highly visible during the day and incorporating lighting will make the sign
visible at night. The word “Downtown” is laser cut through the metal that allows back lighting. The two
panels and the architectural letters provide more dimensionality to the sign, it is not a flat panel.
WSDOT was also concerned with safety and security due to traffic speeds in that area. There is no
pedestrian access to the site. The minimum clear zone is 10 feet so the sign foundation was moved 5 feet
east and moved forward about 10 feet which provided more space and a larger, more graceful, bermed
landscaping and improved readability from both roadways. Ms. Chapin summarized the committee was
tasked with addressing the functional requirements of the site as well as reflect the natural beauty of the
area including the Edmonds landscaping, shoreline and the sky which led to this sign as the recommended
design proposal.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 13
Council President Nelson did not think a state agency should tell the City what the sign should look like. If
the sign needed to be move to location where the City can control the design, it should be moved. Further,
for $40,000, the sign should be able to do much more such include cameras that track vehicles looking for
stolen cars, high frequency emitters to warn animals not to cross the roadway, Wi-Fi maps for tourists, etc.
He recommended the cost of the sign and the landscaping be reduced. Although there was good
representation from boards and commissions on the committee, it was still a small group and it’s apparent
more citizen involvement is needed. He recognized it is always a challenge when citizens do not hear about
a project until the end. He preferred to redesign the sign with more public input.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the lengthy process for the Five Corners art installation. She did not
think the proposed sign looked like a wave or the horizon. She agreed with Council President Nelson that
it was unfortunate citizens were not included in developing the design. Overall she did not mind
minimalistic aspect of the sign but did not feel it reflected a wave.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the sign would utilize solar panels, a low-cost way to
light the sign and create an entry to the City. He liked the proposed design and asked how the sign differed
from public art. Ms. Chapin said this is it is a sign, not public art. A different, more extensive process and
funding is used for public art such as at the Five Corners roundabout. Councilmember Tibbott asked
whether the process for public art would be more extensive than for a directional sign. Ms. Chapin answered
it would be.
Councilmember Tibbott noticed the sign was consistent with other signage in the City and he appreciated
references to the Five Corners roundabout. He asked whether downtown merchants were part of the review
process for this gateway sign. Ms. Chapin answered they were not specifically involved but had had many
opportunities to comment during the wayfinding sign process in 2008. This sign includes elements of the
wayfinding sign standards; the committee was tasked with finding consistency with the wayfinding sign
program, but not to do something exactly like the wayfinding signs.
Councilmember Tibbott said he has done work involving monument signs in the Puget Sound area and was
amazed a sign of this quality, landscaping, etc. could be done for $40,000. He has seen much smaller signs
in that price range. He was surprised at the number of WSDOT requirement the sign had to comply with,
noting none of them were artistic standards, they were related to safety, visibility, how motorist receive
information, etc. He expressed support for the proposed design. He asked what sign existed before 1980.
Ms. Chapin recalled Councilmember Johnson mentioning the connection to SR 104 was done in the late
1970s and the sign was installed at that time. She asked the museum to research and they were not able to
find anything related to that site. Councilmember Tibbott observed this would be the second sign at that
location. If a group was interested in restoring the sign and placing it in the museum, a business or other
location where people take pictures with it, that would be an option to preserve nostalgia of sign and allow
people to enjoy it versus seeing it driving by at 40 mph.
Councilmember Teitzel commented this is change and change is hard. He was used to the old sign and it
takes time to get used to it. He found it unfortunate the sign was not conveyed in 3D with the sea grass
landscaping, backlighting, etc. He liked the sign and appreciated the work and input from the community.
He has paid attention to the public input in local news publications and understood there was a lot of
concern, some of which he felt may be due to the difficulty discerning the design scope from the
photographs. With regard to the cost, the sign could be in place for the next 40-60 year, $40,000 for design,
fabrication, installation and landscaping does not seem out of line.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there was no sign in this location prior to the installation of the
existing sign. She noted the proposed sign says “Downtown Edmonds” not “Welcome to Edmonds” like
the existing sign which has an Edmonds sort of feel. She questioned why the sign was not being replaced
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 14
with another wooden sign with lighting. She couldn’t remember another time when there had been so much
public outcry about a sign, commenting perhaps there should have been public hearing. This sign is not a
wayfinding sign, it is a welcome to Edmonds sign and the new sign does not give her a welcoming feeling.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said as long as the sign meets WSDOT’s requirements, it could be any
design and does not need to be this modern feeling. The sign reminded her of the Five Corners roundabout
but not of any other area of Edmonds. She favored having more public input, noting the committee was not
representative of the 40,000 people in Edmonds; the Council is. She favored proceeding slowly, anticipating
a less expensive sign could be achieved by replacing the old sign in a manner that meets WSDOT’s
requirements. Of all the comments she has received, only 2-3 said they like the new sign, the rest do not.
Councilmember Mesaros said he has worked in large institutions during his career and has been involved
in several signage projects, particularly monument signs that tell the public they have arrived at a location.
He found the $40,000 budget well within what it takes to accomplish that. He asked whether the current
sign would meet WSDOT requirements. Ms. Chapin answered not if it were changed. Councilmember
Mesaros observed there was no lighting on the current sign due to the lack of electricity. He asked whether
the deterioration of the current sign was driving this process to update the sign to match other sign standards.
Ms. Chapin answered the sign is deteriorating. Councilmember Mesaros asked how long the current sign
would last. Ms. Chapin was uncertain; Councilmember Mesaros recognized something needed to be done
at some point. He agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas that an opportunity for public input separate
from a City Council meeting where there could be interaction and conversation followed by a
recommendation from staff. He found the amount of input from citizens interesting and wished there was
more input about other important issues the Council considers. He encouraged staff to seek additional public
input and to consider various options. With regard to the gateway signs, due to this sign’s location, it needs
to be welcoming and doesn’t have to exactly match other City signs.
Councilmember Johnson commented the existing sign had been in place 50 years and replaced once. She
was surprised so many people love the existing sign. The proposed sign is intended to be complimentary to
the wayfinding signs. Five areas have been identified to have gateway signs and she preferred to take
another look at the gateway sign program installation as authorization for the new sign did not need to be
happen tonight or perhaps even this year. If 1000 people say they do not like the sign, that is instruction to
the Council to take a second look. She was confident staff has heard from the public and the City Council
and will return with a recommendation.
Ms. Hite summarized staff will be happy to add more citizens to the committee, develop more designs and
return to City Council.
Councilmember Tibbott shared the interest in getting more public input. He did not see this as the gateway
sign to Edmonds; the City has grown since the 1980s and there are 5 areas where gateway signs could be
installed. He suggested the public process include input on the other four locations and potentially some
consistency.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Johnson with regard to consistency in all the
gateway/entrance signs. She suggested instead of adding people to the committee that staff hold an open
house.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to prominent aspects on the old sign, the wooden piling in the foreground
and the ferry in the background and suggested integrating a stylized ferry and piling in the new design. He
recalled the artwork at Five Corners evokes pilings.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 15
Councilmember Johnson commented one of most important visual cues on the existing sign is the word
“Welcome.”
Mayor Earling said he was interested and amused by the discussion. He is a member of the Sound Transit
Board which is involved with major art installations at all the stations. The Sound Transit Board is
comprised of 18 people and most of the comments as they adjudicate proposed art pieces start with “I don’t
know anything about art, but…” and then go into design advice. He acknowledged this is a Council decision
but there is a lot of similarity between a sign and art.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. PRESENTATION OF EDC MEMO ON POTENTIAL USE AND LOCATION OF CIVIC
FACILITIES
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained as with previous
occasions when the Economic Development Commission (EDC) has discussed an issue and forwarded it
to Council, this is a presentation of their memo. No decision or action is sought tonight, only direction
whether to have this matter proceed to a committee for further discussion and consideration.
EDC Member Matt Waldron explained this issue arose when the City acquired civic field and the designs
for civic field came to the EDC for comment. During those discussions, the EDC considered what the
immediately adjacent neighborhood would look like including the Public Safety Complex, the Police
Department and City Hall. The EDC also discussed the best use for the City Hall and whether the Police
Department was in the best location. As the EDC was learning about Highway 99, commissioners discussed
the potential for a non-profit development to serve as a catalyst for other development. A subgroup
considered all these concepts and a key topic was what is the best use of civic facilities in this neighborhood.
He recalled Commissioner Aseem Prakash mentioning a development such as City Hall or the Police
Department on Highway 99 would be the City’s way of showing support for that area’s evolution and
progression, showing good faith and encouraging an area like Highway 99 to develop. The EDC wanted to
determine early if this was an immediately impossible idea, so the subgroup met with one Councilmember
to solicit feedback as well as with Councilmember Tibbott, the Council liaison to the EDC. The subgroup
also met with the Police Chief about moving the Police Department who acknowledged both challenges
and advantages.
The EDC recognized it did not have tools or authority to recommend anything be moved/done without
careful study. The EDC’s agreed its deliverable to the City Council would be the list of considerations in
the EDC’s memo that include disruption, cost, opportunity, consistency with development of Civic Field,
etc. The EDC recognized a real estate analysis would be required to determine feasibility in both
neighborhoods, the current location and Highway 99. The EDC supports the City Council moving forward
with discussion on this topic.
Mr. Doherty reiterated the presentation of the memo was to share an idea with the Council; if the Council
was interested, it could be referred to a committee for further discussion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired what is the EDC piece to this concept, whether it was develop
City Hall and the Public Safety Complex into other uses. She noted if City Hall or the Public Safety
Complex were moved, and she asked if the EDC piece was the construction of new buildings on Highway
99. Mr. Doherty answered there were two issues, 1) are the current properties and/or buildings providing
the best activation and economic vitality to the downtown neighborhood especially as downtown is
stretched to Civic Park, and 2) related to the Highway 99 Plan, a City or other entity is a great catalyst to
providing activation and activity via the infusion of investment and employees which can be a signal to
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 16
private developers, property owners and investors to follow suit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
commented there are plenty of buildings on Highway 99 with plenty of staff; the hospital is the biggest.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what use has been discussed for City Hall. Mr. Doherty said the
EDC did not do an in-depth study. The question was whether City Hall was the highest and best use from
an economic vitality perspective with the location on the north edge of downtown and whether there could
be other uses for the properties such as commercial, residential, mixed use, hotel, offices, etc.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see economic vitality in City Hall. She was curious about
moving the Police Department to Highway 99 which would be closer to the work they do; however, a new
building could cost $30-40 million.
Councilmember Buckshnis had no interest in pursuing this and wished the EDC would work on ways to
bring in tourism and visitors to the City. She has visited many cities throughout the world and City Hall is
never on the outskirts; it is always in the center of town. She did not like the City Hall building, thought it
was one of the ugliest buildings she has ever seen and was not aware how City Hall was moved to that
building instead of a building like Bellevue or Kirkland’s City Hall. She anticipated the citizens would
rebel if the City Hall were moved to Highway 99 because many residents visit the second floor.
Mayor Earling provided the history, explaining when he was active in the Chamber, City Hall was in two
ramblers. It was decided a new City Hall building needed to be built or purchased. The owners of the
building where City Hall is located decided to sell. When the numbers were run, moving to the existing
building saved approximately $1 million versus constructing a new building.
Councilmember Mesaros said he was the Councilmember who met with the subgroup. He found the idea
interesting because he saw the value of economic development of a government or not-for-profit entity
locating to an area and spurring further development. The City is fortunate to have a big not-for-profit
entity, Swedish Edmonds, on Highway 99 which has spurred a lot of development. However, that
development is not occurring south of 228th. He found it an interesting idea to create a study to consider the
potential real estate and impact of that investment.
Councilmember Mesaros said he has personally been involved in two projects in San Diego, the initial Kroc
Center, an investment of $40 million in eastern San Diego that spurred development and transformed that
neighborhood, and the Balboa Theater in downtown San Diego. He pointed out the various museums in
downtown Tacoma have spurred a lot of development in an area where no one wanted to invest. More
recently he was involved in a project in Augusta, Georgia where an abandoned theater reopened, an
investment of $28 million of not-for-profit funds. He summarized opportunities abound around the country,
but it is unknown whether this is an opportunity for Edmonds. On reflection, he said the opportunity was
more for the Police Department than for City Hall. There are multiple options including selling the Public
Safety property and reinvesting the funds in a new Police Department on Highway 99, moving City Hall to
the Public Safety Complex and building a new Police Department on Highway 99, etc.
Councilmember Teitzel applauded the EDC for thinking outside the box. He has heard criticism that the
City is very bowl-centric and he could see benefits from the public’s standpoint and from the growth
stimulation standpoint of moving investment away from the bowl to the Highway 99 corridor. He
recommended this idea not be dismissed as it warranted additional investigation.
Council President Nelson said although it was an interesting idea, it should not go any further as clearly
moving staff and building new buildings would cost a significant amount. He questioned the interest in
constantly monkeying with the downtown. Highway 99 needs to be revitalized and the City has done a lot
to facilitate that. He did not think moving governmental building would create economic development. He
did not support funding a study.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 17
Councilmember Tibbott asked what a study would cost. Mr. Doherty answered that had not been
researched; if the Council was interested, staff could do further investigation. He anticipated the general
scope would be to look at the value and potential uses of the downtown properties and potential cost
scenarios. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that could be done in-house. Mr. Doherty answered if the
Council was interested in discussing this further and wanted cost estimates for a study, staff would talk to
3-4 firms who do that work and discuss it further in a committee meeting.
Councilmember Tibbott asked whether Highway 99 needed a catalyst, noting there seemed to be quite a lot
of interest from developers particularly in residential on Highway 99. Mr. Doherty agreed there has been
some interest, but he was not confident the southern half of the corridor would see redevelopment soon.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his support for staff developing cost estimates and refining the scope. He
recognized a lot of people visit City Hall, but for the Police Department and the Court, public transportation
is much better on Highway 99. He did not support a large study.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the southern portion of Highway 99 is covered with hotels
and until one of those sells, not much development will occur in that area. Although she has heard and read
this is economic development, moving City functions to Highway 99 would detract from the economic
development in downtown and she was unsure it would spur development activity on Highway 99. She
would like to see more development on Highway 99 and wished the EDC would develop a magic wand to
do that. Without more information, she did not support moving buildings around without a tangible reason.
Mayor Earling suggested staff survey major realtors and get a ballpark on some of the issues and return to
City Council.
Councilmember Johnson said if the City Hall and Police Department were moved to Highway 99, the City
would not collect property tax or sales tax, one of the City’s number one economic drivers. She suggested
the EDC take a closer look at the City’s strategic plan with regard to economic development, noting it is
nearly time to update the strategic plan.
3. SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS DISCUSSION
Council President Nelson thanked the citizens who contacted him and other Councilmembers as well as
those who spoke during Audience Comments both for and against and expressing their concerns. He takes
all those comments to heart and if things need to be clarified or amended, he was happy to do it. He would
rather debate signs and the location of City buildings and not have to talk about firearms. He never thought
when he became a Councilmember that that would be something he would be doing but he also never
thought he would hear his 6-year old, beaming with pride, say he now knows how to properly barricade
himself from an armed gunman. There is something wrong with society when kids have to be trained to
respond to a gunman coming into their school. Action is clearly not occurring at the state or federal level
and the reliance is now on citizen initiatives.
Council President Nelson relayed finding of a survey by the University of Washington Department of Public
Health of 35,000 household, the most comprehensive study done in the last 10 years, that found only 6 %
of the 36% of gun owners surveyed kept their firearms locked, the remainder kept their firearms unlocked.
Everyone knows how easy it is for children to access firearms and study after study and body count after
body count finds not locking up firearms results in accidental child deaths, increased risk of child suicide
and provide criminals easy access to guns. He recognized locks cannot do everything; this law is written to
provide options for citizens. His focus is protecting kids. He recognized the key part of safe storage was to
educate people to lock up their firearms and if not, they will be fined, a civil infraction, up to $500. If a
child or other prohibited person has access to a firearm that was not secured, the owner could be fined up
to $1000. If that child or prohibited person hurts someone or themselves with an unsecured gun, the owner
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 18
can be fined up to $10,000. The ordinance allows for hearings, appeals, mitigating factors, etc. The
ordinance would be effective 180 days from passage to allow for education regarding the importance of
locking up firearms.
Council President Nelson introduced Snohomish County Health District Administrator Jeff Ketchel to
describe the District’s Lock It Up Program. Mr. Ketchel said he was here at the request of Council President
Nelson and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to discuss data and outreach related to firearms. The Board of
Health of the Snohomish Health District has not taken a position on the proposed ordinance and he did not
want his comments or presence to be construed as support or opposition to the ordinance but rather as the
City’s public health agency, providing public health information. Storing firearms unlocked and unloaded
with the ammunition locked separately can reduce the risk of injuries and deaths involving children and
teens as well as prevent firearm thefts. In 2016, according the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System,
an annual telephone survey in the U.S., approximately 1/3 of Snohomish County adults reported firearms
in or around their homes. Among these adults, 1/3 reported the firearm was loaded, and 1/2 of those
individuals indicated the loaded firearm was not locked up; 6% of all homes in Snohomish County have
an unlocked and firearm inside.
A study printed in the Annals of Internal Medicine reported that adolescents with access to firearms are 2.6
times more likely to die by suicide than adolescents without access to firearms. Between 2014 and 2016,
15 youth died by suicide in Snohomish County, 8 of the 15 used a firearm. There were 6 suspensions and
3 expulsions in school districts located in Snohomish County during the 2015-2016 involving a firearm on
school premises, transportation system or school facility. In the 2016 Health Youth Survey, a survey given
to all 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in Washington State every 2 years, 4% of Snohomish County 10th and
12th graders reported carrying a gun to school on at least one occasion during the previous 30 days. In
response to statistics such as these, the Snohomish Health District has long supported a Lock It Up program,
a voluntary initiative urging the safe storage of firearms. The program works with police departments and
gun retailers to provide education about safe gun storage and locking devices at the point of purchase or
when containing a concealed pistol license. The Health District is happy to work with the City of Edmonds
on outreach and education regarding the Lock It Up program and the safe storage of firearms.
Councilmember Tibbott said he not see anything in the ordinance about a gun being transported. Council
President Nelson answered the requirement to have the firearm locked would apply whether the firearm is
at home or in an unattended vehicle. That would not apply if the firearm is on the person of someone who
has a concealed weapons permit. Councilmember Tibbott clarified locked storage is required in a home or
during transport.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if heirloom guns that have been disabled such as the trigger removed or not
usable would be considered locked. Council President Nelson read from the ordinance, “properly engaged
so as to render such weapon inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully
authorized user,” clarifying if the gun is unusable or missing a part, that would be sufficient.
Councilmember Teitzel commented over 30 years ago his younger brother got access to his father’s loaded,
unsecured firearm and committed suicide. He liked to think his brother would still be alive if that gun had
been properly secured. He was supportive of common sense safe gun storage. He noted I-1639 has gathered
sufficient signatures to be on the on ballot in November. Section 5 of I-1639 contains provisions similar to
the proposed ordinance. Mr. Taraday agreed there were similarities but Section 5 states nothing in the
section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored. Assuming the proposed ordinance and I-1639
passes, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether I-1639 would supersede Edmonds’ ordinance. Mr. Taraday
said the passage of I-1639 may make certain aspects of the Edmonds ordinance unnecessary to the extent
that they overlap. The ordinances do similar things, but they are not identical. The ordinance requiring
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 19
reporting of lost and stolen firearms is also touched on in the initiative but it is addressed as an affirmative
defense so it is somewhat different.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to Section 5.2.A of I-1639 which states, “Community endangerment due
to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20
RCW.” In the Edmonds ordinance, such an infraction is a civil infraction. He asked whether state law would
supersede Edmonds law in that instance. Mr. Taraday responded it was difficult make a direct comparison;
I-1639 also identifies community endangerment in the second degree as a gross misdemeanor.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if I-1639 and the ordinance pass, could both could continue to exist and the
state law would not supersede Edmonds’ ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered that was true in general.
Council President Nelson said the deciding factor for him was the initiative was brought by citizens and
nothing was being done by elected officials; people are asking elected officials to take action. He was unsure
the initiative would pass and did not want to assume or wait until it passed if that meant in the meantime
one child’s life could be saved by not having access to a firearm. The main distinction is Edmonds’
ordinance includes civil penalties and the initiative has criminal penalties.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Council President Nelson for moving forward with this
ordinance, recalling every time a shooting occurs, Councilmembers react, urging something be done. Seattle
passed an ordinance and last night the Mukilteo City Council passed a gun safety resolution. She read from
the resolution, “Now therefore, be resolved that the Mukilteo City Council supports the following
legislative and community actions: Universal background checks for all gun sales; [a number of] state-wide
efforts; training for all public employees, school personnel, and volunteers in Adverse Childhood
Experiences, trauma informed care perspectives and de-escalation dynamics; additional School Resource
Officers in schools focusing on building relationships with students; additional mental health counselors in
schools; opposing the arms of school staff and personnel; community forums and events to raise awareness
about gun safety, mental health support and intervention, suicide prevention, and emergency preparedness;
legislation requiring all guns in homes to be secured with significant consequences for failure to do so;
improvements in mental health access, diagnosis and treatment; continuing distribution of free gun locks
to Mukilteo residents and others at community events; and beginning a gun buy-back program in Mukilteo.”
She encouraged Councilmembers to pass the ordinances regarding safe storage and reporting lost and stolen
firearms.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the two ordinances, suggesting Edmonds adopt a
resolution similar to Mukilteo’s, a Resolution to Support a Holistic Approach to Ending Gun Violence. She
agreed with Mr. Demmick and suggested using the statistics provided by Mr. Ketchel in the ordinance
whereas clauses.
Councilmember Mesaros was supportive of the ordinances and looked forwarded to voting on it once the
details were finalized. With regard to Councilmember Teitzel’s concerns about I-1639, he agreed with
Council President Nelson on moving forward with the City’s ordinances and if any conflicts are
encountered, adjustments could be made. He asked if there was anything restricting the City from pursuing
criminal penalties. Mr. Taraday answered he would need to think about more about that; the City needs to
be careful not to do anything that conflicts with state law. He has not evaluated that question because the
ordinance did not include criminal penalties. Councilmember Mesaros said to someone who lost a child
due to someone’s negligence in not securing their arms and they were only fined, that would not seem to
value the life of that child. He requested Mr. Taraday research criminal penalties.
Councilmember Mesaros asked the City’s limits as a municipality compared to what is available to the state
and federal governments. He wanted to do the maximum to stop this problem from continuing to happen.
Mr. Taraday answered that was an interesting question; there is a preemption statute that prevents the City
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 20
from adopting certain types of regulations that address firearms. The Seattle ordinance has many similarities
to the proposed ordinance; a commenter on the Seattle ordinance said it would inevitably end up in court.
In light of that possibility, there were certain aspects that he would prefer to discuss with the Council in
executive session.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what Council President Nelson was seeking. Council President
Nelson answered he was introducing the ordinances, gauging the Council’s interest and seeking input on
any additions/changes. No action is requested tonight but he will bring it back at a future meeting,
potentially as early as July 24.
Councilmember Mesaros requested the option of criminal penalties as well as civil penalties be explored.
Council President Nelson agreed he wanted to have the strongest possible laws.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Taraday comment on the email sent to the Council by David Slim
regarding RCW 9.41.290. Mr. Taraday said given the likelihood this ordinance has to draw litigation, he
preferred to discuss that issue in executive session.
Councilmember Johnson believed everyone wants to keep the community safer for children. It is very
difficult to hear about school shootings, and she was surprised to hear students live in fear. When she was
a child, there were drills where students went under their desk in the event of a nuclear weapon discharge.
She looked forward to having the ordinance come back to the Council. She suggested the Council start with
a resolution of intent and move on to an ordinance.
Mayor Earling said the resolution described tonight as well as the ordinances proposed by Council President
Nelson are important for the Council to consider. He was convinced all the problems could not be solved
in one fell swoop, but continued efforts will fill the gaps. He is a member of the National Mayors Opposed
to Illegal Guns and it is small things like this that will make a difference.
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
Finance Committee
Councilmember Teitzel reported among other topics which are reflected in the minutes, the committee
discussed the Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment which includes the addition of a Public Works
Senior Accountant/Analyst and reducing the Finance Department Senior accountant by 50%. He recalled
bringing these two items forward was a disjointed process that warrants further discussion. Councilmember
Buckshnis and he plan to meet with Mayor Earling, Mr. Williams and Mr. James to develop an alternative
approach to the two positions and bring it back for full Council consideration.
Parks & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Tibbott highlighted Item 8 on the committee’s agenda, Funding of Walkway Projects. The
committee was provided a detailed approach to building walkways in the City via hiring a concrete crew
and the outcome would be building a mile of new walkways every year. The next step will be for Public
Works Director to develop a decision package for consideration during the budget review process. He
offered to distribute the plan to Councilmembers for review prior to the budget process.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 17, 2018
Page 21
Mayor Earling reported Mr. Williams, Chief Compaan and Mr. Hauss met with residents about issues on
Pine Street. Staff provided a great deal of factual information and will determine if anything can be done.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Tibbott reported he also attended the Pine Street meeting; in addition to the data Mr.
Williams presented, data was provided by the neighborhood. Much of the data was anecdotal and concern
was expressed regarding several areas, especially children getting on/off buses in the dark. This is another
reason for a walkway program so Public Works can respond more rapidly respond to these issues. He will
be on vacation next week.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Edmonds in Bloom and Tree Board volunteers and families who hosted
their gardens for the garden tour. The tours were spectacular, approximately 450 tickets were sold. She will
be on vacation next week.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked citizens who weighed in on safe gun storage, commenting it was very
important that kids are kept safe. He thanked Council President Nelson for his work on those ordinances.
On Sunday, he had the pleasure of introducing the Cliff Perry Band at the first concert in the park at City
Park. A large crowd enjoyed the beautiful day and the bluegrass music.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed he will participate in his first sprint triathlon this Sunday.
Councilmember Johnson appreciated the opportunity to participate by phone. She was surprised to read
about the press conference regarding the safe gun storage idea in My Edmonds News and understood there
was a second press conference tonight prior to the City Council meeting. She reminded that although the
Council is comprised of seven individuals, they work as a team. Many years ago, a professional taught the
Council how to work together; one of the key components was no surprises. She commented it was a bit of
a showboat to take a highly controversial issue like gun safety and not give the City Council a heads up.
She was personally offended with process.
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 07-17-2018 Draft Council Meeting Miuntes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #232197 through #232295 dated July 19, 2018 for $390,194.00 (re-issued
check #232197 $553.20) and wire payments of $11,003.21 and $11,167.19.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #63366 through #63373 for $569,761.75, benefit checks
#63374 through #63378 and wire payments of $571,237.13 for the pay period July 1, 2018 through July
15, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim cks 07-19-18
wire 07-16-18
wire 07-18-18
claim cks 07-19-18
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18
payroll summary 07-15-18
payroll benefits 07-15-18
4.3
Packet Pg. 28
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232197 7/16/2018074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 38757E6JC.SERVICES THRU MAY 2018E6JC.Services thru May 2018421.000.74.594.34.65.41 553.20Total :553.20232198 7/19/2018041695 3M XAM3522 TP36001TRAFFIC - SIGN SUPPLIESTraffic - Sign Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 382.5010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 39.40TRAFFIC - RED EC FILMTP36002Traffic - Red EC Film111.000.68.542.64.31.00 285.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 29.36Total :736.26232199 7/19/2018070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-60678VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/15/2018VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/15/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 157.09KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/201815-61541KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 184.88KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/06/201815-61679KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/06/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 184.88VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/201815-62053VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 157.09SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/201815-62412SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 193.60Total :877.54232200 7/19/2018 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 12185WWTP: PEST CONTROL SERVICE1Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232200 7/19/2018(Continued)065052 AARD PEST CONTROLPEST CONTROL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.52Total :80.52232201 7/19/2018076711 ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING LLC AST - 08-13-17-2018INV#AST - 08-13-17-2018 - EDMONDS PD - KAST - ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING - K.001.000.41.521.40.49.00 700.00Total :700.00232202 7/19/2018 069156 ADVISARTS INC 7/2BACH CREATIVE DISTRICTS APPLICATION PROCBACH CREATIVE DISTRICTS APPLICATION117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,187.50Total :1,187.50232203 7/19/2018000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 10294MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGESMONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES421.000.74.534.80.33.00 182,448.01Total :182,448.01232204 7/19/2018001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC IN133113ALPHA LABELSALPHA LABELS001.000.23.512.50.31.00 38.7910.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.31.00 3.99Total :42.78232205 7/19/2018071634 ALLSTREAM 15443998C/A 768328PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service512.000.31.518.88.42.00 954.60001.000.61.558.70.42.00 10.16Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines001.000.61.558.70.42.00 10.162Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :974.92232205 7/19/2018 071634 071634 ALLSTREAM232206 7/19/2018 065568 ALLWATER INC 071218076FINANCE DEPT WATERFinance dept water001.000.31.514.23.31.00 61.33WWTP: 7/13/18 DRINK WATER SERVICE071218077Water services, rental & environmental423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.8010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.38Total :97.51232207 7/19/2018065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 18-0512TREE SERVICE YOST PARKTREE SERVICE YOST PARK001.000.64.576.80.48.00 800.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 82.40TREE SERVICE YOST PARK BROKEN CEDAR18-0518TREE SERVICE YOST PARK BROKEN CEDAR001.000.64.576.80.48.00 300.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 30.90DEBRI CLEAN UP SIERRA PARK18-0524DEBRI CLEAN UP SIERRA PARK001.000.64.576.80.48.00 175.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 18.03TREE SERVICE HICKMAN PARK18-0615TREE SERVICE HICKMAN PARK001.000.64.576.80.48.00 700.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 72.10Total :2,178.43232208 7/19/2018076500 ALVAREZ, IAN 7/17 HMP CONCERT 7/17 HMP CONCERT7/17 HMP CONCERT3Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232208 7/19/2018(Continued)076500 ALVAREZ, IAN117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00Total :700.00232209 7/19/2018074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5408416RETIREE PREMIUMS - AUGUST 2018FIRE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,161.12LEOFF PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,160.69Total :9,321.81232210 7/19/2018 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990796584WWTP: 7/11/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATSMats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990796585PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990800421PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.174Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232210 7/19/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES10.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990800422FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.3010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.18Total :240.06232211 7/19/2018071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1274463-INWWTP: 7/5/18 DIESEL FUELULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (includes423.000.76.535.80.32.00 2,176.8010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.32.00 224.22Total :2,401.02232212 7/19/2018001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 82322UNITS E149BD, E151RE, E154SO - LOGOSUnits E149BD, E151RE, E154SO - Logos511.100.77.594.48.64.00 434.5010.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 44.755Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :479.25232212 7/19/2018 001795 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS232213 7/19/2018 064706 AWC62566CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR D SHARPMunicipal Budget & Finance Mgmt 2018001.000.31.514.23.49.00 200.00Total :200.00232214 7/19/2018075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 30157SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 07/11/2018SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 07/11/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.10Total :106.10232215 7/19/2018069989 BERK CONSULTING INC 10251-06-18 HOUSING STRATEGYHousing Strategy001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,050.63Total :1,050.63232216 7/19/2018076341 BRK THRU DIGITAL LLC BID-1692BID/ED! DIGITAL ADVERTISING JUNE 2018BID/Ed! digital advertising for June140.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,500.00Total :1,500.00232217 7/19/2018076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5524083STORM DUMP FEESStorm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 613.00STORM DUMP FEES5524846Storm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 691.20ROADWAY - ASPHALT5524847Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 539.5710.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 53.96ROADWAY - ASPHALT5525254Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 399.5710.0% Sales Tax6Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232217 7/19/2018(Continued)076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC111.000.68.542.31.31.00 39.96STORM DUMP FEES5526002Storm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,721.40Total :4,058.66232218 7/19/2018 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 18861313COURT PHOTOCOPY MACHINE RENTALCOURT PHOTOCOPY MACHINE RENTAL001.000.23.512.50.45.00 59.5210.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.45.00 6.13C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091/0521418861314Finance dept copier contract charge001.000.31.514.23.45.00 209.61B&W Meter usage IRC5250 6/1-30/18001.000.31.514.23.45.00 11.46Color Meter usage IRC5250 6/1-30/18001.000.31.514.23.45.00 32.3010.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.45.00 26.10CANON 5250188613175250 contract charges July 2018001.000.22.518.10.45.00 188.655250 contract charges July 2018001.000.61.557.20.45.00 10.485250 contract charges July 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.48bw meter usage June 2018001.000.22.518.10.45.00 17.10bw meter usage June 2018001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.95bw meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.95clr meter usage June 2018001.000.22.518.10.45.00 71.017Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232218 7/19/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICESclr meter usage June 2018001.000.61.557.20.45.00 3.95clr meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.9410.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.45.00 28.5110.3% Sales Tax001.000.61.557.20.45.00 1.5810.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.59WWTP: 7/2018 MO CHG+6/2018 METER USE CON188613187/2018 MO CHG+6/2018 METER USE423.000.76.535.80.45.00 148.83CANON 250IF18861319contract charge 250IF July 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 26.44bw meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.71clr meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 17.5310.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.45.00 4.71Total :883.53232219 7/19/2018 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 6526 OCEAN CAMP 6526 OCEAN CAMP INSTRUCTION6526 OCEAN CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 993.30Total :993.30232220 7/19/2018003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 462097SEWER LS1 PUMP 2 REPAIRSSewer LS1 Pump 2 Repairs423.000.75.535.80.48.00 2,339.9310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.48.00 241.018Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :2,580.94232220 7/19/2018 003320003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC232221 7/19/2018 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I18002361WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSISWater Quality - Water Lab Analysis421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,490.40Total :1,490.40232222 7/19/2018019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 14456INV#14456 CUST #200966 - EDMONDS PDPRISONER R&B MAY 2018001.000.39.523.60.51.00 73.00Total :73.00232223 7/19/2018035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 9056920000WWTP: 5/9-7/9/18 FLOWMETER 879026: 22035/9-7/9/18 FLOW METER #879026 @ 2203 N423.000.76.535.80.47.62 19.52Total :19.52232224 7/19/2018071417 CORE & MAIN LP J012108STORM PIPE SUPPLIESStorm Pipe Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,432.8510.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 250.58STORM - SUPPLIESJ095191Storm - Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 417.3710.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 42.99Total :3,143.79232225 7/19/2018 073423 CREATIVE SERVICES OF D18-17433INV#D18-17433 - EDMONDS PDJUNIOR OFFICER BADGE STICKERS001.000.41.521.22.31.00 469.00Freight001.000.41.521.22.31.00 34.95Total :503.95232226 7/19/2018005965 CUES INC 503562SEWER TV TRUCK SUPPLIES9Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232226 7/19/2018(Continued)005965 CUES INCFreight423.000.75.535.80.31.00 39.7010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 90.67Sewer TV Truck Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 840.54Total :970.91232227 7/19/2018 068190 DATEC INC 33770INV#33770 - EDMONDS PDPOCKETJET 7 MOBILE PRINTERS ~001.000.41.521.22.35.00 959.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.35.00 98.80Total :1,058.00232228 7/19/2018076013 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP 71579CITY OF EDMONDS URBAN FORESTCITY OF EDMONDS URBAN FOREST001.000.62.558.60.41.00 5,000.00Total :5,000.00232229 7/19/2018006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY JCASTRO-INCIN.EXAMWWTP: JCASTRO INCINERATOR OPERATOR EXAMJCASTRO INCINERATOR OPERATOR EXAM FEE423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.00Total :50.00232230 7/19/2018047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2018060041CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098113-06Scan Services for June 2018512.000.31.518.88.42.00 285.00Total :285.00232231 7/19/2018 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-386207/10/2018 CITY COUNCIL & COMMITTEE MEET07/10/18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES &001.000.25.514.30.41.00 234.60Total :234.60232232 7/19/2018061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 2018 TPA DRIFTWOOD 2018 TPA DRIFTWOOD10Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232232 7/19/2018(Continued)061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS2018 TPA DRIFTWOOD123.000.64.573.20.41.00 2,400.00Total :2,400.00232233 7/19/2018065739 DTG ENTERPRISES INC 29620STORM - DUMP FEESStorm - Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00Total :120.00232234 7/19/2018067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 029-1718VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTALVOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL001.000.64.571.25.45.00 4,305.00VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL034-1718VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL001.000.64.571.25.45.00 3,630.00Total :7,935.00232235 7/19/2018074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002855PM: SPLIT RING, KEY RINGPM: SPLIT RING, KEY RING001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.5410.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.47PM: SPRAY GUN, UTIL KNIFE, COUPLING002861PM: SPRAY GUN, UTIL KNIFE, COUPLING001.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.1110.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.54Total :53.66232236 7/19/2018074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002853TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 27.9910.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.88Total :30.8711Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232237 7/19/2018008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 249026INV#249026 CLIENT ID #308 - EDMONDS PDHEARTWORM TEST001.000.41.521.26.41.00 39.00INTERCEPTOR PLUS 50 1-100# bOX OF 6001.000.41.521.26.31.00 137.74CREDELIO 25 1-50# 2 BOXES OF 6 EA001.000.41.521.26.31.00 238.3010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.26.31.00 38.73Total :453.77232238 7/19/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-00080IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINEIRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59INTERURBAN TRAIL5-10351INTERURBAN TRAIL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.79Total :144.38232239 7/19/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH815874CITY NOTICES - 658 MAPLE ST PUBLIC HEARICITY NOTICES- HISTORIC PRESERVATION 658001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.84LEGAL AD: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMD20EDH816183LEGAL AD: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING001.000.62.558.60.41.40 67.08LEGAL AD: APP & PUBLIC HEARING PLN201600EDH816186LEGAL AD: APP & PUBLIC HEARING001.000.62.558.60.41.40 77.40Total :182.32232240 7/19/2018067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING 6530 ETIQUETTE 6530 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTION6530 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 300.00Total :300.00232241 7/19/2018011900 FRONTIER 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE12Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232241 7/19/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIERPUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.42PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.41TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 34.21TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.21PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.46PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION111.000.68.542.90.42.00 82.32PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION421.000.74.534.80.42.00 69.15PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION423.000.75.535.80.42.00 69.15PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION511.000.77.548.68.42.00 92.20CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET130.000.64.536.20.42.00 127.9313Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232241 7/19/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIER425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344425-775-1344 RANGER STATION001.000.64.571.23.42.00 68.29UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 68.25Total :924.19232242 7/19/2018075538 GAMEZ, OMAR 07172018PROBATION MEETING 07/16/2018 MILEAGEPROBATION MEETING 07/16/2018 MILEAGE001.000.23.523.30.43.00 32.16Total :32.16232243 7/19/2018012560 HACH COMPANY 11037891WWTP: PROBE SLEEVE, KCL CRYSTAL+SOLUTIONPROBE SLEEVE, KCL CRYSTAL+SOLUTION423.000.76.535.80.31.00 566.44Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 114.4010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 70.14Total :750.98232244 7/19/2018076524 HALE, MARY JUNE 2018 MILEAGEJUNE 2018 RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT MILEAGEJUNE 2018 RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT MILEAGE001.000.64.571.23.43.00 25.07Total :25.07232245 7/19/2018060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007J3153WWTP: VALVES VALVES423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,593.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 24.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 166.62Total :1,784.2514Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232246 7/19/2018072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 42669EDMONDS WATERFRONT PARK REEDMONDS WATERFRONT PARK REDEVELOPMENT125.000.64.594.76.65.41 1,144.21Total :1,144.21232247 7/19/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1024919TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 33.8110.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.38WATER - SUPPLIES1073863Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.9010.0% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.49CITY HALL - SUPPLIES2011295City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.1310.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.71CITY HALL - SUPPLIES2023345City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.5510.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.26STREET - SUPPLIES2092973Street - Supplies111.000.68.542.71.31.00 3.9810.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.31.00 0.40LS 10 - SUPPLIES2200969LS 10 - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 108.9410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.89SEWER - RETURNS225313915Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232247 7/19/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESSewer - Returns423.000.75.535.80.31.00 -59.6410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 -5.96STORM - LOCK FOR UNION OUTFALL25117Storm - Lock for Union Outfall422.000.72.531.40.31.00 17.4810.0% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.75FAC - SUPPLIES25157FAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.6210.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.06FAC - SUPPLIES25188FAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.7810.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.97PS - GATE FLIP LATCH3023298PS - Gate Flip Latch001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.6710.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.37FAC MAINT - UNITS 5,42 - SUPPLIES5024421Fac Maint - Units 5,42 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 176.3510.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.64SEWER - PARTS6053964Sewer - Parts423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.8010.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.5816Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232247 7/19/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESCITY PARK - PICNIC SHELTER ROOF MATERIAL7021119City Park - Picnic Shelter Roof Material001.000.66.518.30.31.00 349.8610.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 34.99STREET - PARTS FOR TRIMMER8564620Street - Parts for Trimmer111.000.68.542.71.31.00 24.9910.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.31.00 2.50STORM - SUPPLIES8572632Storm - Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 7.9410.0% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 0.78CITY HALL - HAVC SUPPLIES9023737City Hall - HAVC Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.4010.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.14LS 10 - SUPPLIES9093397LS 10 - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.9810.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.30STREET - SUPPLIES9564438Street - Supplies111.000.68.542.90.31.00 25.4910.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.31.00 2.55LS 10 - SUPPLIES -SEE 6/25 RETURNED9567421LS 10 - Supplies -see 6/25 Returned423.000.75.535.80.31.00 59.6410.0% Sales Tax17Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232247 7/19/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.96Total :1,053.43232248 7/19/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3121170CHAIR FOR B TULEYChair for B Tuley512.000.31.518.88.35.00 569.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.35.00 58.61OFFICE DESK/CHAIR3126033Office Desk and Chair001.000.62.524.10.35.00 2,834.71Total :3,462.32232249 7/19/2018076702 KONE CONSULTING LLC 1290JUNE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE PROJECTJune invoice for Homelessness Response001.000.11.511.60.41.00 8,578.00Total :8,578.00232250 7/19/2018073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 07765WWTP: POLYMERPolymer423.000.76.535.80.31.51 5,686.1410.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.51 585.67Total :6,271.81232251 7/19/2018017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07102018-01INV#07102018-01 EDMONDS PD - JULY 201822 CAR WASHES $5.06 (INC TX)001.000.41.521.22.48.00 111.32Total :111.32232252 7/19/2018073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Jul-1807-18 LEGALS FEES07-18 Legal fees001.000.36.515.31.41.00 46,119.42Total :46,119.42232253 7/19/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 67287642WWTP: HAMMER+PVC BARS18Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232253 7/19/2018(Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COAir powered needle scaler/chiseling423.000.76.535.80.35.00 477.90pvc bars423.000.76.535.80.31.00 85.52Freight423.000.76.535.80.35.00 17.25Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.09Total :583.76232254 7/19/2018076707 MERGIA, MARTA 7/11 REFUND 7/11 REFUND7/11 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00232255 7/19/2018072939 MULTI-CRAFT PLASTICS 1129822TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 137.9510.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 14.21Total :152.16232256 7/19/2018064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0509329-INSEWER - SUPPLIESSewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 210.6010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.69Total :232.29232257 7/19/2018065720 OFFICE DEPOT 159457699001INV#159457699001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS810838 FOLDER LETTER 1/3 CUT 100 BX001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.36395991 POST-IT FLAG ASTD CLR 4PK001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.32517227 BLUE PEN, BALL RETRACT, FLEX ME19Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232257 7/19/2018(Continued)065720 OFFICE DEPOT001.000.41.521.10.31.00 17.98517235 BLACK PEN BALL RETRACT FLEX ME001.000.41.521.10.31.00 47.28221044 STAPLE 1/4" 15-15 SHT, 5000B001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.2210.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.84INV#159462302001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS159462302001305706 PAD PERF 8.5"X11 OD 12PK LG001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.3210.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1.47INV#159462303001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS159462303001SANITIZER HAND PURELL 8 OZ001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.3610.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.67Total :149.82232258 7/19/2018065051 PARAMETRIX INC 02359WWTP: TO 2.2017 4/1-5/26/18TO 2.2017 4/1-5/26/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 950.00WWTP: TO 3.2017 4/1-5/26/1802613TO 3.2017 4/1-5/26/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5,982.50WWTP: TO 1.2017 5/27-1-6/30/1802934TO 1.2017 5/27-6/30/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 887.50WWTP: TO 2.2017 5/27-6/30/1802935TO 2.2017 5/27-6/30/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 903.86WWTP: TO 3.2017 5/27-6/30/1802936TO 3.2017 5/27-6/30/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,012.5020Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :9,736.36232258 7/19/2018 065051 065051 PARAMETRIX INC232259 7/19/2018 076705 PARK WAREHOUSE LLC 177458BENCHBENCH127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1,729.2210.3% Sales Tax127.000.64.575.50.31.00 178.11Total :1,907.33232260 7/19/2018027450 PAWSPAWS 6/2018ANIMAL SHELTERING - JUNE 2018 - EDMONDS7 ANIMALS @ $181.00 - $75. (RECLAIM001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,192.00Total :1,192.00232261 7/19/2018076496 PERRY, CLIFFORD 7/15 PARK CONCERT 7/15 PARK CONCERT PERRY7/15 PARK CONCERT PERRY117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00Total :700.00232262 7/19/2018074793 PETDATA INC 6836INV#6836 - EDMONDS PD - JUN 201843 1 YEAR LICENSES 43 @ $3.90 = $167.70001.000.41.521.70.41.00 167.701 REPLACEMENT TAG FEE001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.90LATE FEES COLLECTED 10 @ $2.50 = $250.00001.000.41.521.70.41.00 25.00Total :196.60232263 7/19/2018028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY R206011UNIT E156WR - PARTSUnit E156WR - Parts511.100.77.594.48.64.00 456.91Freight511.100.77.594.48.64.00 16.1710.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 48.73WWTP: WWTP: RINGS+XHHW-14 STR CUR76921521Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232263 7/19/2018(Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLYRINGS & XHHW-14 STR CU423.000.76.535.80.48.00 52.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5.36Total :579.17232264 7/19/2018029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITYPORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY422.000.72.531.90.51.00 3,352.64Total :3,352.64232265 7/19/2018 074853 PRECOR COMMERCIAL FITNESS 26624SERVICE CALLSERVICE CALL001.000.64.571.27.48.00 230.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.27.48.00 23.70Total :253.70232266 7/19/2018030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000184940INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HANNAFORDINSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HANNAFORD130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-EISENZIMMER00000184941INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-EISENZIMMER130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-PARKER00000184942INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-PARKER130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00MARKER/INSCRIPTION-CALENDAR00000185108MARKER/INSCRIPTION-CALENDAR130.000.64.536.20.34.00 185.00Total :605.00232267 7/19/2018074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 2990WWTP: CERIDAPHNIA DUBIA ACUTE TESTCERIDAPHNIA DUBIA ACUTE TEST423.000.76.535.80.41.00 600.0022Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :600.00232267 7/19/2018 074712 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB232268 7/19/2018 066977 RHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC 91974ROADWAY - SUPPLIESRoadway - Supplies111.000.68.542.31.31.00 327.95Freight111.000.68.542.31.31.00 118.06Total :446.01232269 7/19/2018076709 ROSEN, MICHAEL 2018-001CONSULTING PROMOTING ECONOMConsulting services for promotion of001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,000.00Total :1,000.00232270 7/19/2018072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC 61419980WWTP: SCREWS,BUSHINGS,BUSHISCREWS, BUSHINGS, BUSHING SLEEVES,423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,525.58Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 15.23Total :1,540.81232271 7/19/2018067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 18-3460SEWER - SUPPLIESSewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 316.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 32.55Total :348.55232272 7/19/2018036955 SKY NURSERY T-1178438SEWER - LS 10 - SUPPLIESSewer - LS 10 - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 179.9410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.99PM: BEGONIA BASKETT-1197847PM: BEGONIA BASKET130.000.64.536.50.31.00 109.9823Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232272 7/19/2018(Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY10.0% Sales Tax130.000.64.536.50.31.00 11.00Total :318.91232273 7/19/2018075590 SMARSH INV0038105906-18 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVICENetGuard Monthly Service Building001.000.62.524.20.42.00 30.00NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk001.000.25.514.30.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Community001.000.61.557.20.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Court001.000.23.512.50.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Development001.000.62.524.10.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Engineering001.000.67.518.21.42.00 96.00NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities001.000.66.518.30.42.00 48.00NetGuard Monthly Service Finance001.000.31.514.23.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Human Resources001.000.22.518.10.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Information512.000.31.518.88.42.00 18.00NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Parks001.000.64.571.21.42.00 12.00NetGuard Monthly Service Parks001.000.64.576.80.42.00 12.00NetGuard Monthly Service Police001.000.41.521.22.42.00 264.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water24Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232273 7/19/2018(Continued)075590 SMARSH421.000.74.534.80.42.00 36.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water/Sewer421.000.74.534.80.42.00 3.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water/Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 3.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet511.000.77.548.68.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.10NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.60NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.10NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.60NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0.60NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 72.00Total :714.00232274 7/19/2018 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4WWTP: 6/6-7/5/18 FLOWMETER 1000541493: 26/6-7/5/18 FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 /423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.1725Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232274 7/19/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER2004-9683-4LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 71.68CITY PARK RESTROOMS2006-5085-1CITY PARK RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.77PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 686.32TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 27.86SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 17.42HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8HICKMAN PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 24.34PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.74TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 160.31CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.75ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.889TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5062-79TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.17TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER26Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232274 7/19/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1111.000.68.542.64.47.00 76.75SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.32LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 49.14TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW / METE2205-4757-4TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 63.44VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278221732084VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278001.000.64.576.80.47.00 94.47Total :1,460.53232275 7/19/2018 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 72903PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEESPARKS MAINT DUMP FEES001.000.64.576.80.47.00 984.00Total :984.00232276 7/19/2018067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 00564EVENT REGISTRATION: JULY SCC MEMBER MEETEVENT REGISTRATION: JULY SCC MEMBER001.000.62.524.10.49.00 35.00Total :35.00232277 7/19/2018075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC 45631INV#45631 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PDSTR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF. EVIDENCE ~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 825.00INV#45634 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45634STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE ~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,650.00INV#45635 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45635STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 275.00Total :2,750.0027Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232278 7/19/2018038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757WWTP: 6/2018 ROLLOFF ASH DISPOSAL+TAXES6/2018 Ash disposal & taxes423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,820.06Total :3,820.06232279 7/19/2018039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L12613806-18 AUDIT FEES06-18 Audit Fees001.000.39.514.20.51.00 14,600.0506-18 Audit Fees111.000.68.543.30.51.00 431.3806-18 Audit Fees421.000.74.534.80.51.00 5,316.8206-18 Audit Fees422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,854.0206-18 Audit Fees423.000.75.535.80.51.00 7,514.2706-18 Audit Fees423.000.76.535.80.51.00 1,969.4006-18 Audit Fees511.000.77.548.68.51.00 752.56Total :33,438.50232280 7/19/2018076710 STREET CRIMES 22148INV#22148 EDMONDS PDSTREET CRIMES SEMINAR - EDMONDS, WA001.000.41.521.40.49.00 598.00Total :598.00232281 7/19/2018065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 22563SEWER - LS 5 REPLACED UPSSewer - LS 5 Replaced UPS423.000.75.535.80.48.00 456.3810.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.48.00 47.01SEWER LS 5 - TROUBLESHOOT22564Sewer LS 5 - Troubleshoot423.000.75.535.80.48.00 393.0028Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :896.39232281 7/19/2018 065578 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC232282 7/19/2018 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18205122STORM - MARKING PAINTStorm - Marking Paint422.000.72.531.40.31.00 284.4010.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 29.29Total :313.69232283 7/19/2018075691 TIBBOTT, NEIL 071318REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPEMileage reimbursement for trip to001.000.11.511.60.43.00 174.40Total :174.40232284 7/19/2018074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 6590 SOCCER CAMP6590 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTION6590 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,277.00Total :2,277.00232285 7/19/2018070902 ULVESTAD, KAREN 6493 PHOTO6493 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTO CAMP INSTRUCTION6493 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTO CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 364.50Total :364.50232286 7/19/2018 062693 US BANK 0781CITY COUNCIL VISA FOR CONFERENCE & SUPPLRed Lion Hotel for AWC Conference -001.000.11.511.60.43.00 246.30Displays2Go - Podium for Council events001.000.11.511.60.31.00 118.46SnoCo Cities Dinner for Dave Teitzel001.000.11.511.60.43.00 35.00Total :399.76232287 7/19/2018068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0790421-WAINV 0790421-WA ACCT 001447 EDMOND PDVACCINE - HEPATITIS B - K. ROUSSEAU001.000.41.521.10.41.00 94.0029Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 57Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :94.00232287 7/19/2018 068724068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA232288 7/19/2018 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 8060130UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTERUTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER421.000.74.534.80.41.00 133.67UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER422.000.72.531.90.41.00 133.67UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER423.000.75.535.80.41.00 137.72Total :405.06232289 7/19/2018 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9810047339C/A 442201730-00001iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 35.12Total :35.12232290 7/19/2018061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH DRAN.FX.00056126INV#DRAN.FX.00056126 EDMONDS PD - RENEWAANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL PERMIT001.000.41.521.70.31.00 40.00Total :40.00232291 7/19/2018075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.02-7CIVIC FIELD SURVEYCIVIC FIELD SURVEY125.000.64.594.76.65.41 158.49CIVIC FIELD SURVEY423.200.75.594.35.65.41 158.48Total :316.97232292 7/19/2018067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I18-478WATER - 18520 90TH AVE W TREE REMOVALWater - 18520 90th Ave W Tree Removal421.000.74.534.80.48.00 1,250.0010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.48.00 128.75STREET - 8808 233RD PL SW TREE REMOVALI18-482Street - 8808 233rd Pl SW Tree Removal111.000.68.542.71.48.00 840.0030Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 58Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232292 7/19/2018(Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS10.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.48.00 86.52STREET - 23705 74TH AVE W TREE REMOVALI18-483Street - 23705 74th Ave W Tree Removal111.000.68.542.71.48.00 580.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.48.00 59.74STREET - OVD & 76TH TREES REMOVALI18-484Street - OVD & 76th Trees Removal111.000.68.542.71.48.00 950.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.48.00 97.85Total :3,992.86232293 7/19/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10741223PM: WAXED BAGS, SEAT COVERS, LINERS,PM: WAXED BAGS, SEAT COVERS, LINERS,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,237.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 127.43Total :1,364.63232294 7/19/2018 075254 YAKIMA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES J305332018 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RACK SPACE STO2018 Interlocal agreement for Rack512.000.31.518.87.45.00 2,700.00Total :2,700.00232295 7/19/2018051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 23143TRAFFIC - SIGN BLANKSTraffic - Sign Blanks111.000.68.542.64.31.00 62.00Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.9110.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.41Total :79.3231Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 59Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmountBank total : 390,747.2099 Vouchers for bank code :usbank390,747.20Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report9932Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 60Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/16/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds111:00:53AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7162018 7/16/2018062693 US BANK 1683FRONT COUNTER COPY MACHINE COURTFRONT COUNTER COPY MACHINE COURT001.000.23.512.50.45.00 22.40PROBATION COPY MACHINE001.000.23.523.30.45.00 33.69PASSPORT POSTAGE001.000.23.512.50.42.00 154.10LAW AND JUSTICE STAKEHOLDERS MEETING001.000.23.512.50.49.00 73.88COURT/PROBATION SHRED 05/23/2018001.000.23.512.50.49.00 4.83TONER FAX COURTROOM001.000.23.523.30.31.00 53.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.45.00 2.3110.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.523.30.45.00 3.4710.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.49.00 3.4910.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.523.30.31.00 5.57INV#1885 07/06/2018 - POLICE #2 - EDMOND1885SHELL OIL - LONGVIEW, WA - R. SMITH001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00PEPPERMILL HOTEL - RENO - NATIONAL001.000.41.521.40.43.00 908.35INV#2519 07/06/2018 - POLICE #1 - EDMOND2519DOLLAR RENT A CAR - DENVER, CO - FORCE001.000.41.521.40.43.00 408.25FAIRFIELD INN - AURORA, CO - D. MACHADO001.000.41.521.40.43.00 669.60FAIRFIELD INN - AURORA, CO - 6-7-18 (1001.000.41.521.40.43.00 167.40FEDEX - 772385106875 - WSP 2015-3011 -1Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 61Attachment: wire 07-16-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/16/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds211:00:53AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7162018 7/16/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.41.521.10.42.00 12.59DOUG FOX AIRPORT PARKING - D. MACHADO001.000.41.521.40.43.00 110.07FEDEX - 772377772440 - WSP 18-13275,001.000.41.521.10.42.00 21.32FEDEX - 772460214327 - SORENSON001.000.41.521.10.42.00 106.92FEDEX - 772449693703 - WSP TOXICOLOGY -001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.85FEDEX - 772523808900 - WSP TOXICOLOGY -001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.97FEDEX - 772545356101 - WSP TOXICOLGY -001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.97WWTP: CITC GROUNDING/BONDING CLASS FOR J2985CITC GROUNDING/BONDING CLASS FOR423.000.76.535.80.49.71 119.00WWTP: AMAZON CREDIT FOR MISSING DELIVERY2985Amazon credited back for page markers423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -5.50INV#3048 07/06/2018 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS3048LEMAY MOBIL SHREDDING 05-23-2018 CONF001.000.41.521.10.41.00 14.49AMAZON - HEPA FILTERS - S. HAWLEY001.000.41.521.11.35.00 48.74AMAZON - UNDER ARMOUR MEN'S STELLAR TAC001.000.41.521.22.24.00 103.09AMAZON - ZIPLOC BAGS, PENDAFLEX,001.000.41.521.10.31.00 81.66GALLS - UNDER ARMOUR 7" SPEED FREEK TAX001.000.41.521.22.24.00 145.58OMNIVORE - OCEAN SYSTEMS 1 YEAR001.000.41.521.21.48.00 99.00C&M TROPHY - RETIREMENT PLAQUE - T.001.000.41.521.10.31.00 93.762Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 62Attachment: wire 07-16-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/16/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds311:00:53AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7162018 7/16/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKAMAZON - STREAMLIGHT BATTER STICK -001.000.41.521.22.31.00 393.69INV#3314 07/06/2018 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS3314BUSHNELL MO CHARGE DATE ON TRAIL -001.000.41.521.22.42.00 9.99NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIELD TRAINING001.000.41.521.22.49.00 750.00KUKER RANKIN - TG11-M SAFETY APPAREL001.000.41.521.71.24.00 52.94AMAZON - ISREALI BANDAGES 30 - SWAT628.000.41.521.23.31.00 311.20AMAZON - KESON FTG RIBBON MARKER FLAG628.000.41.521.23.31.00 45.60AMAZON - BRADY RED FLAG TAPE, 12 PK628.000.41.521.23.31.00 108.32NORTH AMERICAN RESCUE - COMBAT APP628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,070.37JULY SCC MEETING4697Snohomish County Cities July Meeting --001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00Thornquist/Dreyer/Hynd retirement001.000.21.513.10.41.00 195.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.41.00 20.38RECORDING & LEMAY SHREDDING5593SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF LIENS421.000.74.534.80.49.00 92.50SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF LIENS423.000.75.535.80.49.00 92.50SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING 6/25/2018001.000.25.514.30.49.00 103.00INVOICE# 4568457 SHREDDING SERVICES001.000.25.514.30.41.00 19.32INVOICE# 4568457 SHREDDING SERVICES3Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 63Attachment: wire 07-16-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/16/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds411:00:53AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7162018 7/16/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.31.514.23.41.00 19.32DIV PARADE REG,OFFICESPACE, LEIS, REFRES5923Creative District Designation public001.000.61.558.70.31.00 49.02Diversity Commission 4th of July parade001.000.61.557.20.49.00 25.00Diversity Commission parade supplies001.000.61.557.20.31.00 60.00OfficeSpace website listing for June001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.00AWC BUDGET & FIN MGMT WORKS7081AWC - Budget & Financial Management001.000.31.514.23.49.00 200.00AWC ANNUAL CONFERENCE7483accommodations & incidentals001.000.21.513.10.43.00 375.45ENG CREDIT CARD JUNE 20188017In/Out Board~001.000.67.518.21.49.00 113.72E7FG.Testing Supplies422.000.72.594.31.65.41 70.64INV#8349 07/06/2018 - ANDERSON - EDMONDS8349U-PRINTING - DBLE SIDED MEDIA001.000.41.521.40.41.40 580.98WFOA TRAINING FOR D SHARP8842WFOA - Presenting Yourself Confidently001.000.31.514.23.49.00 125.00AWC TRAINING, WFOA CONFERENCE FOR D TURL9573AWC - Budget & Finance Management001.000.31.514.23.49.00 200.00WFOA Conference Registration for D001.000.31.514.23.49.00 500.00INV#9821 07/06/2018 - GREENMUN - EDMONDS9821WATAI - CRUSH ENERGY ANALYSIS -001.000.41.521.40.49.00 530.004Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 64Attachment: wire 07-16-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/16/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds511:00:53AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7162018 7/16/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKAKERLEATHER - BASKETWEAVE BATON STRAP001.000.41.521.22.35.00 316.00SUPERSAAS - SNO CO TRAINING - $8.00001.000.41.521.10.41.00 8.00PRACTICAL EDGE SHOOTING - SUPERVISOR001.000.41.521.40.49.00 250.00WA STATE POLICE CANINE ASSOC / WSPCA -001.000.41.521.26.49.00 50.00TRANSUNION - BILLING STATEMENT TLOXP001.000.41.521.40.41.00 48.65BLADE-TECH - R. HOLSTER FOR TASER X26P001.000.41.521.40.35.00 132.33BATTERYMART - MOTOROLA HI-CAP001.000.41.521.22.35.00 353.07BID/ED! ADVERTISING,BID-0907BId/Ed! facebook ads, sponsored content140.000.61.558.70.41.40 57.39Total :11,003.21Bank total : 11,003.211 Vouchers for bank code :usbank11,003.21Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report15Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 65Attachment: wire 07-16-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/18/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds111:13:35AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7182018 7/18/2018062693 US BANK 0091AUG VISA STATEMENT - EWJOB POSTING - WATER WORKS ASSOC001.000.22.518.10.41.40 90.00HR SUPPLIES001.000.22.518.10.31.00 41.90WELLNESS EVENT - PW001.000.22.518.10.31.10 127.65RECURRING JOB POSTING SUBSCRIPTION001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00WELLNESS EVENT-PW001.000.22.518.10.31.10 171.4710 BARREL - FLEET MGMT TRAINING - LUNCH1937San Urban CRV - Fleet Mgmt Training -511.000.77.548.68.43.00 21.9610 Barrel - Fleet Mgmt Training - Lunch511.000.77.548.68.43.00 19.16Ajax Parking - Fleet Mgmt Training -511.000.77.548.68.43.00 44.06The Prop Shop - Unit M16 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 50.78Amazon - Unit 27 - WeatherTech cargo511.000.77.548.68.31.10 111.01Home Depot - Unit E154SO - Supplies511.100.77.594.48.64.00 113.60Home Depot - Fleet Small Tool511.000.77.548.68.35.00 141.90Hard Rock SD MJS - Fleet Mgmt Training511.000.77.548.68.43.00 20.24UPS Store - Fleet Returns511.000.77.548.68.42.00 20.90Good to Go - Unit 776511.000.77.548.68.48.00 30.00CarQuest - Unit 8 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.891Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 66Attachment: wire 07-18-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/18/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds211:13:35AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7182018 7/18/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKAmazon - Brake Supplies Unit 35511.000.77.548.68.31.10 75.77Amazon - Fleet - Small Tools511.000.77.548.68.35.00 40.49Good2Go - Unit 776511.000.77.548.68.48.00 30.00Home Depot - Unit 628 Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 42.49Amazon - Fleet Shop Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.20 76.51AMAZON - CELL PHONE SHIELDS FAC MAIN3535Amazon - Cell phone Shields Fac Main001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.68Amazon - Cell phone Case Fac Maint001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.10Gensco - Pleated Filters - Fac Maint001.000.66.518.30.31.00 492.67Clearstream - Compostable Bags - Recycle421.000.74.537.90.49.00 171.70KCAWWA - Control Valve Svc Training421.000.74.534.80.49.00 80.00SMART SIGN - RESTROOM SIGNAGE4519Smart Sign - Restroom Signage001.000.66.518.30.31.00 64.78K & N Filters - Yost Pool Filter001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.61City of Edmonds- Parks Shed Permit125.000.64.594.76.65.00 808.554675 PARKS CREDIT CARD4675STARBUCKS: COFFEE FOR COUNCIL MTG001.000.64.571.21.31.00 18.70MCMASTER-CARR: GYMNASTICS DUCT TAPE001.000.64.571.28.31.00 56.75MCMASTER-CARR: GYMNASTICS WHEEL FOR2Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 67Attachment: wire 07-18-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/18/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds311:13:35AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7182018 7/18/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.64.571.28.31.00 17.89AMAZON: RANGER STATION SUPPLIES, FAN001.000.64.571.23.31.00 45.04AMAZON: RANGER VESTS001.000.64.571.23.31.00 73.68NORBERTS ATHLETIC SUPPLY: HOOK FASTENER001.000.64.571.28.31.00 137.34AMAZON: BEACH DOCENT SUPPLIE POCKET001.000.64.571.23.31.00 15.28USPS: SENT POSTER FOR RANGER STATION TO001.000.64.571.23.42.00 3.75AMAZON: BANKERS BOXES001.000.64.571.21.31.00 42.04AMAZON: RECEIPT ROLLS, RUBBER BANDS001.000.64.571.21.31.00 33.01SURECRETE: PM:001.000.64.576.80.31.00 176.31COLOPLAK: POSTER MOUNT FOR RANGER001.000.64.571.23.49.00 90.00FISHER SCIENTIFIC: DISCOVERY LUMILOUPE001.000.64.571.23.31.00 35.81AMAZON: WALL FILE, HANGING FILE FOLDERS001.000.64.571.21.31.00 26.30AMAZON: PM AIR FLOW GUAGE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 212.42AMAZON: ROUND UP PRO001.000.64.576.80.31.00 82.64AMAZON: PM: TRASH DOME LIDS001.000.64.576.80.35.00 492.16AMAZON: DISCOVERY: PROJECTOR FOR RANGER001.000.64.571.23.35.00 495.19AMAZON: COMMAND MOUNTING STRIPS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 14.91ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE3Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 68Attachment: wire 07-18-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/18/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds411:13:35AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7182018 7/18/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.64.571.22.49.00 39.00AWC: WEBINAR POST JANUS001.000.64.571.21.49.00 25.00AMAZON: KEYBOARD & MOUSE RANKINS001.000.64.571.22.35.00 48.52AMAZON: COPY PAPER001.000.64.571.22.31.00 93.76AMAZON: NOTARY SUPPLIES001.000.64.571.21.31.00 47.41AMAZON: BOXES FOR ROLLED MAPS001.000.64.571.21.31.00 44.11AMAZON: STEEL SHELVING UNITS001.000.64.571.21.35.00 230.26REFUND: AMAZON: FILE FOLDER4675AMAZON: BROKEN FILE FOLDER REFUND001.000.64.571.21.31.00 -20.82VEEAM SUPPORT, NUC, DOMAIN NAME REGISTRA5179Amazon - Meter Multimode Duplex Fiber512.000.31.518.88.31.00 30.86CDW-G - Veeam Standard Support - Qty 3512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,300.83Amazon - Club3D CAC-1517 USB-C to512.000.31.518.88.31.00 63.96BulkRegister - Domain Name Registration512.000.31.518.88.49.00 13.95FiberStore - Cisco SFP-10G-SR512.000.31.518.88.31.00 40.50BulkRegister - SSL Certificate -512.000.31.518.88.49.00 198.00Lifesize Video Conferencing Camera 200001.000.23.512.50.35.00 35.00BulkRegister - 3 yr Membership512.000.31.518.88.49.00 297.00BulkRegister - Domain Name Registration4Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 69Attachment: wire 07-18-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/18/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds511:13:35AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7182018 7/18/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK512.000.31.518.88.49.00 48.64CDW-G - Quantum Back up tapes - Qty 10,512.000.31.518.88.31.00 364.63Newegg.com - Intel NUC Barebone System,001.000.67.518.21.35.00 861.85Newegg.com - ASUS VE248H 24" LED001.000.64.594.75.64.00 143.38Newegg.com - SmartUPS XL 3000512.000.31.518.88.31.00 226.10BULK REGISTER COMM REFUND5179BulkRegister.com - Refund & Reverse512.000.31.518.88.49.00 -29.70Adobe - charged and credited by vendor512.000.31.518.88.49.00 -23.156254 PARKS CR CARD6254NRPA CONFERENCE SESSION: HITE001.000.64.571.21.49.00 45.00NRPA CONFERENCE LODGING: HITE001.000.64.571.21.49.00 197.73ALASKA AIR: TRAVEL HITE NRPA CONFERENCE001.000.64.571.21.43.00 641.40DEV SVS DIR (SHANE HOPE) VISA7000Shane Hope parking and misc travel001.000.62.524.10.43.00 13.75DSD VISA - MISC8083Misc. office supplies001.000.62.524.10.31.00 185.68ULI & Adobe Subscriptions001.000.62.524.10.41.00 275.14Assoc of WA Cities-Shane Hope conference001.000.62.524.10.49.00 396.98Amazon - inspector earthquake kits001.000.62.524.20.35.00 152.33Facebook - Ad5Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 70Attachment: wire 07-18-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/18/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds611:13:35AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount7182018 7/18/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.62.558.60.48.00 15.00ACT Mike Clugston class001.000.62.558.60.49.00 35.00Total :11,167.19Bank total : 11,167.191 Vouchers for bank code :usbank11,167.19Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report16Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 71Attachment: wire 07-18-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232197 7/16/2018074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 38757E6JC.SERVICES THRU MAY 2018E6JC.Services thru May 2018421.000.74.594.34.65.41 553.20Total :553.20232198 7/19/2018041695 3M XAM3522 TP36001TRAFFIC - SIGN SUPPLIESTraffic - Sign Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 382.5010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 39.40TRAFFIC - RED EC FILMTP36002Traffic - Red EC Film111.000.68.542.64.31.00 285.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 29.36Total :736.26232199 7/19/2018070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-60678VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/15/2018VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/15/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 157.09KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/201815-61541KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 184.88KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/06/201815-61679KOREAN INTERPRETER COURT 06/06/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 184.88VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/201815-62053VIETNAMESE INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 157.09SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/201815-62412SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 06/27/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 193.60Total :877.54232200 7/19/2018 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 12185WWTP: PEST CONTROL SERVICE1Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 72Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232200 7/19/2018(Continued)065052 AARD PEST CONTROLPEST CONTROL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.52Total :80.52232201 7/19/2018076711 ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING LLC AST - 08-13-17-2018INV#AST - 08-13-17-2018 - EDMONDS PD - KAST - ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING - K.001.000.41.521.40.49.00 700.00Total :700.00232202 7/19/2018 069156 ADVISARTS INC 7/2BACH CREATIVE DISTRICTS APPLICATION PROCBACH CREATIVE DISTRICTS APPLICATION117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,187.50Total :1,187.50232203 7/19/2018000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 10294MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGESMONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES421.000.74.534.80.33.00 182,448.01Total :182,448.01232204 7/19/2018001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC IN133113ALPHA LABELSALPHA LABELS001.000.23.512.50.31.00 38.7910.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.31.00 3.99Total :42.78232205 7/19/2018071634 ALLSTREAM 15443998C/A 768328PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service512.000.31.518.88.42.00 954.60001.000.61.558.70.42.00 10.16Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines001.000.61.558.70.42.00 10.162Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 73Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :974.92232205 7/19/2018 071634 071634 ALLSTREAM232206 7/19/2018 065568 ALLWATER INC 071218076FINANCE DEPT WATERFinance dept water001.000.31.514.23.31.00 61.33WWTP: 7/13/18 DRINK WATER SERVICE071218077Water services, rental & environmental423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.8010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.38Total :97.51232207 7/19/2018065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 18-0512TREE SERVICE YOST PARKTREE SERVICE YOST PARK001.000.64.576.80.48.00 800.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 82.40TREE SERVICE YOST PARK BROKEN CEDAR18-0518TREE SERVICE YOST PARK BROKEN CEDAR001.000.64.576.80.48.00 300.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 30.90DEBRI CLEAN UP SIERRA PARK18-0524DEBRI CLEAN UP SIERRA PARK001.000.64.576.80.48.00 175.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 18.03TREE SERVICE HICKMAN PARK18-0615TREE SERVICE HICKMAN PARK001.000.64.576.80.48.00 700.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.48.00 72.10Total :2,178.43232208 7/19/2018076500 ALVAREZ, IAN 7/17 HMP CONCERT 7/17 HMP CONCERT7/17 HMP CONCERT3Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 74Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232208 7/19/2018(Continued)076500 ALVAREZ, IAN117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00Total :700.00232209 7/19/2018074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5408416RETIREE PREMIUMS - AUGUST 2018FIRE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,161.12LEOFF PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,160.69Total :9,321.81232210 7/19/2018 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990796584WWTP: 7/11/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATSMats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990796585PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990800421PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.174Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 75Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232210 7/19/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES10.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990800422FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.3010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.18Total :240.06232211 7/19/2018071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1274463-INWWTP: 7/5/18 DIESEL FUELULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (includes423.000.76.535.80.32.00 2,176.8010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.32.00 224.22Total :2,401.02232212 7/19/2018001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 82322UNITS E149BD, E151RE, E154SO - LOGOSUnits E149BD, E151RE, E154SO - Logos511.100.77.594.48.64.00 434.5010.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 44.755Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 76Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :479.25232212 7/19/2018 001795 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS232213 7/19/2018 064706 AWC62566CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FOR D SHARPMunicipal Budget & Finance Mgmt 2018001.000.31.514.23.49.00 200.00Total :200.00232214 7/19/2018075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 30157SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 07/11/2018SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 07/11/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.10Total :106.10232215 7/19/2018069989 BERK CONSULTING INC 10251-06-18 HOUSING STRATEGYHousing Strategy001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,050.63Total :1,050.63232216 7/19/2018076341 BRK THRU DIGITAL LLC BID-1692BID/ED! DIGITAL ADVERTISING JUNE 2018BID/Ed! digital advertising for June140.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,500.00Total :1,500.00232217 7/19/2018076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5524083STORM DUMP FEESStorm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 613.00STORM DUMP FEES5524846Storm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 691.20ROADWAY - ASPHALT5524847Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 539.5710.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 53.96ROADWAY - ASPHALT5525254Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 399.5710.0% Sales Tax6Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 77Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232217 7/19/2018(Continued)076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC111.000.68.542.31.31.00 39.96STORM DUMP FEES5526002Storm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,721.40Total :4,058.66232218 7/19/2018 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 18861313COURT PHOTOCOPY MACHINE RENTALCOURT PHOTOCOPY MACHINE RENTAL001.000.23.512.50.45.00 59.5210.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.45.00 6.13C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091/0521418861314Finance dept copier contract charge001.000.31.514.23.45.00 209.61B&W Meter usage IRC5250 6/1-30/18001.000.31.514.23.45.00 11.46Color Meter usage IRC5250 6/1-30/18001.000.31.514.23.45.00 32.3010.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.45.00 26.10CANON 5250188613175250 contract charges July 2018001.000.22.518.10.45.00 188.655250 contract charges July 2018001.000.61.557.20.45.00 10.485250 contract charges July 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.48bw meter usage June 2018001.000.22.518.10.45.00 17.10bw meter usage June 2018001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.95bw meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.95clr meter usage June 2018001.000.22.518.10.45.00 71.017Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 78Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232218 7/19/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICESclr meter usage June 2018001.000.61.557.20.45.00 3.95clr meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.9410.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.45.00 28.5110.3% Sales Tax001.000.61.557.20.45.00 1.5810.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.59WWTP: 7/2018 MO CHG+6/2018 METER USE CON188613187/2018 MO CHG+6/2018 METER USE423.000.76.535.80.45.00 148.83CANON 250IF18861319contract charge 250IF July 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 26.44bw meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.71clr meter usage June 2018001.000.21.513.10.45.00 17.5310.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.45.00 4.71Total :883.53232219 7/19/2018 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 6526 OCEAN CAMP 6526 OCEAN CAMP INSTRUCTION6526 OCEAN CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 993.30Total :993.30232220 7/19/2018003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 462097SEWER LS1 PUMP 2 REPAIRSSewer LS1 Pump 2 Repairs423.000.75.535.80.48.00 2,339.9310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.48.00 241.018Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 79Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :2,580.94232220 7/19/2018 003320003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC232221 7/19/2018 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I18002361WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSISWater Quality - Water Lab Analysis421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,490.40Total :1,490.40232222 7/19/2018019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 14456INV#14456 CUST #200966 - EDMONDS PDPRISONER R&B MAY 2018001.000.39.523.60.51.00 73.00Total :73.00232223 7/19/2018035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 9056920000WWTP: 5/9-7/9/18 FLOWMETER 879026: 22035/9-7/9/18 FLOW METER #879026 @ 2203 N423.000.76.535.80.47.62 19.52Total :19.52232224 7/19/2018071417 CORE & MAIN LP J012108STORM PIPE SUPPLIESStorm Pipe Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,432.8510.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 250.58STORM - SUPPLIESJ095191Storm - Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 417.3710.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 42.99Total :3,143.79232225 7/19/2018 073423 CREATIVE SERVICES OF D18-17433INV#D18-17433 - EDMONDS PDJUNIOR OFFICER BADGE STICKERS001.000.41.521.22.31.00 469.00Freight001.000.41.521.22.31.00 34.95Total :503.95232226 7/19/2018005965 CUES INC 503562SEWER TV TRUCK SUPPLIES9Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 80Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232226 7/19/2018(Continued)005965 CUES INCFreight423.000.75.535.80.31.00 39.7010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 90.67Sewer TV Truck Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 840.54Total :970.91232227 7/19/2018 068190 DATEC INC 33770INV#33770 - EDMONDS PDPOCKETJET 7 MOBILE PRINTERS ~001.000.41.521.22.35.00 959.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.35.00 98.80Total :1,058.00232228 7/19/2018076013 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP 71579CITY OF EDMONDS URBAN FORESTCITY OF EDMONDS URBAN FOREST001.000.62.558.60.41.00 5,000.00Total :5,000.00232229 7/19/2018006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY JCASTRO-INCIN.EXAMWWTP: JCASTRO INCINERATOR OPERATOR EXAMJCASTRO INCINERATOR OPERATOR EXAM FEE423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.00Total :50.00232230 7/19/2018047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2018060041CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098113-06Scan Services for June 2018512.000.31.518.88.42.00 285.00Total :285.00232231 7/19/2018 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-386207/10/2018 CITY COUNCIL & COMMITTEE MEET07/10/18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES &001.000.25.514.30.41.00 234.60Total :234.60232232 7/19/2018061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 2018 TPA DRIFTWOOD 2018 TPA DRIFTWOOD10Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 81Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232232 7/19/2018(Continued)061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS2018 TPA DRIFTWOOD123.000.64.573.20.41.00 2,400.00Total :2,400.00232233 7/19/2018065739 DTG ENTERPRISES INC 29620STORM - DUMP FEESStorm - Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00Total :120.00232234 7/19/2018067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 029-1718VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTALVOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL001.000.64.571.25.45.00 4,305.00VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL034-1718VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL001.000.64.571.25.45.00 3,630.00Total :7,935.00232235 7/19/2018074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002855PM: SPLIT RING, KEY RINGPM: SPLIT RING, KEY RING001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.5410.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.47PM: SPRAY GUN, UTIL KNIFE, COUPLING002861PM: SPRAY GUN, UTIL KNIFE, COUPLING001.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.1110.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.54Total :53.66232236 7/19/2018074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002853TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 27.9910.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.88Total :30.8711Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 82Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232237 7/19/2018008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 249026INV#249026 CLIENT ID #308 - EDMONDS PDHEARTWORM TEST001.000.41.521.26.41.00 39.00INTERCEPTOR PLUS 50 1-100# bOX OF 6001.000.41.521.26.31.00 137.74CREDELIO 25 1-50# 2 BOXES OF 6 EA001.000.41.521.26.31.00 238.3010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.26.31.00 38.73Total :453.77232238 7/19/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-00080IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINEIRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59INTERURBAN TRAIL5-10351INTERURBAN TRAIL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.79Total :144.38232239 7/19/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH815874CITY NOTICES - 658 MAPLE ST PUBLIC HEARICITY NOTICES- HISTORIC PRESERVATION 658001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.84LEGAL AD: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMD20EDH816183LEGAL AD: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING001.000.62.558.60.41.40 67.08LEGAL AD: APP & PUBLIC HEARING PLN201600EDH816186LEGAL AD: APP & PUBLIC HEARING001.000.62.558.60.41.40 77.40Total :182.32232240 7/19/2018067042 FINAL TOUCH FINISHING 6530 ETIQUETTE 6530 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTION6530 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 300.00Total :300.00232241 7/19/2018011900 FRONTIER 253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE12Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 83Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232241 7/19/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIERPUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.42PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.41PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.41TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 34.21TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.21PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.46PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION111.000.68.542.90.42.00 82.32PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION421.000.74.534.80.42.00 69.15PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION423.000.75.535.80.42.00 69.15PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION511.000.77.548.68.42.00 92.20CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET425-771-4741425-771-4741 CEMETERY PHONE/INTERNET130.000.64.536.20.42.00 127.9313Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 84Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232241 7/19/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIER425-775-1344 RANGER STATION425-775-1344425-775-1344 RANGER STATION001.000.64.571.23.42.00 68.29UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 68.25Total :924.19232242 7/19/2018075538 GAMEZ, OMAR 07172018PROBATION MEETING 07/16/2018 MILEAGEPROBATION MEETING 07/16/2018 MILEAGE001.000.23.523.30.43.00 32.16Total :32.16232243 7/19/2018012560 HACH COMPANY 11037891WWTP: PROBE SLEEVE, KCL CRYSTAL+SOLUTIONPROBE SLEEVE, KCL CRYSTAL+SOLUTION423.000.76.535.80.31.00 566.44Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 114.4010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 70.14Total :750.98232244 7/19/2018076524 HALE, MARY JUNE 2018 MILEAGEJUNE 2018 RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT MILEAGEJUNE 2018 RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT MILEAGE001.000.64.571.23.43.00 25.07Total :25.07232245 7/19/2018060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007J3153WWTP: VALVES VALVES423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,593.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 24.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 166.62Total :1,784.2514Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 85Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232246 7/19/2018072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 42669EDMONDS WATERFRONT PARK REEDMONDS WATERFRONT PARK REDEVELOPMENT125.000.64.594.76.65.41 1,144.21Total :1,144.21232247 7/19/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1024919TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 33.8110.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.38WATER - SUPPLIES1073863Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 24.9010.0% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.49CITY HALL - SUPPLIES2011295City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.1310.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.71CITY HALL - SUPPLIES2023345City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.5510.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.26STREET - SUPPLIES2092973Street - Supplies111.000.68.542.71.31.00 3.9810.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.31.00 0.40LS 10 - SUPPLIES2200969LS 10 - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 108.9410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.89SEWER - RETURNS225313915Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 86Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232247 7/19/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESSewer - Returns423.000.75.535.80.31.00 -59.6410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 -5.96STORM - LOCK FOR UNION OUTFALL25117Storm - Lock for Union Outfall422.000.72.531.40.31.00 17.4810.0% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.75FAC - SUPPLIES25157FAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.6210.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.06FAC - SUPPLIES25188FAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.7810.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.97PS - GATE FLIP LATCH3023298PS - Gate Flip Latch001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.6710.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.37FAC MAINT - UNITS 5,42 - SUPPLIES5024421Fac Maint - Units 5,42 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 176.3510.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.64SEWER - PARTS6053964Sewer - Parts423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.8010.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.5816Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 87Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232247 7/19/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESCITY PARK - PICNIC SHELTER ROOF MATERIAL7021119City Park - Picnic Shelter Roof Material001.000.66.518.30.31.00 349.8610.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 34.99STREET - PARTS FOR TRIMMER8564620Street - Parts for Trimmer111.000.68.542.71.31.00 24.9910.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.31.00 2.50STORM - SUPPLIES8572632Storm - Supplies422.000.72.531.40.31.00 7.9410.0% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 0.78CITY HALL - HAVC SUPPLIES9023737City Hall - HAVC Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.4010.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.14LS 10 - SUPPLIES9093397LS 10 - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.9810.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.30STREET - SUPPLIES9564438Street - Supplies111.000.68.542.90.31.00 25.4910.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.31.00 2.55LS 10 - SUPPLIES -SEE 6/25 RETURNED9567421LS 10 - Supplies -see 6/25 Returned423.000.75.535.80.31.00 59.6410.0% Sales Tax17Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 88Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232247 7/19/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.96Total :1,053.43232248 7/19/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3121170CHAIR FOR B TULEYChair for B Tuley512.000.31.518.88.35.00 569.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.35.00 58.61OFFICE DESK/CHAIR3126033Office Desk and Chair001.000.62.524.10.35.00 2,834.71Total :3,462.32232249 7/19/2018076702 KONE CONSULTING LLC 1290JUNE HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE PROJECTJune invoice for Homelessness Response001.000.11.511.60.41.00 8,578.00Total :8,578.00232250 7/19/2018073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 07765WWTP: POLYMERPolymer423.000.76.535.80.31.51 5,686.1410.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.51 585.67Total :6,271.81232251 7/19/2018017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07102018-01INV#07102018-01 EDMONDS PD - JULY 201822 CAR WASHES $5.06 (INC TX)001.000.41.521.22.48.00 111.32Total :111.32232252 7/19/2018073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Jul-1807-18 LEGALS FEES07-18 Legal fees001.000.36.515.31.41.00 46,119.42Total :46,119.42232253 7/19/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 67287642WWTP: HAMMER+PVC BARS18Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 89Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232253 7/19/2018(Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COAir powered needle scaler/chiseling423.000.76.535.80.35.00 477.90pvc bars423.000.76.535.80.31.00 85.52Freight423.000.76.535.80.35.00 17.25Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.09Total :583.76232254 7/19/2018076707 MERGIA, MARTA 7/11 REFUND 7/11 REFUND7/11 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00232255 7/19/2018072939 MULTI-CRAFT PLASTICS 1129822TRAFFIC - SUPPLIESTraffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 137.9510.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 14.21Total :152.16232256 7/19/2018064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0509329-INSEWER - SUPPLIESSewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 210.6010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.69Total :232.29232257 7/19/2018065720 OFFICE DEPOT 159457699001INV#159457699001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS810838 FOLDER LETTER 1/3 CUT 100 BX001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.36395991 POST-IT FLAG ASTD CLR 4PK001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.32517227 BLUE PEN, BALL RETRACT, FLEX ME19Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 90Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232257 7/19/2018(Continued)065720 OFFICE DEPOT001.000.41.521.10.31.00 17.98517235 BLACK PEN BALL RETRACT FLEX ME001.000.41.521.10.31.00 47.28221044 STAPLE 1/4" 15-15 SHT, 5000B001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.2210.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.84INV#159462302001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS159462302001305706 PAD PERF 8.5"X11 OD 12PK LG001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.3210.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1.47INV#159462303001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS159462303001SANITIZER HAND PURELL 8 OZ001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.3610.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.67Total :149.82232258 7/19/2018065051 PARAMETRIX INC 02359WWTP: TO 2.2017 4/1-5/26/18TO 2.2017 4/1-5/26/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 950.00WWTP: TO 3.2017 4/1-5/26/1802613TO 3.2017 4/1-5/26/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5,982.50WWTP: TO 1.2017 5/27-1-6/30/1802934TO 1.2017 5/27-6/30/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 887.50WWTP: TO 2.2017 5/27-6/30/1802935TO 2.2017 5/27-6/30/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 903.86WWTP: TO 3.2017 5/27-6/30/1802936TO 3.2017 5/27-6/30/18423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,012.5020Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 91Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :9,736.36232258 7/19/2018 065051 065051 PARAMETRIX INC232259 7/19/2018 076705 PARK WAREHOUSE LLC 177458BENCHBENCH127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1,729.2210.3% Sales Tax127.000.64.575.50.31.00 178.11Total :1,907.33232260 7/19/2018027450 PAWSPAWS 6/2018ANIMAL SHELTERING - JUNE 2018 - EDMONDS7 ANIMALS @ $181.00 - $75. (RECLAIM001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,192.00Total :1,192.00232261 7/19/2018076496 PERRY, CLIFFORD 7/15 PARK CONCERT 7/15 PARK CONCERT PERRY7/15 PARK CONCERT PERRY117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00Total :700.00232262 7/19/2018074793 PETDATA INC 6836INV#6836 - EDMONDS PD - JUN 201843 1 YEAR LICENSES 43 @ $3.90 = $167.70001.000.41.521.70.41.00 167.701 REPLACEMENT TAG FEE001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.90LATE FEES COLLECTED 10 @ $2.50 = $250.00001.000.41.521.70.41.00 25.00Total :196.60232263 7/19/2018028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY R206011UNIT E156WR - PARTSUnit E156WR - Parts511.100.77.594.48.64.00 456.91Freight511.100.77.594.48.64.00 16.1710.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 48.73WWTP: WWTP: RINGS+XHHW-14 STR CUR76921521Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 92Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232263 7/19/2018(Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLYRINGS & XHHW-14 STR CU423.000.76.535.80.48.00 52.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5.36Total :579.17232264 7/19/2018029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITYPORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY422.000.72.531.90.51.00 3,352.64Total :3,352.64232265 7/19/2018 074853 PRECOR COMMERCIAL FITNESS 26624SERVICE CALLSERVICE CALL001.000.64.571.27.48.00 230.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.27.48.00 23.70Total :253.70232266 7/19/2018030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000184940INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HANNAFORDINSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-HANNAFORD130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-EISENZIMMER00000184941INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-EISENZIMMER130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-PARKER00000184942INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-PARKER130.000.64.536.20.34.00 140.00MARKER/INSCRIPTION-CALENDAR00000185108MARKER/INSCRIPTION-CALENDAR130.000.64.536.20.34.00 185.00Total :605.00232267 7/19/2018074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 2990WWTP: CERIDAPHNIA DUBIA ACUTE TESTCERIDAPHNIA DUBIA ACUTE TEST423.000.76.535.80.41.00 600.0022Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 93Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :600.00232267 7/19/2018 074712 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB232268 7/19/2018 066977 RHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC 91974ROADWAY - SUPPLIESRoadway - Supplies111.000.68.542.31.31.00 327.95Freight111.000.68.542.31.31.00 118.06Total :446.01232269 7/19/2018076709 ROSEN, MICHAEL 2018-001CONSULTING PROMOTING ECONOMConsulting services for promotion of001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,000.00Total :1,000.00232270 7/19/2018072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC 61419980WWTP: SCREWS,BUSHINGS,BUSHISCREWS, BUSHINGS, BUSHING SLEEVES,423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,525.58Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 15.23Total :1,540.81232271 7/19/2018067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 18-3460SEWER - SUPPLIESSewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 316.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 32.55Total :348.55232272 7/19/2018036955 SKY NURSERY T-1178438SEWER - LS 10 - SUPPLIESSewer - LS 10 - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 179.9410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.99PM: BEGONIA BASKETT-1197847PM: BEGONIA BASKET130.000.64.536.50.31.00 109.9823Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 94Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232272 7/19/2018(Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY10.0% Sales Tax130.000.64.536.50.31.00 11.00Total :318.91232273 7/19/2018075590 SMARSH INV0038105906-18 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVICENetGuard Monthly Service Building001.000.62.524.20.42.00 30.00NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk001.000.25.514.30.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Community001.000.61.557.20.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Court001.000.23.512.50.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Development001.000.62.524.10.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Engineering001.000.67.518.21.42.00 96.00NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities001.000.66.518.30.42.00 48.00NetGuard Monthly Service Finance001.000.31.514.23.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Human Resources001.000.22.518.10.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Information512.000.31.518.88.42.00 18.00NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service Parks001.000.64.571.21.42.00 12.00NetGuard Monthly Service Parks001.000.64.576.80.42.00 12.00NetGuard Monthly Service Police001.000.41.521.22.42.00 264.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water24Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 95Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232273 7/19/2018(Continued)075590 SMARSH421.000.74.534.80.42.00 36.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water/Sewer421.000.74.534.80.42.00 3.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water/Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 3.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet511.000.77.548.68.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.10NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.60NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.10NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.60NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admin423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0.60NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.00NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 72.00Total :714.00232274 7/19/2018 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4WWTP: 6/6-7/5/18 FLOWMETER 1000541493: 26/6-7/5/18 FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 /423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.1725Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 96Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232274 7/19/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER2004-9683-4LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 71.68CITY PARK RESTROOMS2006-5085-1CITY PARK RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 33.77PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 686.32TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 27.86SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 17.42HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8HICKMAN PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 24.34PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW D2014-3123-6PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLYMPIC VIEW111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.74TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 160.31CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.75ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.889TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5062-79TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.17TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER26Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 97Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232274 7/19/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1111.000.68.542.64.47.00 76.75SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.32LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 49.14TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW / METE2205-4757-4TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 63.44VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278221732084VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278001.000.64.576.80.47.00 94.47Total :1,460.53232275 7/19/2018 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 72903PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEESPARKS MAINT DUMP FEES001.000.64.576.80.47.00 984.00Total :984.00232276 7/19/2018067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 00564EVENT REGISTRATION: JULY SCC MEMBER MEETEVENT REGISTRATION: JULY SCC MEMBER001.000.62.524.10.49.00 35.00Total :35.00232277 7/19/2018075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC 45631INV#45631 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PDSTR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF. EVIDENCE ~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 825.00INV#45634 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45634STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE ~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,650.00INV#45635 - EDMPOL - EDMONDS PD45635STR ANALYSIS - NON-DIFF EVIDENCE~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 275.00Total :2,750.0027Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 98Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232278 7/19/2018038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757WWTP: 6/2018 ROLLOFF ASH DISPOSAL+TAXES6/2018 Ash disposal & taxes423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,820.06Total :3,820.06232279 7/19/2018039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L12613806-18 AUDIT FEES06-18 Audit Fees001.000.39.514.20.51.00 14,600.0506-18 Audit Fees111.000.68.543.30.51.00 431.3806-18 Audit Fees421.000.74.534.80.51.00 5,316.8206-18 Audit Fees422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,854.0206-18 Audit Fees423.000.75.535.80.51.00 7,514.2706-18 Audit Fees423.000.76.535.80.51.00 1,969.4006-18 Audit Fees511.000.77.548.68.51.00 752.56Total :33,438.50232280 7/19/2018076710 STREET CRIMES 22148INV#22148 EDMONDS PDSTREET CRIMES SEMINAR - EDMONDS, WA001.000.41.521.40.49.00 598.00Total :598.00232281 7/19/2018065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 22563SEWER - LS 5 REPLACED UPSSewer - LS 5 Replaced UPS423.000.75.535.80.48.00 456.3810.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.48.00 47.01SEWER LS 5 - TROUBLESHOOT22564Sewer LS 5 - Troubleshoot423.000.75.535.80.48.00 393.0028Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 99Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :896.39232281 7/19/2018 065578 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC232282 7/19/2018 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18205122STORM - MARKING PAINTStorm - Marking Paint422.000.72.531.40.31.00 284.4010.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 29.29Total :313.69232283 7/19/2018075691 TIBBOTT, NEIL 071318REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPEMileage reimbursement for trip to001.000.11.511.60.43.00 174.40Total :174.40232284 7/19/2018074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 6590 SOCCER CAMP6590 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTION6590 SOCCER CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,277.00Total :2,277.00232285 7/19/2018070902 ULVESTAD, KAREN 6493 PHOTO6493 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTO CAMP INSTRUCTION6493 KIDS DIGITAL PHOTO CAMP INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 364.50Total :364.50232286 7/19/2018 062693 US BANK 0781CITY COUNCIL VISA FOR CONFERENCE & SUPPLRed Lion Hotel for AWC Conference -001.000.11.511.60.43.00 246.30Displays2Go - Podium for Council events001.000.11.511.60.31.00 118.46SnoCo Cities Dinner for Dave Teitzel001.000.11.511.60.43.00 35.00Total :399.76232287 7/19/2018068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0790421-WAINV 0790421-WA ACCT 001447 EDMOND PDVACCINE - HEPATITIS B - K. ROUSSEAU001.000.41.521.10.41.00 94.0029Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 100Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :94.00232287 7/19/2018 068724068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA232288 7/19/2018 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 8060130UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTERUTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER421.000.74.534.80.41.00 133.67UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER422.000.72.531.90.41.00 133.67UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER423.000.75.535.80.41.00 137.72Total :405.06232289 7/19/2018 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9810047339C/A 442201730-00001iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 35.12Total :35.12232290 7/19/2018061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH DRAN.FX.00056126INV#DRAN.FX.00056126 EDMONDS PD - RENEWAANNUAL PENTOBARBITAL PERMIT001.000.41.521.70.31.00 40.00Total :40.00232291 7/19/2018075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.02-7CIVIC FIELD SURVEYCIVIC FIELD SURVEY125.000.64.594.76.65.41 158.49CIVIC FIELD SURVEY423.200.75.594.35.65.41 158.48Total :316.97232292 7/19/2018067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I18-478WATER - 18520 90TH AVE W TREE REMOVALWater - 18520 90th Ave W Tree Removal421.000.74.534.80.48.00 1,250.0010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.48.00 128.75STREET - 8808 233RD PL SW TREE REMOVALI18-482Street - 8808 233rd Pl SW Tree Removal111.000.68.542.71.48.00 840.0030Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 101Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232292 7/19/2018(Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS10.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.48.00 86.52STREET - 23705 74TH AVE W TREE REMOVALI18-483Street - 23705 74th Ave W Tree Removal111.000.68.542.71.48.00 580.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.48.00 59.74STREET - OVD & 76TH TREES REMOVALI18-484Street - OVD & 76th Trees Removal111.000.68.542.71.48.00 950.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.48.00 97.85Total :3,992.86232293 7/19/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10741223PM: WAXED BAGS, SEAT COVERS, LINERS,PM: WAXED BAGS, SEAT COVERS, LINERS,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,237.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 127.43Total :1,364.63232294 7/19/2018 075254 YAKIMA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES J305332018 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RACK SPACE STO2018 Interlocal agreement for Rack512.000.31.518.87.45.00 2,700.00Total :2,700.00232295 7/19/2018051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 23143TRAFFIC - SIGN BLANKSTraffic - Sign Blanks111.000.68.542.64.31.00 62.00Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.9110.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.41Total :79.3231Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 102Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/19/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:25:21AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmountBank total : 390,747.2099 Vouchers for bank code :usbank390,747.20Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report9932Page:4.3.dPacket Pg. 103Attachment: claim cks 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 7/12/2018
4.3.e
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-19-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 874 (07/01/2018 to 07/15/2018)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Educational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed2 0.00 -156.28
NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 156.00 0.00
SICK LEAVESICK121 440.50 17,701.13
VACATIONVACATION122 2,182.75 93,211.18
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 52.50 1,463.04
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 65.00 2,323.37
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 187.00 7,095.34
Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 32.00 1,538.54
Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 9.00 340.60
MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 36.00 1,182.00
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 84.00 3,235.14
FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY154 4.00 146.18
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 222.66 10,597.33
SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 160.57 5,830.08
VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 235.47 8,541.50
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 22.00 1,737.70
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 13,731.00 545,287.46
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 231.00 9,161.43
LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 88.00 4,000.64
OVERTIME .5OVERTIME HOURS205 9.00 129.21
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 144.75 6,278.35
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 36.00 1,655.96
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 1,442.37
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 477.25 33,553.81
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 14.75 1,022.88
MISC PAYMISCELLANEOUS400 0.00 490.00
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 879.10
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 2,613.88
ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602 222.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604 184.25 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS606 20.00 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 104.44
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 151.43
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 86.48
07/19/2018 Page 1 of 3
4.3.f
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: payroll summary 07-15-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 874 (07/01/2018 to 07/15/2018)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 114.63
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 156.94
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 554.28
DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 108.48
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,049.38
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 702.76
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 809.30
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 5,011.23
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 8.00 0.00
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,274.80 52,081.57
K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 206.94
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 683.06
LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg10 0.00 144.57
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 919.55
Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg12 0.00 4,915.94
Longevity 7%LONGEVITYlg13 0.00 2,471.82
Longevity 5%LONGEVITYlg14 0.00 1,280.98
LONGEVITY 7.5%LONGEVITYlg15 0.00 372.38
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 364.75
Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 325.44
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 278.25
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 653.43
MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 216.96
Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 99.30
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 2,147.42
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 169.24
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 279.29
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 169.24
SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICKslw 31.18 0.00
STREET CRIMESMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 458.52
TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 338.69
07/19/2018 Page 2 of 3
4.3.f
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: payroll summary 07-15-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 874 (07/01/2018 to 07/15/2018)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Total Net Pay:$569,761.75
$838,728.63 20,376.43
07/19/2018 Page 3 of 3
4.3.f
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: payroll summary 07-15-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 874 - 07/01/2018 to 07/15/2018
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
63374 07/20/2018 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 5,194.00 0.00
63375 07/20/2018 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 557.75 0.00
63376 07/20/2018 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 1,981.68 0.00
63377 07/20/2018 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,668.00 0.00
63378 07/20/2018 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 4,227.95 0.00
16,629.38 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
2742 07/20/2018 awc AWC 314,872.26 0.00
2745 07/20/2018 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 103,810.76 0.00
2746 07/20/2018 us US BANK 103,230.38 0.00
2748 07/20/2018 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,992.44 0.00
2749 07/20/2018 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 26,073.41 0.00
2751 07/20/2018 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 628.50 0.00
554,607.75 0.00
571,237.13 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 17/19/2018
4.3.g
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: payroll benefits 07-15-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Debra Sharp
Background/History
Amend the 2018 Budget Ordinance No. 4109
Staff Recommendation
Motion to approve second quarter budget amendment Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2018 Budget
Narrative
There are a total of six budget amendments. All of the amendment requests have previously been
before Council.
The General Fund requests include the Deputy City Clerk overlap in salaries and benefits, the
Development Services Department permitting system, and a carryforward invoice for the Meadowdale
Playfields project.
There are three non-general fund amendments. They include an increase in expenditures for the LEOFF
1 long-term care, the reimbursement for the Snohomish County CDBG funds for the Senior Center and a
carryover propane conversion from 2017.
Attachments:
2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18
4.4
Packet Pg. 120
1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4109 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers
and increases in appropriations; and
WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is
transferred from one fund to another; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and
information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal
funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2018 Budget;
and
WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified;
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4109 adopting the final budget for the fiscal
year 2018 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E adopted
herein by reference.
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
2
Section 2. 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, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
3
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2018, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 4109 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “A”: Budget Amendment Summary (July 2018)
4
2018 2018
FUND FUND BEGINNING ENDING
NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES FUND BALANCE
001 GENERAL FUND 10,273,340 39,484,055 44,334,660 5,422,735
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 417,150 285,650 363,438 339,362
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 902,700 19,180 - 921,880
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5,447,140 64,750 49,584 5,462,306
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 7,360 5,170 5,400 7,130
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 210,220 - - 210,220
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - 300,000 - 300,000
018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND - 250,000 - 250,000
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND - 250,000 - 250,000
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 690 130,560 103,252 27,998
111 STREET FUND 1,102,080 1,784,270 1,856,507 1,029,843
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 728,770 3,634,203 3,747,838 615,135
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 533,200 146,200 183,892 495,508
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 18,350 400 - 18,750
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 82,360 87,960 90,550 79,770
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 69,290 25,640 26,880 68,050
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 15,350 850 1,000 15,200
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 59,890 30,520 29,700 60,710
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,901,000 1,446,880 2,733,000 614,880
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 2,165,210 1,448,300 2,651,867 961,643
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 265,670 53,810 70,900 248,580
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 188,880 180,170 213,509 155,541
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 155,910 3,150 - 159,060
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 938,110 33,360 - 971,470
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 7,600 10,170 10,500 7,270
211 LID FUND CONTROL 3,810 14,400 16,450 1,760
231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 708,700 708,700 -
332 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,544,080 1,621,977 2,346,881 819,176
421 WATER 19,153,890 9,660,690 13,434,675 15,379,905
422 STORM 10,990,760 5,317,996 6,953,660 9,355,096
423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 44,666,810 11,917,843 14,166,002 42,418,651
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,960 1,991,530 1,991,520 843,970
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 8,996,080 1,624,640 1,670,082 8,950,638
512 Technology Rental Fund 254,110 1,268,390 1,335,413 187,087
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 226,480 69,690 75,218 220,952
Totals 112,170,250 83,871,104 99,171,078 96,870,276
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “B”: Budget Amendments by Revenue (July 2018)
5
ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.2018
FUND FUND 4089 4094 4096 4109 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 3/2/2018 4/27/2018 7/2018 Budget
001 General Fund 38,783,555$ -$ 18,000$ 682,500$ -$ 39,484,055$
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 285,650 - - - - 285,650
011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 19,180 - - - - 19,180
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 64,750 - - - - 64,750
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,170 - - - - 5,170
017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - - - 300,000 300,000
018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund - - - 250,000 250,000
019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund - - - 250,000 250,000
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 130,560 - - - - 130,560
111 Street Fund 1,784,270 - - - - 1,784,270
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,942,656 - 659,547 32,000 - 3,634,203
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 146,200 - - - - 146,200
118 Memorial Street Tree 400 - - - - 400
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 87,960 - - - - 87,960
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 25,640 - - - - 25,640
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 850 - - - - 850
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 30,520 - - - - 30,520
125 Park Acq/Improvement 1,446,880 - - - - 1,446,880
126 Special Capital Fund 1,448,300 - - - - 1,448,300
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 53,810 - - - - 53,810
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 180,170 - - - - 180,170
136 Parks Trust Fund 3,150 - - - - 3,150
137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 33,360 - - - - 33,360
138 Sister City Commission 10,170 - - - - 10,170
211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 - - - - 14,400
231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 708,700 - - - - 708,700
332 Parks Construction 1,494,534 - 127,443 - - 1,621,977
421 Water 9,660,690 - - - - 9,660,690
422 Storm 5,317,996 - - - - 5,317,996
423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 11,566,980 - 350,863 - - 11,917,843
424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,991,530 - - - - 1,991,530
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,624,640 - - - - 1,624,640
512 Technology Rental Fund 1,268,390 - - - - 1,268,390
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 69,690 - - - - 69,690
Totals 81,200,751$ -$ 1,155,853$ 1,514,500$ -$ 83,871,104$
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “C”: Budget Amendments by Expenditure (July 2018)
6
ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.ORD. NO.2018
FUND FUND 4089 4094 4096 4109 0 Amended
NO.DESCRIPTION 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 3/2/2018 4/27/2018 7/2018 Budget
001 General Fund 43,086,131$ 272,000$ 186,030$ 709,577$ 80,922$ 44,334,660$
009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 294,270 - - - 69,168 363,438
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 49,584 - - - - 49,584
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,400 - - - - 5,400
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 103,252 - - - - 103,252
111 Street Fund 1,856,507 - - - - 1,856,507
112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,823,041 - 670,547 254,250 - 3,747,838
117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 182,480 - 1,412 - - 183,892
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 90,550 - - - - 90,550
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 - - - - 26,880
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,000 - - - - 1,000
123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 29,700 - - - - 29,700
125 Park Acq/Improvement 2,432,040 - 300,960 - - 2,733,000
126 Special Capital Fund 1,734,535 - 782,862 (82,250) 216,720 2,651,867
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 45,900 - - 25,000 - 70,900
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 197,514 - 15,995 - - 213,509
138 Sister City Commission 10,500 - - - - 10,500
211 Lid Fund Control 16,450 - - - - 16,450
231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 708,700 - - - - 708,700
332 Parks Construction 1,982,160 - 164,721 200,000 - 2,346,881
421 Water 12,270,201 - 1,025,274 139,200 - 13,434,675
422 Storm 6,562,877 - 273,583 117,200 - 6,953,660
423 Sewer / Treatment Plant 13,066,764 - 1,092,038 7,200 - 14,166,002
424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,991,520 - - - - 1,991,520
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,662,265 - - - 7,817 1,670,082
512 Technology Rental Fund 1,191,113 - 144,300 - - 1,335,413
617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 75,218 - - - - 75,218
Totals 92,496,552$ 272,000$ 4,657,722$ 1,370,177$ 374,627$ 99,171,078$
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “D”: Budget Amendment Summary (July 2018)
7
Fund Number
Change in
Beginning Fund
Balance Revenue Expense
Change in Ending
Fund Balance
001 1,424,810 - 80,922 1,343,888
009 (234,480) - 69,168 (303,648)
011 21,380 - - 21,380
012 16,780 - - 16,780
014 (50) - - (50)
016 210,220 210,220
104 (110,770) - - (110,770)
111 350,810 - - 350,810
112 (231,745) - - (231,745)
117 29,448 - - 29,448
118 (130) - - (130)
120 360 - - 360
121 6,910 - - 6,910
122 440 - - 440
123 1,280 - - 1,280
125 36,860 - - 36,860
126 127,218 - 216,720 (89,502)
127 4,440 - - 4,440
130 (36,545) - - (36,545)
136 (890) - - (890)
137 (3,408) - - (3,408)
138 1,520 - - 1,520
211 (12,400) - - (12,400)
332 (381,578) - - (381,578)
421 2,611,277 - - 2,611,277
422 1,370,868 - - 1,370,868
423 4,506,499 - - 4,506,499
424 970 - - 970
511 759,150 - 7,817 751,333
512 52,510 - - 52,510
617 3,600 - - 3,600
Total Change 10,525,354 - 374,627 10,150,727
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “E”: Previously Discussed by Council (July 2018)
8
Budget Amendment for:Second Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Budget Amendment Type?
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
342,766 2,500 0 0 0 0
162,547 1,000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $505,313 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
$508,813 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)3,500 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
001.000.25.514.30.11.00 and 001.000.25.514.30.23.00
Salary
Benefits
Previously Discussed By Council
Salary and Benefits to cover two-week period (July 16-31, 2018) of overlap/job
shadowing to enable Deputy City Clerk to train new incumbent. Our Deputy City
Clerk is retiring after 18 years of service with the City. As the fifth employee to
retire from the City Clerk's Office in five years, having her train her
replacement will ensure transfer of institutional knowledge and continuity of
operations.
Mayor's Office
GENERALCity Clerk's Office Fund
Name:Deputy City Clerk Overlap
Scott Passey
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Finance Committee 6/12/2018
Total Expenses
Comments
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “E”: Previously Discussed by Council (July 2018)
9
Budget Amendment for:Second Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Budget Amendment Type?
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 33,550 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $0 $33,550 $0 $0 $0 $0
$33,550 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)33,550 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $33,550 $0 $0 $0 $0
This supplements the City's new permit system implementation by adding City
Clerk licensing operations. Rather than waiting to add licensing in 2019 we have
been offered a $10,000 discount to add it now, and this will dovetail nicely with our
ongoing configuration, training, and implementation of the rest of the system
which is happening this year. Our exceptionally high permit revenues received in
2018 make this amendment affordable to accomplish this year.
Development Services
GENERALDS Admin 62.10 Fund
Name:
Total Expenses
LicenseTrak Permit System Module Implementation
Rob Chave / Brian Tuley
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Finance Committee June 12, 2018
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
LicenseTrak Implementation
Previously Discussed By Council
Comments
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “E”: Previously Discussed by Council (July 2018)
10
Budget Amendment for:Second Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Budget Amendment Type?
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 43,872 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $0 $43,872 $0 $0 $0 $0
$43,872 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)43,872 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $43,872 $0 $0 $0 $0
001.000.64.576.80.51.00
2nd half of Jt M&O Meadowdale Playfields for 2017, received invoice in April, 2018. The
Parks Department had this budgeted for 2017, but received a very late bill from the City of
Lynnwood for maintenance and operations from July - December 2017. Even though the fields
were under construction, the City of Lynnwood used this time period to accomplish some
deferred maintenance items on the restroom, bleachers, and other amenities within the park
that services the fields.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
GENERALParksFund
Name:Meadowdale Playfields
Ccruz for Carrie Hite
001.000.64.576.80.51.00
Previously Discussed By Council
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:included in 2017 Budget, but invoice received after 2017 was closed
Comments
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
Total Expenses
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “E”: Previously Discussed by Council (July 2018)
11
Budget Amendment for:Second Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Budget Amendment Type?
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
102,990 69,168 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $102,990 $69,168 $0 $0 $0 $0
$172,158 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)69,168 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $69,168 $0 $0 $0 $0
The City's Disability Board, under RCW 41.26, has sole authority to make determinations of
reimbursement approval for medically necessary expenses for the City's 26 LEOFF 1
members. Due to long term care (LTC) services and costs, an additional ($69,168) will be
required to fund the Disability Board LTC budget through the second quarter, 2018. There
will be additional funding required for the remaining quarters for 2018, pending further
Disability Board determination.
Disability Board (HR serves as staff liaison)
In home/Assisted Care living
New Item For Council To Consider
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
GENERALFund
Name:
Total Expenses
LEOFF 1 - long term care funding
Mary Ann Hardie
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:Mentioned by Disability Board member Dave Teitzel at the 11/6 Council
meeting and with the fourth quarter, 2017 budget amendment
Comments
009.000.39.508.00.00.00
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “E”: Previously Discussed by Council (July 2018)
12
Budget Amendment for:Second Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Budget Amendment Type?
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Operating
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 216,720 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $0 $216,720 $0 $0 $0 $0
$216,720 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)216,720 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $216,720 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Expenses
Comments
126.000.39.508.30.00.00
Repayment to Snohomish County of CDBG Funds for Senior Center. This budget
amendment idenitifies the pay back of CDBG funds for the Sr. Ctr. Bldg. The
Council has approved this at a previous Council meeting.
Parks
REET 1ParksFund
Name:
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:May 16 2018
Previously Discussed By Council
CDBG Repayment
Ccruz for Carrie Hite
126.000.64.569.00.49.00
126.000.64.569.00.49.00
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
EXHIBIT “E”: Previously Discussed by Council (July 2018)
13
Budget Amendment for:Second Quarter
Item Description:
Department:
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Department Account Number:
Budget Amendment Type?
What is the nature of the expenditure?One-Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?Capital
Fill In Item Description[s]
Baseline
Budget 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
0 7,817 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total $0 $7,817 $0 $0 $0 $0
$7,817 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue and Ending Cash 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)7,817 0 0 0 0
Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase)0 0 0 0 0
Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0
General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0
New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue and Ending Cash $7,817 $0 $0 $0 $0
In 2017 decicion package #71 for $35,000 was approved to convert (5) 2017 new
work trucks to Bi-fuel propane. One of the trucks did not get converted because
the EPA certification was not completed in 2017. Now certification is completed
and I would like to carry forward $7,817 from 2017 to 2018 to convert this truck.
Public Works
EQUIPMENT RENTALFleet Fund
Name:
Total Expenses
Move 2017 B-Fund money to 2018 B-Fund money
Mike Adams
If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion:2017 Budget Carryforward
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Equipment
Previously Discussed By Council
Comments
511.100.77.508.00.00.00
4.4.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 2018 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 7-18-18 (Second Quarter 2018 Budget Amendment)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group Update 2018
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
With the goal of raising safety awareness for both cyclists and pedestrians, the Edmonds Bicycle
Advocacy Group was formed in 1994 working with Snohomish County and local transportation
departments.
The Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group mission is to act on behalf of our local community to raise the
visibility of bicycling in Edmonds, assist local officials and encourage the implementation of the Edmonds
Bikeway Plan, and strive for a bicycle and pedestrian friendly community for recreational and
community use.
As a non-motorized transportation advocacy group, the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Groups works in
partnership with other community interest groups and our City Council to address issues and find
workable solutions that relate to intermodal transportation, public safety, clean air, and the quality of
life in Edmonds.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group is providing a presentation about their bike education program
called "Let's Go" currently being taught in the Edmonds School District.
5.1
Packet Pg. 134
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Potential Action on an Ordinance related to the Safe Storage of Firearms; and an Ordinance related to
the Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms
Staff Lead: Maureen Judge
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
On February 21, 2017, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4060 requiring the reporting of lost and
stolen firearms. On July 17, 2018, Council President Nelson introduced two ordinances relating to
firearm: an ordinance requiring the safe storage of firearms and amendments to the lost and stolen
firearm ordinance.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The City Council will continue discussion and potential action on the following ordinances:
AN ORDINANCE relating to the safe storage of and access to firearms.
AN ORDINANCE relating to the reporting of lost or stolen firearms; increasing the maximum penalty for
failure to report a lost or stolen firearm; adding legal presumptions and defenses regarding compliance
or failure to comply with Section 5.24.070 of the Edmonds City Code.
Attachments:
2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance
2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms
7.1
Packet Pg. 135
ORIDINANCE _______
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE SAFE STORAGE OF AND ACCESS TO
FIREARMS
WHEREAS, in 2015, 714 Washington State residents died from a firearm injury and a child or
teen under the age of 17 was killed by gunfire in every nine days, on average, according to WA State
Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics Death Certificate data; and
WHEREAS, suicide is the leading cause of firearm death in Washington State according to the
WA State Department of Health. In 2015, 47% of all those who took their own lives – used a firearm;
and
WHEREAS, the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated an average of at least 232,000 guns
were stolen per year from 2005 to 2010; and
WHEREAS, the US Secret Service and US Department of Education published a study examining
school shootings from 1974-2000 that found that in more than 65% of cases, the shooter obtained the
firearm from their home or that of a relative.
WHEREAS, 63% of firearm-owning households in Washington state do not store their firearms
locked and unloaded, according to 2018 research led by the University of Washington School of Public
Health; and
WHEREAS, among firearm-owning households, keeping firearms unlocked have been associated
with a greater risk of firearm suicide among both youths and adults; and
WHEREAS, according to 2018 RAND corporation analysis of firearm policies throughout the
United States available evidence supports the conclusion that safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted
fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries among youth, as well as unintentional firearm injuries or deaths among
children; and
WHEREAS, the Center for Disease Control states safe firearm storage practices—such as keeping
guns secured with a cable lock or in a gun safe—reduce the risk of firearm injuries; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the Washington State Division One Court of Appeals recognized the
potential for liability in a negligence action when a firearm owner allows an individual who may be at-
risk of misusing a weapon to have access to that weapon while in the weapon-owner’s home; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Washington has expressed a public policy that third-
parties should avoid allowing firearms to come into the possession of persons who would be ineligible to
obtain such weapons under RCW 9.41.040, including minors in most circumstances; and
WHEREAS the people of the State of Washington enacted by initiative the “Extreme Risk
Protection Order Act,” now RCW Chapter 7.94, allowing family, household members, and law
enforcement to petition a court to remove firearms from at-risk individuals; and
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
WHEREAS the City of Edmonds recognizes the grave harm that could occur when an unlocked
firearm is used by someone other than the firearm’s rightful owner, such as when an unlocked firearm is
stolen and used by a third-party to perpetrate a crime; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new Chapter 5.26 is added to the Edmonds City Code as follows:
Chapter 5.26 STORAGE OF FIREARMS
5.26.010 Definitions
For purposes of this Chapter 5.26, the following definitions apply:
A. “At-risk person” means any person who has made statements or exhibited behavior
that indicates to a reasonable person there is a likelihood that the person is at risk of
attempting suicide or causing physical harm to oneself or others.
B. “Firearm” means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be
fired by an explosive such as gunpowder, including but not limited to any machine gun, pistol,
rifle, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or shotgun as those terms are defined in RCW
9.41.010. “Firearm” does not include a flare gun or other pyrotechnic visual distress signaling
device, or a powder-actuated tool or other device designed solely to be used for construction
purposes.
C. “Lawfully authorized user” means any person who:
1. Is not in the unlawful possession of a firearm under RCW 9.41.040; and
2. Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under any other state or federal law;
and
3. Has the express permission of the owner to possess and use the firearm.
D. “Locking device” includes any cable lock, barrel lock, storage container, or other device
approved of or meeting specifications established by the Chief of Police by rule promulgated in
accordance with Chapter 5.26.
E. “Minor” means a person under 18 years of age who is not authorized under RCW
9.41.042 to possess a firearm, or a person of at least 18 but less than 21 years of age who does
not meet the requirements of RCW 9.41.240.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
F. “Prohibited person” means any person who is not a lawfully authorized user.
5.26.020 Safe storage of firearms
It shall be a civil infraction for any person to store or keep any firearm in any premises unless
such weapon is secured by a locking device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon
inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Section 5.26.020, such weapon shall be
deemed lawfully stored or lawfully kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other
lawfully authorized user.
5.26.030 Unauthorized access prevention
It shall be a civil infraction if any person knows or reasonably should know that a minor, an at-
risk person, or a prohibited person is likely to gain access to a firearm belonging to or under the
control of that person, and a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains the
firearm.
5.26.040 Penalties
A. A violation of Section 5.26.020 shall constitute a civil infraction subject to a civil
fine or forfeiture not to exceed $500. For good cause shown, the court may provide for the
performance of community restitution, in lieu of the fine or forfeiture imposed under this
subsection 5.26.040.A.
B. A violation of Section 5.26.020 or 5.26.030 shall constitute a civil infraction subject
to a civil fine or forfeiture in an amount up to $1,000 if a prohibited person, an at-risk person, or
a minor obtains a firearm as a result of the violation. For good cause shown, the court may
provide for the performance of community restitution, in lieu of the fine or forfeiture imposed
under this subsection 5.26.040.B.
C. A violation of Section 5.26.020 or 5.26.030 shall constitute a civil infraction subject
to a civil fine or forfeiture in an amount up to $10,000 if a prohibited person, an at-risk person,
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
or a minor obtains an unsecured firearm and uses it to injure or cause the death of oneself or
others, or uses the firearm in connection with a crime. A separate civil fine or forfeiture may be
issued for each instance that a person that is injured or killed as a result of a violation of Section
5.26.020 or 5.26.030.
D. A violation of Section 5.26.020 or 5.26.030 is hereby deemed at minimum negligent and may
be considered reckless depending upon the knowledge and actions of the violator.
E. Nothing in this Chapter 5.26 shall be construed to alter any requirements, including,
but not limited to, any warrant requirements applicable under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution or Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
F. Sections 5.26.020 and 5.26.030 shall not apply to “antique firearms,” as defined in
RCW 9.41.010.
5.26.050 Notice of infraction—Issuance
A. A peace officer has the authority to issue a notice of infraction:
1. When an infraction under this Chapter 5.26 is committed in the officer's presence;
2. If an officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an
infraction under this Chapter 5.26.
B. A court may issue a notice of infraction upon receipt of a written statement of the
officer that there is reasonable cause to believe that an infraction was committed.
5.26.060 Response to notice of infraction—Contesting determination—Hearing—Failure
to appear
A. Any person who receives a notice of infraction shall respond to such notice as
provided in this section within 15 days of the date the notice is personally served or, if the
notice is served by mail, within 18 days of the date the notice is mailed.
B. If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the
determination the person shall respond by completing the appropriate portion of the notice of
infraction and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the Edmonds Municipal Court. A
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
check or money order in the amount of the penalty prescribed for the infraction must be
submitted with the response, if responding by mail, or if responding online, payment may be
made using a credit card. When a response that does not contest the determination is
received, an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records.
C. If the person determined to have committed the infraction wishes to contest the
determination the person shall respond by completing the portion of the notice of infraction
requesting a hearing and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the Edmonds Municipal
Court. The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place, and date of the hearing,
and that date shall not be sooner than seven days from the date of the notice, except by
agreement.
D. If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the
determination but wishes to explain mitigating circumstances surrounding the infraction, the
person shall respond by completing the portion of the notice of infraction requesting a hearing
for that purpose and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the Edmonds Municipal Court.
The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place, and date of the hearing.
E. In any hearing conducted pursuant to subsections 5.26.060.C or 5.26.060.D, the
court may defer findings, or in a hearing to explain mitigating circumstances may defer entry of
its order, for up to one year and impose conditions upon the defendant the court deems
appropriate. Upon deferring findings, the court may assess costs as the court deems appropriate
for administrative processing. If at the end of the deferral period the defendant has met all
conditions and has not been determined to have committed another infraction under this
Chapter 5.26, the court may dismiss the infraction. A person may not receive more than one
Deferral within a seven-year period.
F. If any person issued a notice of infraction:
1. Fails to respond to the notice of infraction as provided in subsection 5.26.060.B;
or
2. Fails to appear at a hearing requested pursuant to subsections 5.26.060.C or
5.26.060.D;
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
the court shall enter an appropriate order assessing the monetary penalty prescribed for
the infraction and any other penalty authorized by this Chapter 10.79.
5.26.070 Hearing—Contesting determination that infraction committed—Appeal
A. A hearing held for the purpose of contesting the determination that an infraction has
been committed shall be without a jury.
B. The court may consider the notice of infraction and any other written report made
under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the
basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing.
The person named in the notice may subpoena witnesses, including the officer, and has the right
to present evidence and examine witnesses present in court.
C. The burden of proof is upon the City to establish the commission of the infraction
by a preponderance of the evidence.
D. After consideration of the evidence and argument, the court shall determine whether
the infraction was committed. Where it has not been established that the infraction was
committed, an order dismissing the notice shall be entered in the court's records. Where it has
been established that the infraction was committed, an appropriate order shall be entered in
the court's records.
E. An appeal from the court's determination or order shall be to the Superior Court.
The decision of the Superior Court is subject only to discretionary review pursuant to Rule 2.3 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The
invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance,
or the invalidity of its application to any person or circumstance, does not affect the validity of
the remainder of this ordinance or the validity of its application to other persons or
circumstances.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. Once effective, this ordinance shall not be
enforced until one hundred eighty (180) days after final passage.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2018, 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 RELATING TO THE SAFE STORAGE OF AND ACCESS TO
FIREARMS.
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen Firearms Ordinances)
ORDINANCE __________
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF LOST OR STOLEN
FIREARMS; INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO
REPORT A LOST OR STOLEN FIREARM; ADDING LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS
AND DEFENSES REGARDING COMPLIANCE OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
SECTION 5.24.070 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE
WHEREAS, the city council would like to further strengthen Ordinance 4060, which it adopted in 2017;
and
WHEREAS, the city council would like to provide additional procedures for the enforcement of Ordinance
4060; and
WHEREAS, the recitals from Ordinance 4060 should be incorporated herein by this reference; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 5.24.070 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Reporting theft or loss of
firearm required,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted
text is shown in strike-through):
5.24.070 Reporting theft or loss of firearm required.
A. If a firearm is lost or stolen, the person who owned or was in possession of the firearm shall
report the theft or loss to the Edmonds Police Department if the loss or theft occurred in
Edmonds. The report shall be made within 24 hours after the theft or loss is first discovered, and
shall include to the extent known:
1. The firearm’s caliber, make, model, manufacturer, and serial number;
2. Any other distinguishing number or identification mark on the firearm; and
3. The circumstances of the loss or theft, including the date, place, and manner.
B. On receipt of a report of a stolen or lost firearm under this section, the Edmonds Police
Department shall enter into the National Crime Information Center Database the following
information, to the extent known:
1. The firearm’s caliber, make, model, manufacturer, and serial number; and
2. Any other distinguishing number or identification mark on the firearm.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
C. Any violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall constitute a civil
infraction and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500$1,000.
D. If a lost or stolen firearm is used by a third party to injure or kill another:
1. The failure to comply with subsection 5.24.070.A is prima facie evidence of
negligence; but
2. The proper use of measures to safely store or keep a firearm — including
securing it with a locking device , approved of or meeting specifications
established by the Chief of Police by rule promulgated in accordance with
Chapter 5.26 ECC, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inaccessible or
unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user — is an
affirmative defense to a
claim of negligence. For purposes of this subsection 5.24.070.D.2, “lawfully
authorized user” means any person who:
a. Is not in the unlawful possession of a firearm under RCW 9.41.040; and
b. Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under any other state or federal
law; and
c. Has the express permission of the owner to possess and use the firearm.
Section 2. A new Section 5.24.75 is hereby added to the Edmonds City Code to read as follows:
5.24.075 Notice of infraction—Issuance
A. A peace officer has the authority to issue a notice of infraction:
1. When an infraction under this Chapter 5.24 is committed in the officer's
presence;
2. If an officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an
infraction under this Chapter 5.24.
B. A court may issue a notice of infraction upon receipt of a written statement of the
officer that there is reasonable cause to believe that an infraction was committed.
Section 3. A new Section 5.24.080 is hereby added to the Edmonds City Code to read as follows:
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
5.24.080 Response to notice of infraction—Contesting determination—Hearing—
Failure to appear
A. Any person who receives a notice of infraction shall respond to such notice as
provided in this section within 15 days of the date of the notice is personally served or, if
the notice is served by mail, within 18 days of the date the notice is mailed.
B. If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the
determination the person shall respond by completing the appropriate portion of the
notice of infraction and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the Edmonds
Municipal Court. A check or money order in the amount of the penalty prescribed for the
infraction must be submitted with the response, if responding by mail, or if responding
online payment may be made using a credit card. When a response that does not contest
the determination is received, an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records.
C. If the person determined to have committed the infraction wishes to contest the
determination the person shall respond by completing the portion of the notice of
infraction requesting a hearing and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the
Edmonds Municipal Court. The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place,
and date of the hearing, and that date shall not be sooner than seven days from the date of
the notice, except by agreement.
D. If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the
determination but wishes to explain mitigating circumstances surrounding the infraction,
the person shall respond by completing the portion of the notice of infraction requesting a
hearing for that purpose and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the Edmonds
Municipal Court.
The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place, and date of the hearing.
E. In any hearing conducted pursuant to subsections 5.24.080.C or 5.24.080.D, the
court may defer findings, or in a hearing to explain mitigating circumstances may defer
entry of its order for up to one year and impose conditions upon the defendant the court
deems appropriate. Upon deferring findings, the court may assess costs as the court
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
deems appropriate for administrative processing. If at the end of the deferral period the
defendant has met all conditions and has not been determined to have committed another
infraction under this Chapter 5.24, the court may dismiss the infraction. A person may
not receive more than one Deferral within a seven-year period.
F. If any person issued a notice of infraction:
1. Fails to respond to the notice of infraction as provided in subsection
5.24.080.B;
or
2. Fails to appear at a hearing requested pursuant to subsections 5.24.080.C or
5.24.080.D;
the court shall enter an appropriate order assessing the monetary penalty
prescribed for the infraction and any other penalty authorized by this Chapter
5.24.
Section 4. A new Section 5.24.085 is hereby added to the Edmonds City Code to read as follows:
5.24.085 Hearing—Contesting determination that infraction committed—Appeal
A. A hearing held for the purpose of contesting the determination that an infraction has
been committed shall be without a jury.
B. The court may consider the notice of infraction and any other written report made
under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was
the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the
hearing. The person named in the notice may subpoena witnesses, including the officer,
and has the right to present evidence and examine witnesses present in court.
C. The burden of proof is upon the City to establish the commission of the infraction
by a preponderance of the evidence.
D. After consideration of the evidence and argument, the court shall determine whether
the infraction was committed. Where it has not been established that the infraction was
committed, an order dismissing the notice shall be entered in the court's records. Where it
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
has been established that the infraction was committed, an appropriate order shall be
entered in the court's records.
E. An appeal from the court's determination or order shall be to the Superior Court.
The decision of the Superior Court is subject only to discretionary review pursuant to
Rule 2.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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 is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty
(30) days after final passage of this ordinance. Once effective, this ordinance shall not be enforced until
one hundred eighty (180) days after final passage.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2018, 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 RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF LOST OR STOLEN
FIREARMS; INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO
REPORT A LOST OR STOLEN FIREARM; ADDING LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS
AND DEFENSES REGARDING COMPLIANCE OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
SECTION 5.24.070 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE.
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 2018-07-24 Ordinance Amending Reporting Lost and Stolen Firearms [Revision 1] (Safe Storage of Firearms and Lost/Stolen
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Public Hearing to consider the Historic Preservation Commission's Recommendation regarding the
eligibility of the Yost House located at 658 Maple Street for listing on the Edmonds' Register of Historic
Places.
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on June 14, 2018 and forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council to list the Yost House on the Edmonds' Register of Historic Places.
Staff Recommendation
Accept the Historic Preservation Commissions recommendation and adopt the ordinance included in
Exhibit 1 to place the Yost House on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Narrative
The Yost House located at 658 Maple Street was constructed in 1907 and is significant for its intact
vernacular architecture.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviews applications for listing on the Edmonds Register of
Historic places with the criteria detailed in ECDC 20.45.010 and forwards a recommendation to the City
Council for consideration.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Draft Yost House Historic Register Ordinance
Exhibit 2 - June 14, 2018 Historic Preservation Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report
Exhibit 4 - Nomination Form and Property Owner Authorization
Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House
Exhibit 6 - Location Map
8.1
Packet Pg. 151
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE YOST HOUSE LOCATED AT 658 MAPLE STREET,
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE
EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION.,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Yost House located at 658 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington,
is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds prepared by BOLA Architecture in
conjunction with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in
October, 2004, as a property that could potentially contribute to a historic district; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public
hearing on June 14, 2018, to consider the eligibility of the Yost House for listing on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission
voted to recommend to the City Council that the Yost House be listed on the Edmonds Register
of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Yost House Historic Register Ordinance (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
- 2 -
and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of
the ECDC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 24, 2018, to consider
the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The building located at 658 Maple Street, Washington 98020, known
as the Yost House, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds Historic Register. The
exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant.
Section 2. The Development Services Director, or her designee, is hereby
authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation.
This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED: MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ______ JEFFREY B. TARADAY, CITY ATTORNEY
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Yost House Historic Register Ordinance (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
- 3 -
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________ PUBLISHED: ________ EFFECTIVE DATE: ________ ORDINANCE NO. _____
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Yost House Historic Register Ordinance (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 24th day of July, 2018, 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 DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE YOST HOUSE LOCATED AT 658 MAPLE STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION., AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of July, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft Yost House Historic Register Ordinance (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
DRAFT
April 12th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
June 14, 2018
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. in the 3rd
Floor Conference Room of City Hall, 121 – 5th Avenue North. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Laura Johnson, Vice Chair
Katie Kelly David Preston Emily Scott Steve Waite
Kristiana Johnson, City Council Member
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Larry Vogel (excused)
Tim Raetzloff, Chair (excused) Chris Deiner-Karr (excused)
STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager OTHERS PRESENT Sandra Allbery
Greg Brewer Kathy Brewer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 2018 BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER SCOTT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES COMMISSIONER WAITE MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE PLACED BEFORE NEW BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER KELLY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Commission accepted the remainder of the agenda as presented.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no audience comments. ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing to Determine the Eligibility of the Yost House Located at 658 Maple Street for Listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places (File No. PLN20100035)
Mr. Lien briefly reviewed the process for placing properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, as well as the benefits and obligations associated with the listing. He also reviewed the conditions required for listing properties on the
Register as follows:
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - June 14, 2018 Historic Preservation Minutes Excerpt (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 14, 2018 Page 2
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds. The house is associated with the City’s early pioneer history and the general development in Edmonds. It was constructed by the Yost family when they were owners of a local lumber mill.
• Has integrity. The original portion of the house is a largely intact vernacular style architecture. The original wood sash windows on the east and west facades have been replaced with vinyl, double-hung windows, but the trim is consistent with the original house. In addition, some of the porch posts were relocated and the chimney was removed. There was an addition on the south side of the original house, but it would not diminish the home’s historical value. Looking at a front view of the home, it appears to have enough integrity to be included on the Register.
• Age at least 50 years old or has exceptional importance if less than 50 years old. The house was constructed in 1907 and is 111 years old. Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the above criteria, the property must fall into at least one of the designation categories. He advised that the property appears to meet the following three categories:
• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. The house is associated with the City’s pioneer history and general development of the City of Edmonds.
• Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The house is significant for its intact vernacular architecture.
• Associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state or local history. The house is associated with the
Yost family, an early pioneer family extensively involved in the early development of Edmonds. The family was active in the lumbering, sawmill, shingle, water supply, telephone, automotive and bus transportation businesses and
are the namesake of Yost Park.
Mr. Lien shared several pictures of the subject property and described some of the home’s design features. He also shared a variety of Yost family photographs. He suggested that the nomination should focus on the front facade as the significant
featurs of the home. He recommended the Commission find that the Yost House meets the criteria for designation of the Edmonds Register of Historic Places and make a recommendation to the City Council for listing it on the Edmonds Register
of Historic Places. He reminded the applicant that, once listed, a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for any changes that are made to the historic features of the home. Commissioner Preston asked why the entire house is not being recommended for the Register, given that all of the changes
occurred more than 50 years ago. Commissioner Scott agreed that is possible but explained that the original construction is the significant portion of the house. Mr. Chave agreed that age, in and of itself, is not significant. The historical or
architectural features of the house are what make it significant. It was noted that additional changes were made in more recent years. Greg Brewer, Owner, advised that everything on the front façade within the rectangular box is original construction. He
also noted that there is no sub-straight on the siding, it is just boards over studs. The cap was added to provide some weather protection. He said he and his wife like the charm of Edmonds and enjoy purchasing historic homes so they can be preserved. He shared some of the history of the home and said he has no plans to change the structure at this time. Kathy Brewer, Owner, pointed out that Mrs. Yost lived in the home with her daughter until 1979. There have only been four owners since the original owner.
The Commissioners had a back and forth discussion with the owners about various features of both the inside and outside of the home, as well as the changes and when they were made.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - June 14, 2018 Historic Preservation Minutes Excerpt (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 14, 2018 Page 3
Commissioner Waite asked if the owners would be willing to install the bronze plaque that is provided by the City at or near the property line so it is more visible to passersby. The Brewers answered affirmatively and discussed several options with the Commission. COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THAT THE YOST HOUSE (ORIGINAL 2-STORY RECTANGULAR STRUCTURE), LOCATED AT 658 MAPLE STREET, MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ITS INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. COMMISSIONER PRESTON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien advised that he would schedule the nomination on the Council’s agenda for a public hearing. NEW BUSINESS The Commission had a discussion about the criteria for listing properties on the Register and how the criteria is applied when determining a structure’s historic integrity. They also reviewed the process for designating properties on the Register, specifically the Commission’s role in reviewing applications and making recommendations to the City Council. Council Member Johnson said she would like a presentation on how historic districts are created in the State of Washington and how the City might go about creating one in downtown Edmonds. Mr. Chave agreed to schedule this presentation on a future agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council Member Johnston reported that the City Council considered the Economic Development Commission’s request to study the concept of decreasing the ground floor height requirement in the Downtown Business (BD-1) from 15 feet to 12 feet. They decided not to go forward with the study. The Commission had a discussion about the design standards for the BD-1 zone and how well they work to encourage new development to incorporate elements of design that are consistent with the historic character of the area. Mr. Chave summarized that the design standards do not require new development to replicate historic structures. There is nothing specific, architecturally, about the downtown buildings. It has more to do with a building’s placement and context within the downtown. The design guidelines focus more on window and door placement, proximity to the street, awnings, etc. Commissioner Waite suggested it would be worthwhile to invite City Council Members to meetings where certain topics are on the agenda that might be of interest to them. Commissioner Waite requested a status report on the plaque that was supposed to be placed near the Campbell’s house, which was recently added to the Register. Commissioner Preston said the owner has selected a location for the sign, but the post has still not been installed. Commissioner Waite agreed to work with Ms. Cunningham to get the post and sign installed. The Commissioners discussed that there are still vacant positions of the Commission. They agreed it would be helpful to have one more member (a total of 9) to ensure a quorum is present at each meeting. They were encouraged to invite interested and qualified citizens to submit applications. The Commissioners discussed that having a color-coded map of potential properties for the Register would be helpful to identify the current status of each property. They agreed to start by mapping the downtown area, cross referencing the properties to the two surveys. Sandra Allbery recalled that the owner of one property that would have likely been approved for the Register backed out because the required public notice that was posted on their property raised too many concerns and questions from passersby.
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - June 14, 2018 Historic Preservation Minutes Excerpt (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report
Meeting Date: June 14, 2018
Agenda Subject: Application for designation of Yost House at 658 Maple Street as eligible
for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Property Information
Site Name/Location: Yost House 658 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Account #: 00434209501900
Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 ¼ Sec SW ¼-¼ Sec
Construction date: 1907
Owner/Applicant Information
Person(s) Nominating Site: Historic Preservation Commission
Property Owner: Gregory and Kathy Brewer
Report Summary
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the Yost
House meets the criteria for designation on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the structure
contains the significant architectural features.
City of Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission
Designation Staff Report
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 2 of 8
Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments
1. Significantly associated with the
history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering or cultural heritage of
Edmonds…
This house is associated with the early
pioneer history and general development
of the City of Edmonds. The house was
constructed by the Yost family when they
were owners of a local lumber mill.
2. Has integrity… The original portion of the house is a
house is a largely intact vernacular style
architecture. Original wood sash windows
on the east and west façades have been
replaced with vinyl, double-hung
windows, but the trim is consistent with
the original house. The addition to the
south side of the original house does not
diminish the historical value of the
original house.
3. Age at least 50 years old, or has
exceptional importance if less than 50
years old…
The building was constructed in 1907 and
thus is 111 years old.
4. Falls into at least one of the following designation categories:
Designation Category
a. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history.
The house is associated with the pioneer history and general development of the City of Edmonds.
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
The house is significant for its intact vernacular architecture.
c. Is an outstanding work of a designer,
builder or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
d. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 3 of 8
Designation Criteria Meets Criteria Staff Comments
e. Is associated with the lives of persons
significant in national, state or local
history.
The Yost is associated with the Yost
family, an early pioneer family
extensively involved in the early
development of Edmonds. The family
were active in the lumbering, sawmill,
shingle, water supply, telephone, automotive and bus transportation businesses and are the namesake of Yost Park.
f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield
important archaeological information
related to history or prehistory.
g. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event.
h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person.
i. Is a cemetery which derives its
primary significance from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events or
cultural patterns.
j. Is a reconstructed building that has
been executed in a historically
accurate manner on the original site.
k. Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical, the designation shall include description of the boundaries of categories.
Significant Features
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 4 of 8
1. Shape: The original building is a two-story rectangular structure with a later
addition to the south of the residence.
2. Roof and Roof Features: The original portion of the house is side gabled. A large, gabled addition extends from the south end of the original structure and has lower cross gables on the east and west sides.
3. Openings
(entries, etc.):
The front door is centrally located and is flanked by cottage windows with
leaded glass transoms. A small, square window edgedwith little panes is the
only fenestration on the second story of the façade.
4. Projections: The hip-roofed front porch is nearly full-width and has four yards poasts
and wood railing.
5. Trim & secondary features N/A
6. Materials: The house is clad in wood shiplap siding.
7. Setting: The house is located on the corner of Maple Street and 7th Avenue North is a residential neighborhood.
8. Materials at close
range
N/A
9. Craft details: N/A
10. Individual
rooms/spaces:
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination.
11. Related spaces or
sequences:
N/A
12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination
13. Surface finishes &
materials:
N/A
14. Exposed structure: N/A
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 5 of 8
Yost House, c. 1909 (Edmonds Historical Museum)
Yost House, 2004 (Photo from Bola Report)
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 6 of 8
Yost House 2018
Yost House (Edmonds Hisorical Museum)
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 7 of 8
Yost House
Yost/Astell Family
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Yost House HistPres designation staff report Page 8 of 8
Notes on historic register nominations:
Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible
for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner’s consent.
According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an
honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission.
Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register.
Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
* Edmonds Community Development Code
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Yost House Historic Preservation Designation Staff Report (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
ã-? ¡r.n .ç\ ltr ". ì ,Y:T ikl..i'.. .-.r,, ' ,:,.:,j i, ,,i¿¿Ð
"!;1.1å 3 tl äti$*-,fï-fi:ä*r:,
Historic Historic PlacesFrseo¡votloncommiseion NOminatiOn FOfm
Type or print all entries Please complete all *pplicable sections
FOR OFI]ICIAI USE ONLY
Date Reoeived: 5:þ',tt
Receive.lnitvl
File #: Yt.tv
ÞC,¿üïttiufi
Survey/Site #:ti
A. Site Name / Location
I{istoric Name (if applicable): Y w*4,
Common (or Cun'ent) Name (if applicable)
Site Address / Location
Street Address or Location l)escription:{p 6S V*, \8oz**3 *3,;;
ciry / Zrp co<re: 1g pZ¿\* et*% rax / parcel Number: [r"&g¡*Zt4l*11ça
i:;rr go"yl_A å, d.i,*L!.,,,,, |:,t)IN (Liel-(Nanre:
Street Address:tö68
ciry / srare t zrp code: á"'LtV¡iy --b|ì\ tjgbtp * ?:, Y3 { r,hone #:
P Owner
Nomination Form P
L {:-â4
L-u lv,.Jl,.. .Name (say 'oO.¡r'net" if same as owner listed above):
ContactAcldress: Street:
Signature
Name (Plcase Print)
Signature
.- City /ZIP:
Date t lø l,u
Contact Phone #:Date Form Completed:
I / WE the undersigned certify that we are the owners of the property identified on this fbrm ancl hereby give our
consent to having the property listed or: the Edmonds Register of Flistonc Places,
Name (Please Print)
. Consent to be Listed
Ëdnonds Regisler oJ'l{isloric ftlaces Nonintúktn Fornt
Date lFt lt
Puge I
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Nomination Form and Property Owner Authorization (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
E. Eligibility for Listi on the Edmonds Re ister
/ Site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (lf checked, skip to Section F)
Site is listed on the State Register of Historic Places (lf checked, skip to Section F)
Historical Significance - Please check allthat apply:
1 . _ Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local
history.
2. ¿t n^Aoaies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design or construction, or
-."pr.rents
a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
3. _ Is an outstanding work of a designer, builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the ar1.
+. / gxemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, special, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or
architectural history.
5. _Is associated with the lives of persons signifìcant in national, state or local history.
6. _Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological information related to history or prehistory.
7. _Is a building or shLrcture removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value,
-
o. which is the only surviving structure significantly associated with a historic person or event.
g. _ Is a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that Person.
9. Is a cemetery which derives its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association
with historic events or cultural patterns.
10. _Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site.
I 1 . _ Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created by persons not formally trained in the
architecfural or design professions, and which does not fit into formal architectural or historical categories; the
designation shall include description ofthe boundaries.
H istorical Description
In the space below, describe the history and significance of the site to Edmonds' heritage. You may elect to
describã the site's significance in your own words, attach copies of other documents or photographs, and/or make
reference to other materials (noting where those materials are available to be reviewed). For example, you may
simply note that the site is on an historical survey, noting the survey name and site number. (Please feel free to
attachany additional continuation sheets if you need more space')
Edntonds Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Page 2
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Nomination Form and Property Owner Authorization (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
nI DescriF. Physica
This section must be completed if the site is not on the State or
Plense provide as much information as you can
Year Built: nf7 Architect:
Builder or Engineer (specify)
Architectural Style(s)*, VØr'nan"J¿*{Building Form*
RoofType*Cladding*¡¡) aocÅ
National Register, or it is not on an approved histori'c suruey
/\Sh;
* Note; See later reference sheets for list of choices for these items
Overall
Gondition
Ghanges from
l)ricinal:
,/ Excellent
_ Good
_ Fair
_ Deteriorated
_ Ruins
_ Unexposed
Plan:
,Intact
.,/ Slight
_Moderate
_Extensive
Unknown
Cladding:
Intact
/ Slisht---Y--
_Moderate
_Extensive
llnknown
Windows:
_ Intact
/stie¡t
_Moderate
_Extensive
Unknown
Other:
_ Intact
_ Slight
_ Moderate
_ Extensive
Unknown
Site:
_ Original Site
_ Moved
Date Moved.
Plan Tvpe:
_ Apsidal
_ Center Space/
Courtyard
Cross/Cruciform
_ E-Shape
Hexagonal
_ H-Shape
_ lrregular
_ L-Shape
_ None
_ Octagonal
Other
Number of Stories
Structural Svstem:
_ Pavilion
-Balloon/PlatformPolvsonal Braced Frame
u/ Rectangle _ Brick
_ Round
-
Clay Tile
_ Semi-circular
-
Conciete block
_ Square
-Concrete
Poured
Triangular
-
Log
_ T-Shape
-
Mixed
_ Unknown
-None_ U-Shape
-Other_ Y-Shape
-
Plank
-
Post & Beam
_ Steel
_ Stone - cut
_ Stone - uncut
Unknown
Foundation:
Brick
Concrete block
Concrete pouredI 7
-Log_None
_Other
_Parged
_Post & Pier
_Stone
Unknown
Roof Material:
Asphalt Comp _ Metal - Tile
A. Comp - built up _ None
A. Comp - shingle _ Other
_ A. Comp - rolled _ Slate
_ Tile _ Unknown
_ Tile - clay _ Wood
_ Tile - concrete _ Wood plank
_ Metal _ Wood shake
_ Metal - corrugated _ Wood shingle
_ Metal - standing seam
Edmonds Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Page 3
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Nomination Form and Property Owner Authorization (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
G. B¡bI¡ra hical or Historical References
hi;hrr: M +lu 3o-ruml ¿r!"IdÃ-pft'a,r" 6t +U C'tY
For Office Use Onl
Location Detail
7.tzb Northing "?-ttîl'í1. \'L9
Township ,"tll Range \ Section 4-4 %Section ãil '/ot/osection-
Gategory
District,ì(euit¿ing(s)
Structure
Site
Object
Within a Dishict?
_ Yes
KNo
Ownership
_Public
Y Private
Both
Resource Status
K Survey/Inventory
_ National Register
_ National Landmark
_ State Register
Determined Eligible
Other
Usage
Current:
TnYtú,":.I1u '' aF
Historic:
Ïnnnl sl-rL - *
Conhibuting?
Yes
No-lt*no*n
Local District:
Edmonds Register of Historic Places Nomination Form
National or State Register / Dishict:
Page 4
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Nomination Form and Property Owner Authorization (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Location
Address:658 Maple St, Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax No/Parcel No:00434209501900
Plat/Block/Lot:CITY OF EDMONDS BLK 095 D-00 - LOTS 19-20
Geographic Areas:Snohomish County, T27R03E24
Information
Number of stories:2
Architect/Engineer:
Category Name or Company
Historic Context:
Category
Community Planning and Development
Architecture
Historic Use:
Category Subcategory
Domestic Domestic - Single Family House
Domestic Domestic - Single Family House
Construction Type Year Circa
Built Date 1907
Construction Dates:
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 1 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Project Number, Organization,
Project Name
Resource Inventory SHPO Determination SHPO Determined By,
Determined Date
2005-01-00002, , Downtown
Edmonds 2004
9/21/2004 Not Determined
Local Registers and Districts
Name Date Listed Notes
Project History
Thematics:
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Primary north façade
Secondary east façade
Photos
Site, garage, and east partial south façade
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Inventory Details - 9/21/2004
Characteristics:
Category Item
Form Type Single Dwelling - I House
Roof Type Gable - Side
Roof Material Asphalt/Composition - Shingle
Plan Rectangle
Foundation Concrete - Poured
Form Type Single Dwelling - Side Gable
Cladding Wood - Shiplap
Styles:
Period Style Details
Other Vernacular
Detail Information
Common name:
Date recorded:9/21/2004
Field Recorder:Susan D. Boyle
Field Site number:41
SHPO Determination
Surveyor Opinion
Significance narrative:This early house and garage are significant for their intact, vernacular architecture.
Constructed by the Yost family when they were owners of a local lumber mill, it is also
associated with pioneer history and the general development of the city.
Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Yes
Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local):Yes
Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local):Yes
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Physical description:The original portion of the house is side-gabled. The hip-roofed front porch is nearly full-
width and has four yard posts and wood railing. The front door is centrally located and is
flanked by cottage windows with leaded glass transoms. A small, square window edged
with little panes is the only fenestration on the second story of the façade. Original
wood sashes on the east and west façades have vinyl, double-hung windows, but the
trim is consistent with the original house. A large, gabled addition extends from the
south end of the original structure and has lower cross gables on the east and west sides.
A one-story sunroom at the south end of the house has wood sashes. A two-bay garage
located at the southeast corner of the property is accessed by car from 6th Avenue and
has a door on the north side that opens onto the back lawn of the house. Shiplap on the
large addition matches the sheathing on the original section of the house, while the
sunroom has horizontal tongue and groove trim that is noticeably different.
The site slopes down significantly from east to west, exposing the basement at the west.
The original house foundation may be partially wood sill log, with parge covering..
Bibliography:Edmonds Historical Museum 2002 Survey
Edmonds Historical Museum Photo Collection
Snohomish County Tax Assessment Record
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Inventory Details - 7/1/2011
Characteristics:
Category Item
Cladding Wood
Roof Material Asphalt/Composition - Shingle
Structural System Wood - Platform Frame
Roof Type Gable
Form Type Single Dwelling
Detail Information
Common name:
Date recorded:7/1/2011
Field Recorder:Artifacts Consulting, Inc.
Field Site number:41
SHPO Determination
Surveyor Opinion
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 6 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
Significance narrative:Data included on this historic property inventory form (HPI) detail stemmed from County
Assessor building records imported by the Washington State Department of Archaeology
of Historic Preservation (DAHP) into WISAARD in 2011. This upload reduces data entry
burden on community volunteers and historical societies participating in the survey and
inventory of their communities. The intent of this project is directed specifically to
facilitating community and public involvement in stewardship, increasing data accuracy,
and providing a versatile planning tool to Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
Currently survey and inventory projects at the local level produce a field form for each
property surveyed and include digital photographs. Volunteers doing the survey track
down and manually enter all the owner, parcel, and legal data manually. Manual data
entry diminishes accuracy and quantity of resources volunteers can survey. Recognizing
this, DAHP uploaded building data for each Certified Local Government (CLG) on
properties that were built in or before 1969 to provide an accurate and comprehensive
baseline dataset. Volunteers doing survey work need only to verify data, add in
photographs and extent of alterations and architectural style data, as well as expand
upon the physical description and significance statement as new data is collected. For
planning purposes, the attrition rate of properties built in or before 1969 can start to be
measured to guide stewardship priorities.
Project methodology entailed use of the University of Washington͛s State Parcel
Database (http://depts.washington.edu/wagis/projects/parcels/development.php) to
provide the base parcel layer for CLGs. Filtering of building data collected from each
county trimmed out all properties built after 1969, as well as all current, previously
inventoried properties. Translation of building data descriptors to match fields in HPI
allowed the data upload. Calculation of point locations utilized the center of each parcel.
Data on this detail provides a snapshot of building information as of 2011. A detailed
project methodology description resides with DAHP. Project team members: Historic
Preservation Northwest, GeoEngineers, and Artifacts Consulting, Inc. (project lead).
Physical description:The house at 658 Maple Street, Edmonds, is located in Snohomish County. According to
the county assessor, the structure was built in 1907 and is a single family dwelling. The 2
-story building has a gable roof clad in asphalt composition shingles. The walls of the
single-family form are clad principally in wood over a platform frame structure. The
county assessor also reports that there is 1 outbuilding on the property which is a
residential detached garage.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Page 7 of 7
Historic Property Report
Yost House 39539Resource Name:Property ID:
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Historic Inventory Report on the Yost House (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
650550
601210752744757
714712710706702615621632626616610303 611615625629637700
770724722720810801802801752744741751755731338310777
801759410556 640638630624618407
748724722720714710555 631629633639645653507503
500
556520518550117
634624520642411
654515627 657658652646503425
415
715717721731303705707711715717721750740730720716710704215709721729739736730724720718203211
703 729731739749736732
660602
648640614
603
612604
305
321601 611625631633641645655657658654644640636628620614610604623633 655601605611615646
626
617627630610600718716645651655660652646318 302540551 558547555550545547555509553502504
741739723717550711701612524525523521
519
528 PLAYFIELDFRANCES ANDERSONCENTERSNO-ISLELIBRARY
CHRISTIANSCIENCECHURCH
COMMODORE
111 660 701
520532760549711707758754200528215219 DURBIN DRWALNUT ST7TH AVE SCEDAR ST6TH AVE SMAIN ST
8TH AVE SH
Project Location
Edmonds Register of Historic Places NominationYost House - 658 Maple StreetPLN20100035 1 inch = 200 feetScale
8.1.f
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - Location Map (Yost House Historic Register Nomination)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Shane Hope
Background/History
Purpose of Housing Strategy
Housing that is affordable or attainable for people is often a challenge, especially in these days of rising
housing prices and growing Puget Sound population--regardless of whether someone is purchasing or
renting. Also, how to meet diverse needs--including for seniors and people with different abilities,
family sizes, and backgrounds--is an issue we face.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of
housing affordable for a range of incomes and to meet special housing needs. A draft strategy has been
developed. A recommendation for it may be made at the Planning Board's July 11 meeting.
The Housing Strategy provides guidance and direction on activities the City can engage in to improve
housing opportunities. It does not automatically create changes to the status quo. For example, any
actual code or budget changes related to this Strategy would be subject to having specific details
proposed first and the full proposal considered under a separate public process.
City Council Involvement
The City Council adopted the citywide Comprehensive Plan to include the requirement for developing a
housing strategy. The Council is involved in various ways with housing, for example, participating in the
Alliance for Housing Affordability, a countywide organization that provides information and assistance
on housing issues. Also, the Council has had numerous briefings and discussions on numerous housing
and homelessness topics over the last three years and has taken action on some items. The City Council
is now beginning the stage of directly reviewing and discussing the proposed Housing Strategy, which
has been recommended by the Planning Board.
Planning Board Involvement
The Planning Board has discussed housing issues and strategies many times.
· Between 2015 and early 2018, housing topics were on the Board's agenda 35 times.
· Planning Board input was built into the draft Housing Strategy.
· On May 23, the Planning Board reviewed and discussed an early draft of the Housing Strategy.
· On June 13, the Planning Board held a public hearing, which included numerous public
comments; the Board also received written comments.
· On June 27, the Planning Board discussed the draft Strategy and provided input on revisions and
next steps.
· On July 11, the Board recommended the draft Housing Strategy, with certain changes, to the
9.1
Packet Pg. 179
City Council for further consideration and adoption.
Task Force
In the summer of 2017, Mayor Earling appointed the Housing Strategy Task Force to make
recommendations for City actions that could be incorporated into a housing strategy that would
increase the supply of affordable housing and meet diverse housing needs. The nine task force
members are primarily housing experts. The Task Force met six times between September 2017 and
May 2018 and made recommendations for the draft Housing Strategy.
Public Outreach
Public outreach about the development of a housing strategy has included:
· Housing forum in the spring of 2017 (co-sponsored by the City)
· Four press releases
· News articles (in My Edmonds News, the Beacon, and City of Edmonds Newsletter)
· Website (see <https://www.edmondshousingstrategy.org/>) with information regularly
updated about the task force, meetings, the draft strategy, and more
· Facebook posting
· Public open house on May 21, 2018
· Planning Board public hearing on June 13, 2018 (minutes attached)
· Planning Board public meetings on June 27 (minutes attached) and July 11, 2018.
Public Comments
Written public comments that were received and included in the Planning Board ‘s packet for the
June 13 public hearing are attached here. Other comments were not consolidated and ready to
include in the Council’s July 24 packet, but they will be provided separately in the near future.
Staff Recommendation
For City Council to discuss Draft Strategy and begin process of questions and comments
Narrative
The Draft Housing Strategy (attached) incorporates recommended changes from the Planning Board. At
the July 11 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board recommended that the Draft Strategy, with
language changes (which have since been made), be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and
adoption. (Note: Minutes from the Board's July 11 meeting are not yet ready.)
The proposed Housing Strategy provides data on housing needs in our region, particularly in Edmonds.
That includes housing affordability. "Affordable housing" does not just mean for low-income, though
that can be important too. It includes housing that is affordable to moderate and even middle-income
families. Another aspect of the Housing Strategy is consideration of diverse needs. For example,
seniors often need or prefer different types of housing than young families.
The second part of the Draft Strategy focuses on objectives and actions. The key objectives are
summarized as:
1. Increase the supply of market-rate multi-family housing.
2. Expand opportunities for housing diversity (for example, accessory dwellings).
3. Support the needs of an aging population.
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted housing.
5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness.
6. Provide protection for low-income tenants (for example, fair housing information).
9.1
Packet Pg. 180
Each of the objectives has a set of actions that are identified to help implement the objective. These will
be presented at the Council’s July 24 meeting, but can also be reviewed in more detail in the attached
Draft Strategy.
Note: All the objectives above, except Objective 4, have “recommended” actions to help them be
carried out. Objective 5 (regarding homelessness) only lists “potential” actions, recognizing that a
separate study is being conducted on homelessness and the subject is only touched on in the Draft
Strategy currently under consideration.
Next Steps
At the July 24 City Council meeting, a presentation will be given on the housing data and the objectives
and actions that are recommended in the Draft Strategy.
On August 21, a public hearing on the Draft Strategy is proposed.
Other Council meetings will follow in August and September.
After a Housing Strategy is finalized and adopted by the City Council, it will take time to implement it.
The Strategy on its own does not create changes. It identifies actions that can be taken up later. For
example, any actions that would amend city code or require a special budget provision must go through
a separate public process, where more details would be considered and decided on by the City Council.
(An appendix in the Draft Housing Strategy lists the basic steps for amending city code.)
Attachments:
Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719
PBMinutes-Housing
PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes
HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda
Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018
9.1
Packet Pg. 181
July 2018
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Top Row
(Left) Townhomes in Seattle.
https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/2850-S-Nevada-St-98108/home/8187294
(Center) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live-work-
play architecture.
Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http://www.seattle.gov/council/adu-eis
(Right) Mixed-use, mixed-type, and mixed-income housing in the Westlawn Gardens
neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI.
https://planning.org/awards/2018/westlawn/
Second Row
(Left) Highpoint is a development located in West Seattle with a mix of low-income
and market rate housing—it offers 1,600 housing units, with nearly half being
affordable, with a mix of publicly and privately funded units. High Point offers a
variety of housing styles and scales, and is integrated with retail and civic amenities.
Mithun, Juan Hernandez, http://comm-aps.com/portfolio_page/high-point/
(Center) One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide
resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current
housing units—such programs could include home modification, transportation,
recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling.
Edmonds Senior Center, http://www.facebook.com/EdmondsSeniorCenter/
(Right) Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is a five-story apartment community that
serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-planning-
project.html
Third Row
(Left) Edmonds Lutheran Church and Compass Housing Alliance have partnered to
develop a multistory housing development for low-income individuals and couples
in the City of Edmonds. The housing will feature an innovative new modular building
technique that greatly shortens design and construction time to lower costs.
https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/seattle-startup-chooses-edmonds-for-first-stackable-housing-
project/1756401
(Center) Anthem on 12th is a workforce housing development in Seattle financed
through a multifamily tax exemption program.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-planning-
project.html
(Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island.
HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_2.html
Bottom Row
(Left) Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved from a
tent camp for the homeless.
http://quixotevillage.com/
(Center) Capitol Hill Housing is a publicly owned corporation that developers
affordable housing and provides resident and homeless services in collaboration with
local economic development organizations, service provider networks, and other
affiliates. The Fleming Apartment building in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood serves
households earning 50% of area median income.
https://www.capitolhillhousing.org/ourproperties/buildings/flemin.php and https://www.apartments.com/
fleming-apartments-seattle-wa/ycwvmns/
(Right) Section 8 Vouchers can be used by people with low-incomes to rent market-
rate housing units. The vouchers are intended to help people with low-incomes live
in neighborhoods that would otherwise be unavailable to them within their means.
Aline Ridge Apartments, pictured here, are a multifamily housing development in
Kirkland that accepts Section 8 vouchers.
https://www.kcha.org/housing/property.aspx?PropertyID=1
Cover Photos
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force
BILL ANDERSON
Compass Housing Alliance
REV. M. CHRISTOPHER BOYER
Good Shepherd Baptist Church
CHRIS COLLIER
Alliance For Housing Affordability
MARK CRAIG
Henbart, LLC.
ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS
Edmonds City Council
JAMIE REECE
Reece Homes Real Estate
MARK SMITH
Housing Consortium Of Everett And Snohomish County
ROB VAN TASSELL
Catholic Housing Of Western Washington
ANNE WERMUS
Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition
City of Edmonds Staff
SHANE HOPE
Development Services Director
BRAD SHIPLEY
Associate Planner
DIANE CUNNINGHAM
Planning Administrative Assistant
Consultant Team: BERK Consulting
KEVIN RAMSEY
Project Manager
ANDREW BJORN
Policy Specialist
JESSIE HARTMANN
Layout and Information Designer
MELANIE MAYOCK
Analyst
Acknowledgements DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Executive Summary
Edmonds is facing urgent housing affordability challenges that are
impacting communities across the Central Puget Sound Region. To a
great extent, these challenges are caused by rapid job and population
growth that is outpacing the production of new housing near job centers.
With so many new people and families competing for a limited supply of
housing, prices get pushed increasingly higher. This results in a widening
gap between housing costs and what is affordable to low, moderate, and
even middle-income households. In Edmonds, nearly 6,000 households
are “cost burdened” and struggling to afford rising housing costs. Over
4,000 of these cost-burdened households are low-income. Additionally,
at least 2,400 low-income workers are commuting long distances to
jobs in Edmonds from homes in more affordable communities.
Housing affordability is an issue that impacts all Edmonds residents.
Rising housing costs can lead to the displacement of long-term residents,
uprooting lives and undermining the stability of neighborhoods. When
workers in Edmonds are not living close to their jobs, they must drive
longer distances to their workplace. This increases traffic congestion
on local streets, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation costs.
A lack of affordable housing also makes it difficult to hire and retain
teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the
community. Maintaining a healthy and sustainable city means that
Edmonds will need to build more housing and different kinds of housing
to meet the diverse needs of our population and workforce.
While the City has already taken some important steps to address
critical housing needs and contribute to regional housing solutions,
additional actions are both necessary are necessary to address the
housing affordability needs of Edmonds residents. This report presents
a multi-part strategy for increasing the supply affordable housing
options in Edmonds to meet the needs of a diverse range of household
types and income levels. This strategy recognizes that both market rate
and income-restricted affordable housing production will play a role in
meeting the housing needs of Edmonds residents and workforce. The
strategy includes six1 objectives:
1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing. Ensuring
that there is sufficient supply of apartments and condominium
housing in Edmonds is essential to reduce upward pressure on
housing costs and providing more options for small households
who do not need a lot of space. Edmonds could allow and
1 These objectives are not presented in rank order.
The City’s 2016 Comprehensive
Plan includes an Implementing
Action to develop a strategy by
2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing for all income
levels and meeting diverse
housing needs.
Why is Edmonds Developing
a Housing Strategy?
i
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
encourage more multifamily housing production in targeted areas
across the city to address this need.
2. Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle”. We need
a wider range of housing options to meet the diverse needs
of different households at various income levels and stages in
their life-cycle, ranging from young one-person households to
retirees. Edmonds could allow and encourage the development of
“missing middle” housing types such as accessory dwelling units,
duplexes, and townhomes to meet these needs.
3. Support the needs of an aging population. One out five Edmonds
residents is over the age of 65, this share will continue to grow
over the coming years. Our community should consider the
housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. Managing
these needs may require supporting the desire for some residents
to “age in place” in their homes, while accommodating other
residents in assisted living and nursing home facilities.
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable housing.
A large share of the Edmonds workforce and current population
do not earn enough income to afford market-rate housing.
Edmonds could support and encourage more affordable housing
development in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies
to meet the needs of these community members.
5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce
homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are
often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this
strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence.
However, Edmonds could play an important role by coordinating
with regional service providers and reducing barriers to the
development of emergency, transitional, or permanent supportive
housing for the homeless. The City is currently pursuing a
separate and more detailed study into the needs of homeless
populations in Edmonds and options for addressing those needs.
The results of this study will inform any future actions by the City.
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants. Low-income tenants
could be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can
affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds
could identify short and long-term solutions to address these
needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing
in the community.
A home is generally considered
to be affordable if the household
is paying no more than 30
percent of their income on
housing costs. A healthy housing
market includes a variety of
housing types that are affordable
to a range of different household
income levels.
The term “affordable housing” is
often used to describe income-
restricted housing available
only to qualifying low-income
households. Income-restricted
housing can be located in public,
nonprofit, or for-profit housing
developments. It can also include
households using vouchers to
help pay for market-rate housing.
In this report, “affordable
housing” refers to any housing
that is affordable to the
household that is occupying
it, whether market rate or
subsidized.
See Appendix C for a glossary of
housing terminology used in this
report.
What is Affordable Housing?
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
ii
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Introduction 1
Housing Needs in Edmonds 3
Homeless Persons and Families 4
Workforce Housing 5
Senior Housing 8
Housing Strategy 9
Overview 9
1. Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing 11
2. Expand Housing Diversity in the “Missing Middle” 14
3. Support the Needs of an Aging Population 16
4. Increase the Supply of Income-Restricted Affordable Housing 17
5. Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce
Homelessness 21
6. Provide Protections for Low-Income Tenants 23
Appendices 25
Appendix A. Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment 27
Household Incomes in Edmonds 27
Housing Supply in Edmonds 28
Housing Needs by Household Type 33
Special Needs Populations 36
Appendix B. Homeless Services and Resources in Edmonds 41
Appendix C. Glossary of Housing Affordability Terminology 43
Appendix D. Public Involvement in Implementation 47
Code Amendment Process in Edmonds 47
Appendix E. Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools 49
Contents
iii
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Cost-Burdened Households and Current Income-
Restricted Housing Inventory 3
Exhibit 2 Low-wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds 6
Exhibit 3 Cost-Burdened Households in Edmonds by
Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded) 7
Exhibit 4 Median Family Income 27
Exhibit 5 Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by
Housing Tenure 28
Exhibit 6 Edmonds Housing Inventory 28
Exhibit 7 Household (HH) Sizes Compared to Housing Unit Sizes 29
Exhibit 8 Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units
by Income Level, 2017 31
Exhibit 9 Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level
Compared to Household Need 32
Exhibit 10 Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011–2018 32
Exhibit 11 Low-wage Workers Commuting Long Distances to
Jobs Located in Edmonds 34
Exhibit 12 Renter Households with Incomes 30–50% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded) 35
Exhibit 13 Renter Households with Incomes 50–80% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded) 35
Exhibit 14 Edmonds Population by Age Range 36
Exhibit 15 Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below
AMI, by Income Level 37
Exhibit 16 Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District 38
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
iv
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in
Edmonds is strong. As more people move to the Puget Sound Region,
the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and
housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of
many long-term residents.
Rising housing costs impact the quality of life for all Edmonds residents.
When workers in Edmonds can’t live close to their jobs, they must drive
longer distances to work: increasing their transportation costs as well
as traffic congestion on local streets and greenhouse gas emissions.
A lack of affordable housing makes it difficult to recruit, hire, and
retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of
the community. Students in families struggling with housing insecurity
often have increased challenges in school and require greater
attention and resources. Housing affordability is essential to quality of
life, environmental sustainability, and community resiliency.
To maintain an inclusive, healthy, and thriving city, Edmonds needs
more housing in a variety of formats to meet the housing demand from
our diverse population and workforce. Also, with a large population
of older residents, Edmonds needs to make more space for younger
community members who can contribute to our city’s economic and
civic vitality. This requires different kinds of housing that meet the needs
of diverse lifestyles. This is important because not everyone needs the
same type of housing: some families prefer a large detached housing
with a large yard, while others are happy with a small house and small
yard. Still, others want the option to live in an apartment, townhome,
condominium, or something else. When we provide opportunities for
different types of housing to be built, people have more choices. This
also enables us to support the housing needs of community members
across their entire life cycle, from younger adults living alone, to new
families, and to retirees looking to downsize.
The City of Edmonds is committed to addressing housing affordability
challenges. In recent years, Edmonds has taken several actions:
• Adopted a multifamily tax abatement program that applies in
some locations when at least 20 percent of the new housing is
dedicated to low and moderate-income households.
• Adopted reductions in park and transportation impact fees for
low-income housing projects.
Introduction
1
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
• Set aside $250,000 for a fund that will assist with homeless
needs and began a new study to assess those needs
• Joined the Alliance for Housing Affordability, a multi-jurisdiction
organization that is looking to contribute funds toward selected
affordable housing projects.
• Adopted a plan and regulations that allow more housing in the
Westgate and State Route 99 areas.
While these steps show progress, they are not sufficient to address
the full range of housing affordability needs in Edmonds. Therefore,
the 2016 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan committed the City to develop
and implement a Housing Strategy by 2019 that would increase the
supply of affordable housing for a range of income levels and meet
diverse housing needs.
In 2017 the Mayor appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force to make
recommendations for increasing the supply of affordable housing and
meeting diverse housing needs. The Task Force is composed of nine
local housing developers, policy experts, and civic leaders representing
the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors. This group has met on five
occasions to review an analysis of the local housing supply and housing
needs, identify best practice solutions for addressing housing needs,
and evaluate potential actions that the City can take to most effectively
address housing needs in Edmonds. Some of these actions the City
could tackle alone, while others would be most effectively pursued in
collaboration with Snohomish County, neighboring communities, and
other partners through coordinated regional strategies.
This report presents the Housing Strategy, including actions
recommended by the Task Force. The strategy addresses the need
to increase the production of both market rate and income-restricted
affordable housing to meet the needs of a diverse range of household
types and income levels.
The Strategy gives direction and guidance for many actions that
could be explored or implemented in the near future. Actions, such as
code amendments and budget adoption, are also subject to separate
processes to explore potential impacts and provide for public input.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
2
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing.
One indicator of need is cost-burdened households. A cost-burdened
household is spending over 30 percent of their income on housing
costs, while a severely cost-burdened household is spending over 50
percent of income on housing.
Between 2010 and 2014 there were nearly 6,000 cost-burdened
households in Edmonds. This includes over 4,600 low- and moderate-
income households. These needs have very likely grown in the years
since this data was collected. Between 2011 and 2018 average monthly
rents in Edmonds have increased by over $600, or 4.6 percent per
year.2
As shown in Exhibit 1, the current inventory of income-restricted
subsidized housing is small and inadequate compared to the level of
need.
2 Source: BERK analysis of Zillow Rent Index data for City of Edmonds, March 2011–March 2018.
Housing Needs in Edmonds
ExhIBIT 1
Cost-Burdened Households and Current Income-Restricted Housing Inventory
Sources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010–2014
5-year estimates); Housing Consortium of
Everett and Snohomish County, 2018
Income-RestrictedHousing units0
Cost-burdenedHouseholds1,570
Cost-burdenedHouseholds1,490 Cost-burdenedHouseholds1,075
Income-RestrictedHousing units 138
Income-RestrictedHousing units 138
Total Households
2,045 Total Households
1,945
Total Households2,250
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Households
Extremely Low-Income(30% AMI)Very Low-Income(30-50% AMI)Low-Income(50-80% AMI)Moderate Income(80-100% AMI)Above Median Income(>100% AMI)
Cost-burdenedHouseholds520
Cost-burdenedHouseholds1,170
Total Households
1,690
Total Households
9,510
Cost-Burdened
Household spends more than 30%of monthly income on housing costs
Severely Cost-Burdened
Household spends more than 50%of monthly income on housing costs
Not Calculated
Not Cost Burdened
Analyses of housing affordability
typically group all households
by income level relative to area
median family income, or the
median income of all family
households in the metropolitan
region or county. Median income
of non-family households is
typically lower than for family
households.
In this report AMI refers to the
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD)
Area Median Family Income. In
Snohomish County, 2018 AMI is
$96,000.
What is Area Median
Income (AMI)?
3
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that
match a diverse array of different household types and income levels.
This chapter provides a summary of housing needs in Edmonds. A more
detailed assessment of the Edmonds housing supply and community
needs is available in Appendix A: Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment.
Homeless Persons and Families
Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there
has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons,
from 344 to 515 in 2017.3 Chronic homelessness has increased at an
even faster rate, from 135 persons in 2013 to 313 persons in 2017. There
are 260 students attending schools in Edmonds that are homeless.4
There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing
stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs,
disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and
criminal records. Housing strategies must often be coordinated with
support services to help homeless residents address the underlying
causes of housing insecurity. The City is currently conducting a more
detailed analysis of the needs of its homeless population.
Housing Strategies for Homeless Persons and Families
• Winter and emergency shelters for short-term needs
• Transitional housing (particularly for women and children)
• Flexible low-cost housing formats that can be built quickly to
address targeted needs on a temporary basis
• Permanent supportive housing with coordinated services
3 Snohomish County Point-in-Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/41603
4 This includes students who are in temporary housing situations such as
“doubled-up”, or staying with friends or family due to lack of housing.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
4
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Workforce Housing
Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place
of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.5
The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail,
accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries
are typically low wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds
pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of Area Median
Income (AMI).6 Over a quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than
$15,000 per year, or about 15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these
wage levels would have an extremely difficult time finding anywhere to
live in Edmonds without a second job or a dual-income household. This
helps explains why 87 percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of
Edmonds and 42 percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace. As
shown in Exhibit 2 on the following page, nearly 1,100 low-wage workers
commute more than 25 miles, and nearly 1,300 additional workers
commute more than 10 miles from their homes outside of Edmonds.
5 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap
Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
6 Note that some individuals work more than one job and some households have
more than one worker. So, wage levels do not necessarily reflect total household
income. However, many households in Edmonds are composed of a single worker
living alone and many people would prefer to work only one job. Therefore,
comparing local wage levels to housing costs is one important way to determine
whether the current housing supply is affordable to the local workforce.
A home health aide in Edmonds earns
around $26,000 per year. At this income,
she could afford a monthly rent of $840
per month. The average rent for a studio
apartment in Edmonds is over $1,000
per month and studios are in very limited
supply. It is unlikely that a home health aide
living alone could find a suitable home in
Edmonds, affordable or otherwise.
The most effective way to meet the needs
of very low-income workers is increasing
production of subsidized income-restricted
affordable housing. However, increasing the
supply of market-rate small apartments or “micro-housing” can also help to provide
more low-cost housing options for workers living alone in Edmonds.
EXAMPLE:
Home Health Aide Living Alone
Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Image: Department of Defense
A military veteran has returned
home and is now working as an
entry-level fire fighter, earning
$69,000 per year. His wife works
half-time as a coffee barista and
earns an average of $14,300
per year. Together they support
three children on a combined
household income of $83,400,
or about 87 percent of AMI. With
this income, the family could
afford up to $2,085 per month in
rent. Yet, the average cost to rent
a single family home in Edmonds
is over $2,400.* Home-ownership
opportunities are even further
out of reach.
Moderate-income family
households like this one need
more rental and ownership
housing opportunities. Edmonds
current has a very limited stock of
lower cost family housing such as
townhomes, duplexes, or small-
lot single family cottage homes.
The City can enable and promote
the development of these
housing types through targeted
rezones and code amendments
that add flexibility. Doing so will
help meet the needs of a wider
range of household types and
income levels.
*Zillow Rent Index (single family
residences), May 2018
EXAMPLE:
Moderate-Income
Family Household
5
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
435
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
936
Commute More Than10 Miles to Work
Very Low Wage Workers
Monthly Wage1: up to $1,250
Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375
658
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
1,518
Commute More Than10 Miles to Work
Low Wage Workers
Monthly Wage1: up to $3,333
Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $1,000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015; BERK, 2017
(1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket.
ExhIBIT 2
Low-wage Long-distance
Commuters to Edmonds
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
6
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Workforce Housing Solutions
• Subsidized multifamily housing.
• Increased production of small market rate apartments, including
studios, efficiencies, and micro-housing.
• More “missing middle” housing formats like ADUs, duplexes, and
townhomes.
Exhibit 3 shows cost-burdened non-senior households by household
type and income level. It shows there are household struggling with
housing costs across the entire income spectrum. The greatest need
is among small families (2–4 members) and non-family households,
which are typically people living alone or with unrelated housemates.
ExhIBIT 3
Cost-Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded)
household Type
Below
30% AMI
30–50%
AMI
50–80%
AMI
80–100%
AMI
Over
100% AMI
All Cost-Burdened
households
Large Family 80 50 10 0 10 150
Small Family 170 380 330 245 645 1,770
Non-family 215 270 340 110 210 1,145
Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010–2014 5-year estimates)
A single parent working as
a receptionist in Edmonds
earns an average of about
$34,000 per year. At this
wage the family could
afford $960 per month in
rent, whereas 1-bedroom
apartments rent for at
least $1,200 in Edmonds
and they are in very short
supply. Increasing the
supply of smaller apartments and reducing restrictions to
other home types like accessory dwelling units could help
to address the needs of working single parents. Increasing
the supply of income-restricted housing is needed to meet
the needs of low-income households.
EXAMPLE:
Single Parent Working as a Receptionist
Image: Shutterstock, Alena Vasko
A family of four with one
parent employed as an
elementary teacher earns
an average of $62,000 per
year, or about 65 percent
of AMI. At this wage the
family could afford up to
$1,550 in rent. The average
three-bedroom apartment
in Edmonds rents for
almost $1,700 per month.
Homeownership options are generally far out of reach.
Moderate-income family households like this one
need more “missing middle” housing options such as
townhomes, duplexes, or detached accessory dwelling
units to provide more rental and ownership housing
opportunities.
EXAMPLE:
Teacher Supporting a Family of Four
Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics
7
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Senior Housing
One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and over
7,000 residents age 55–65 will become seniors within the next 10
years.7 Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and
mobility challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing
needs that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to
age in place may require additional support services such as home
modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or
care management and counseling. While many senior households in
Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and
services, many others will not.
Indicators of Need
• 3,200 senior households in Edmonds with incomes below AMI.
• 422 cost-burdened renters’ households.
• Over 1,500 cost-burdened homeowners.
Senior Housing Solutions
• Subsidized and market-rate senior living facilities with coordinated
support services.
• Detached and attached accessory dwelling units.
• Support services to facilitate aging in place.
7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 2011–2015
Image: Unspash, Sam Wheeler
Frank is a 74-year-old widower
who has lived in a single-family
home in Edmonds for 46 years.
He loves his community and
wishes to stay in Edmonds.
However, the cost of maintaining
his large home is becoming
unmanageable. So, Frank would
like to build a detached accessory
dwelling unit (DADU) in the large
yard and rent the main building to
a young family who cannot afford
to buy a home in Edmonds. A
DADU would be the perfect size
for Frank and could be designed
with accessibility in mind so
that he can stay in the home as
his mobility declines. The rent
from the primary home would
be more than enough to cover
the loan to build the DADU. It
could also provide Frank enough
income to cover the costs of
other services like transportation,
grocery delivery, gardening, and
occasional visits from a home
health aide.
Currently DADUs are not
allowed by Edmonds code. A
key element of this strategy is to
relax these kinds of restrictions
to enable more housing solutions
for seniors and others.
EXAMPLE:
Supporting Affordable
Aging in Place for
Edmonds Seniors
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
8
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Overview
The Edmonds housing Strategy charts a course for supporting
a sustainable, inclusive community with a range of housing types
for households with different income levels and housing needs. It
includes six objectives for improving access to affordable housing
across the full range of housing types. The strategy is focused on
reducing costs of development, increasing housing production, and
addressing the specific needs of special populations in the city.
The 2016 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan includes the following
10 goals related to housing in the community to achieve this strategy’s
mission:
1. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and
individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex,
religion, disability or economic circumstances.
2. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future
decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing.
3. Provide for special needs populations—such as low income,
disabled, or senior residents—to have a decent home in a healthy
and suitable living environment.
4. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging
preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the
community.
5. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if
need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged,
disabled, low income, and senior residents.
6. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established
character of the community.
7. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent
with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
8. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems
to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to
the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing.
Housing Strategy
9
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
9. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that
seek to achieve other community goals as well.
10. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk
standards, design is an important aspect of housing and
determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its
surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated,
as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the
location and design of housing.
The development and implementation of the Housing Strategy is
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also proposes that the
City track and report the development of housing over time, with a
target of 112 additional dwelling units per year to reach 21,168 units
by 2035. This target rate of growth is faster than Edmonds has seen
in some prior years, especially during the recession periood. More
recently, since 2014, the City has added an average of 107 units per
year. To achieve the growth target, Edmonds will need to continue
increasing its rate of new housing production.
Considering the content of the Comprehensive Plan, this Housing
Strategy is structured around six priority objectives to achieve these
goals:
1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing
2. Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle”
3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing
4. Identify and adopt strategies to address homelessness
5. Support the needs of an aging population
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants
For each of these strategic objectives, this Housing Strategy provides a
description of the general focus and intent, a list of potential actions to
achieve the objective, and next steps for implementing these actions.
Before implementing any action, the City will conduct additional
analysis of potential benefits and impacts, and it will solicit additional
public input. The general process the city will follow to implement
actions is described in Appendix D.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
10
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
1. ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
Edmonds needs to aggressively increase the supply of market-rate
multifamily housing such as apartments or condominiums to provide
a greater variety of housing options and reduce upward pressure on
housing costs. This can be facilitated by easing requirements and
providing new market-based incentives. These actions typically focus
on units appropriate for smaller households with one to two members
and between 60 and 120 percent of AMI, including some low- and
middle-income workers.
Recommended Actions
1.1 Support transit-oriented development along current and future
transit corridors. Some areas with higher levels of transit service can
support transit-oriented development (TOD). This can include not only
targeted rezoning and code refinement for more intensive development,
but also support for a mix of residential, retail, and service offerings,
multi-modal transportation options, and parking management that can
support walkability and transit use. The City should coordinate with
Community Transit and Sound Transit to identify current and future
areas for TOD and review potential schedules for implementation.
Finally, the City should explore combining this action with an expanded
multifamily tax exemption (Action 4.5) and an inclusionary zoning
program (Action 4.6) to encourage affordable housing development.
1.2 Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones. Providing more
flexibility for new development, including greater building heights
or densities on a site allows more units to be accommodated on
available land in areas zoned for multifamily development. This not
only increases potential housing supply in Edmonds, it can also spur
redevelopment of older, obsolete housing by permitting larger projects
that would be more economically feasible to develop. The City should
identify targeted areas where increased building heights or density
levels would be appropriate and supportable by local infrastructure
and services.
1.3 Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted areas.
Reducing the number of parking stalls required for each new housing
unit allows for lower development costs by reducing the amount of
land necessary to accommodate parking spaces and the need to
11
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
accommodate parking within a residential building. This can also make
market-rate projects more feasible by allowing for more of a site to
be used for housing. The City should explore where it makes sense
to reduce parking requirements, particularly in areas well served by
transit to facilitate TOD.
1.4 Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting
process. The City should work to improve the development permitting
process and related reviews. Faster permit reviews, predictable
timelines, and an easy to understand process and requirements would
reduce the administrative and carrying costs for development projects
in the community. This may be accomplished in multiple ways, such
as by increased department staffing during busy cycles, clear and
informative reference materials, public reports on actual permit review
times, and “one window” access for applicants.
1.5 Provide density bonuses for projects that set aside income-
restricted units. The City should identify locations where increases
in density or building heights could be allowed, in exchange for a
percentage of the units being allocated to income-restricted housing
for a specified period or an in-lieu payment to a City affordable housing
fund. This program would be a voluntary incentive to encourage more
multifamily housing production as well as income-restricted housing
production. As an alternative, the City could consider a mandatory
inclusionary zoning program as described in Action 4.6.
1.6 Explore the application of “micro-housing” style developments.
“Micro-housing” typically refers to multifamily buildings with very small
efficiency units (usually less than 200 square feet) or congregate
Policymakers in the City of Portland wanted to encourage building a greater variety
of housing types (such as duplexes and townhomes) in its residential neighborhoods
and reduce the costs of development. But it also wanted high design standards to
avoid impacting community character. To do this they brought together community
stakeholders to design a series of housing prototypes that meet City regulations and
design objectives and are feasible from a market perspective. The purpose is to make it
easier and faster for builders to develop the kinds of new housing that meet community
objectives. For more information see Portland’s Infill Design Project Overview.
Source: City of Portland, Planning and Sustainability
EXAMPLE:
Portland’s Infill Design Project
Smaller houses that better fit existing
neighborhoods (top), more housing options
for people’s changing needs (center), clear
and fair rules for narrow low development
(bottom)
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
12
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
housing with private rooms and shared kitchens and other facilities.
Micro-housing projects can provide lower-cost options for one or
two-person households that do not need significant amounts of living
space. Modifications or relaxations of zoning and code requirements
should be explored to determine the feasibility of micro-housing in key
locations. Note that although this discussion is focused on workforce
housing, code amendments could be explored in conjunction with
those for flexible housing options for homeless residents detailed in
Action 5.1.
Additional Actions
1.7 Advocate for state legislation to promote condominium
development. The Washington State Condominium Act is interpreted
to subject condo developers to an implied warranty for construction,
which has provided a disincentive for condo production in the market.
Edmonds should work with other cities when possible to encourage
the state legislature to revise the Act.
1.8 Coordinate communication and outreach to the development
community. Providing public information about city regulations and
incentives, especially those designed to encourage specific housing
types, should be used to support the use of these programs in Edmonds.
This can include web and hard-copy informational handouts, city email
newsletters, forums, workshops, and other approaches.
Next Steps
• Review buildable lands and the status of developed single-
family areas in Edmonds to determine some potential areas for
upzoning that could accommodate greater amounts of residential
development.
• When considering changes to development codes, identify whether
new design standards may be needed to maintain community
character while providing developers with additional flexibility.
• Coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to
determine appropriate locations for new and expanded transit-
oriented development and coordinate long-range land use and
transit planning for these locations.
• Continue to streamline the process for permit reviews and other
associated project reviews for new development and maintain a
13
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
clear and transparent system to allow the public to understand the
process. Provide information resources as necessary to educate
stakeholders about the development review process.
• Review the current Community Development and Building Codes
to assess potential obstacles to the development of different
micro-housing options, determine the expected uptake of micro-
housing units, and provide recommendations for changes to the
Codes that would help to achieve housing goals.
• Coordinate with the PSRC, Snohomish County, other local
governments, and key stakeholders to lobby the legislature to
address issues with the Condominium Act.
• Compile available information on the development process in
Edmonds, and provide the public with clear, easy to understand
guides to the process to improve transparency.
2. EXPAND HOUSING DIVERSITY IN
THE “MISSING MIDDLE”
The housing market in Edmonds is primarily composed of single-
family homes and apartments. The development of a wider variety of
housing products is essential to meet the diverse needs of different
populations. Households at various income levels and stages in their
life-cycle (ranging from young one-person households to retirees)
will have different space needs and financial capacities. This range
of conditions can be addressed more efficiently in the market by
providing units in “missing middle” housing types such as accessory
dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes. Market-based approaches
to expand opportunities for these developments can encourage a
more diverse and flexible housing supply that better meets the needs
of the community.
Recommended Actions
2.1 Allow more flexible requirements for accessory dwelling units
and backyard cottages. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small,
self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an existing
single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary residence
(e.g., basement unit) or detached from the primary residence. The City
should promote the development of ADUs by modifying requirements
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
14
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
that prevent or discourage homeowners from adding a unit to an
existing property. This may include more flexible parking requirements,
changing owner occupancy requirements, allowing unrelated
households to reside in these units, and so forth. The City should also
explore the impacts of allowing some ADUs to be used for short-term
rentals as a source of income for local homeowners, including impacts
on the surrounding community and long-term rental housing supply.
2.2 Allow for more housing diversity in some single-family areas.
Most households cannot afford to live in a large-lot single-family home.
In locations near transit and commercial centers, it may make sense
to allow for a greater variety of housing types that still fit the character
of the surrounding community. These could include townhomes,
duplexes, cottage housing, or small-lot single-family units. Targeted
rezones or code amendments to allow more flexibility can help to
promote a wider diversity of housing types on the market to meet the
needs of a wide range of household types and income levels.
Next Steps
• Review existing provisions within the Community Development
Code and determine the changes necessary to address major
obstacles in the development of accessory dwelling units and
other small housing formats.
• When considering changes to development code, identify
whether new design standards may be needed to maintain
community character while providing developers with additional
flexibility.
• Review buildable lands and the status of developed single-family
areas in the community to determine potential areas for rezoning
to allow “missing middle” housing development, such as duplexes
and townhouses.
• Explore the wider application of form-based codes that could
support the development of “missing middle” housing in other
neighborhoods.
• Compile available information that would be able to support the
development of community land trusts in the city.
The cities of Mountlake Terrace,
Shoreline, Lynnwood and Everett
all impose less constraints on the
development and use of ADUs
when compared to Edmonds.
The City of Mountlake Terrace
promote the development of
ADUs and detached ADUs on
their website and provide a
clear guide for homeowners
considering adding an ADU
to their property. Planners
in Mountlake Terrace report
a significant increase in the
number of ADU permits in recent
years as awareness of concept
grows in the community.
Source: City of Mountlake
Terrace, via city website
EXAMPLE:
Encouraging Accessory
Dwelling Units
15
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
3. SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION
Over 20 percent of Edmonds residents are over the age of 65.
Demographic trends indicate this share will continue to grow over the
coming years. Our community must consider the housing and lifestyle
needs of these older residents. For those that decide to “age in place”
in their current housing units, there will be challenges in accessing
appropriate health and social services as well as managing the ongoing
costs of housing with fixed incomes. For those that choose assisted
living options or care in nursing homes, land use requirements should
allow sufficient options to be built affordably for their needs.
Recommended Actions
3.1 Pursue partnerships to support aging in place. One way to
address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources
to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in
current housing units. Such programs could include home modification,
shared housing, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care,
or care management and counseling. This may be best pursued in
partnership with another organization involved with elder care, such as
Aging and Disability Services of Snohomish County.
3.2 Examine property tax relief and utility rate/tax relief programs.
Low-income homeowners, especially seniors, can be at risk of economic
displacement when property tax or utility charges increase. Snohomish
County has a property tax exemption and deferral programs for senior
and disabled persons as well as property tax deferral program for limited
income homeowners. The City could expand participation in these
programs through increased outreach and education. Additionally, the
City could review its programs to provide relief for the cost of utilities
to provide support to seniors and other groups. Current City utility
programs offer some discounts to low-income residents.
Additional Actions
3.3 Reduce barriers to group homes and housing for seniors.
Housing in retirement and assisted living communities in Edmonds,
including nursing homes or memory care facilities, may have certain
code requirements (e.g., vehicle parking) that are less applicable to
the needs for seniors or other group home residents. Modifications
or relaxations of code requirements can help to reduce the costs of
development, as well as the associated costs of housing for seniors
and other special needs populations.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
16
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Next Steps
• Develop partnerships with nonprofit organizations involved with
elder care to coordinate a “aging in place” plan for city services
and land uses that will support residents of Edmonds as they age.
• Review options for property tax and utility rate relief programs for
seniors to determine the expected uptake, fiscal implications, and
relative impacts of such a program.
• Coordinate a forum with local and regional developers of
care facilities and nursing homes to review requirements for
developing these uses in Edmonds, and potential innovations to
reduce the costs of these projects.
4. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF INCOME-
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
For many low-income households with incomes 60 percent of AMI
or below, it is unlikely that the market can provide housing that
is affordable. Actions should be taken by the City to support and
encourage the development of income-restricted housing through
funding contributions, reducing costs to build new affordable housing
projects, and incentives to include affordable units in new market-
rate developments. The City can also encourage innovative private or
nonprofit financing tools for housing types that are more difficult to
finance in the traditional market. The tools may include methods that
use technology in new ways. Increasing the supply of income-restricted
affordable housing can be most effectively pursued in partnership
with other agencies and nonprofits such as the Alliance for Affordable
Housing, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, Housing Hope,
YWCA, Compass, Hazel Miller Foundation, and Verdant.
Recommended Actions
4.1 Conduct an inventory of public and nonprofit land suitable for
affordable housing development. The City should develop an inventory
of public- or nonprofit-owned properties that are vacant or underutilized
and then assess which properties are potentially suitable for affordable
housing development. This will enable the City to identify and prioritize
opportunities to facilitate new affordable housing development through
the direct voluntary donation of parcels. The City could also consider
raising funds through the sale of surplus properties that are not suitable
for affordable housing development. Proceeds from the sale of these
properties could be used to support affordable housing projects.
Under the Shoreline Municipal
Code, density bonuses are
provided in multifamily areas,
with up to a 50 percent increase
in density provided for units
affordable for households with
incomes up to 80 percent AMI.
Covenants are registered on the
property to retain this affordable
housing on the site for a 30-year
period.
EXAMPLE:
Shoreline Density Bonus
17
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4.2 Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing
development targeted at 0–30 percent AMI. The City should allocate
funding to help support an affordable housing project targeted for
extremely low-income households. A contribution by the City can
greatly improve the competitiveness for receiving additional grant
funding, such as Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants that are
administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. Funding
from the City could be used to pursue projects in Edmonds in partnership
with a nonprofit housing developer, or pooled to contribute to regional
housing solutions through the Alliance for Housing Affordability.
4.3 Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations. A major source of support
that can help low-income households access housing on the private
market is the Section 8 voucher program, funded by the federal
government and administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish
County. The City of Edmonds should work proactively with the Authority
to secure additional project-based vouchers for developments within
the city where possible. This should be done in cooperation with third-
party nonprofit organizations where applicable.
4.4 Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for
affordable housing development. The City should provide support
and funding to nonprofit developers interested in receiving financial
support from the state and federal governments. Among the available
programs, federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) can
provide tax credits for 10 years of up to about 9 percent of the qualified
basis of a building and are administered through the Washington State
Housing Finance Commission. Additionally, the State Department of
Commerce administers the Housing Trust Fund for the construction,
acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, preferably for
households with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of the
Area Median Income.
4.5 Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program. The
multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a voluntary incentive
provided by the City. Under this program, private multifamily housing
developments in certain designated districts are exempted from property
taxes for up to 12 years if income-restricted units are maintained in the
development. This program is currently applied to the Highway-99
Subarea and the Westgate Mixed-use District. It should be expanded
as appropriate to spur the development of affordable housing in other
locations.
Affordable housing projects for
households of 50 percent AMI
or less in Everett may apply
for a transportation impact fee
exemption, which is granted
on a case-by-case basis.
An exemption requires the
developer to register a covenant
on title to ensure the site remains
in use for affordable housing.
Fees for development permits
may also be waived at the
discretion of the planning
director if a landowner agrees
to register a covenant on title to
retain affordable units on the site
for a 30-year period.
EXAMPLE:
Fee Waivers for Affordable
Housing in Everett
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
18
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4.6 Explore the development of an inclusionary zoning program.
Possible changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code
should be explored that would permit greater residential building
heights and densities in certain targeted areas, in exchange for a
percentage of the units being allocated to income-restricted housing
for a specified period or an in-lieu payment to a City affordable housing
fund. This can either be voluntary (as described in Action 1.5), where
affordable units are necessary for additional capacity, or mandatory,
where affordable units are required for any development on the site.
Since inclusionary zoning must be implemented as part of an increase
in development capacity, this should be explored as part of other
strategies involving upzoning, such as Action 1.2 and Action 1.3.
4.7 Keep reduced development fees for low-income housing. Fees
for development in the City of Edmonds include impact fees to finance
capital spending for community infrastructure, utility connection fees
to fund new connections with city services, and permit fees to cover
administrative costs of processing applications. Some discounts are
currently provided for low-income housing, and further reductions
should be explored to improve the financial feasibility of the
development while maintaining necessary funding for these services.
Additional Actions
4.8 Support community land trusts. Community land trusts (CLTs)
are a way to promote affordable home ownership by keeping
the ownership of the land with a separate nonprofit community
organization and providing renewable leases and portions of the total
equity to homeowners. Although these arrangements are not typically
implemented by local governments, the City can provide support for a
new CLT recently formed in Snohomish County (“Homes and Hope”),
including direct funding or the provision of surplus public lands.
4.9 Expedite the permitting process for affordable housing. The
City can prioritize the processing of permits for affordable housing
projects, which will reduce the time spent in the permitting process
and the associated costs with holding the property. Although this could
be used for high priority projects, the short-term focus should be to
provide overall support for streamlining the permitting process where
possible.
19
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4.10 Support the use of historic Tax Credits. LIHTCs can be used in
conjunction with the federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate
older buildings for use as low-income housing. Although this may be
applicable in individual cases, it is unlikely that this could be applied
generally to properties within Edmonds.
4.11 Coordinate with organizations to address special housing
needs in the community. This housing strategy focuses on general
community housing needs, as well as the needs of seniors, low-income
households, and the homeless. However, other groups in Edmonds
may have needs beyond the scope of this overall strategy. For instance,
some communities, such as artists, may benefit from affordable
housing that provides appropriate live/work spaces to facilitate in
home businesses that are compatible with the surrounding community.
The City should maintain a dialogue with community organizations to
determine how planning regulations and affordable housing programs
can provide the flexibility to consider specific needs for housing and
explore partnerships for new affordable housing development.
Next Steps
• Research the implications of expansions to the MFTE program
to new neighborhoods, including the expected low-income and
market-rate housing yields resulting from such a program, and
develop recommendations for changes to the MFTE to reach the
goals of this Strategy.
• Review existing land use capacity and expected impacts on
market-rate and affordable unit development from different
inclusionary zoning policies to provide recommendations for
inclusionary zoning policies to incorporate into the Community
Development Code.
• Evaluate the fiscal impacts and expected benefits from further
reductions in development fees for affordable housing.
• Compile available information to support applications for grants
and tax credits by developers interested in low-income affordable
housing, including how-to guides for completing applications and
relevant city data that can be used to support the rationale.
• Coordinate a dialogue with relevant community organizations to
understand what specific needs may exist for affordable, flexible
housing options.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
20
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
5. PARTICIPATE IN SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY STRATEGIES TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS
The reasons that people become homeless are many. They may be
based on temporary or long-term problems, including loss of a job
or home, domestic abuse, physical conditions, trauma, addictions, or
mental illness. The City can coordinate with nonprofit and regional
partners to identify roles it could play in helping to tackle these problems
in addition to helping find shelter for those in need. One of these roles
could be identifying and eliminating barriers to the development of
emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the
homeless. In order to determine the most effective roles for Edmonds,
the City is conducting a separate assessment of the needs of homeless
populations as well as options for addressing those needs. This study
will be used to assess, refine, and prioritize the implementation of the
actions considered in this strategy.
Potential Actions
All potential actions are subject to further study. No decisions about these
actions are implied by this Strategy.
5.1 Explore partnerships with the County, south county cities, and
nonprofit service providers. Work with nonprofits and/or regional
partners to identify opportunities to acquire and/or operate facilities
that provide both transitional housing and social services for the
purpose of helping homeless people overcome barriers to productive
livelihood. For example, the City of Lynnwood is currently seeking
partners to help support the purchase and operation of a local motel
for expanding south county shelter capacity.
5.2 Explore opportunities to support and reduce barriers to the
development of permanent supportive housing. The City could
partner with nonprofits or regional partners to develop new permanent
supportive housing intended to provide stability and integrate services
that attend to necessities like food and shelter without preconditions
such as sobriety, treatment, or service participation requirements.
5.3 Consider reducing barriers to single room occupancy housing.
Options for permanent or semi-permanent housing for low-income
and formerly homeless individuals can include individual room rentals
with shared bathrooms and/or kitchens. Certain code requirements in
Othello Village is a city-
authorized homeless
encampment with 28 96-square
foot tiny houses and 12 tent
platforms. It is intended as a
short-term housing solution for
up to 100 people. The village
shares a kitchen, shower trailer,
donation hut, and security
booth. The city pays about
$160,000 per year to supply
water, garbage services, and
counseling on-site. Donations
from individuals, foundations, and
other organizations have recently
allowed all Othello Village
tiny houses to install heat and
electricity. The Village is owned
and operated by the Low-Income
Housing Institute (LIHI), which
also provide case management
services. Donations to LIHI also
fund the materials for the tiny
houses, which cost about $2,200
per house; construction is mostly
courtesy of volunteers.
Seattle has five other similar
encampments. These are
permitted for 12 months with the
option to renew for a second 12
months.
EXAMPLE:
Tiny Homes in Seattle
21
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Edmonds may limit this kind of housing, and modifications or relaxations
of the building code can help to reduce the costs of development, as
well as the associated costs of housing to these residents. Note that
this could be implemented in conjunction with efforts in Action 1.5 to
allow the development of micro-housing.
5.4 Consider reducing barriers to the development of temporary
shelters such as tiny home villages. New permanent housing can
take several years or more to develop. The City could explore whether
to relax or remove barriers to the creation of authorized homeless
encampments in temporary shelters such as tent camps or tiny home
villages (see sidebar example). This could allow for a flexible and low-
cost temporary housing strategy targeted at populations who are not
yet able to access more permanent housing options.
5.5 Explore partnerships to keep and expand winter shelter
programs. The City could work in partnership with nonprofits to expand
emergency overnight shelter programs that operate during the winter
months. Such programs can also help connect homeless individuals
with services and other resources, including support services provided
by the City and the broader region.
Next Steps
• Review results of the separate 2018 homelessness study being
conducted by the City and decide priorities from it.
• Review the current Community Development and Building Codes
to identify obstacles to development of emergency shelter beds,
affordable housing options, and low barrier, permanent supportive
housing.
• Assess examples of alternative housing options to provide
flexibility with housing unit development and determine necessary
changes to implement these housing options.
• Explore partnerships with local and regional organizations
working with homeless populations to develop and implement a
“housing first” program, winter shelters, safe parking lot use, and
other targeted strategies to address both short and long-term
needs in the community.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
22
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
6. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME TENANTS
Low-income tenants may be impacted by different issues in the market
that affect their ability to find safe and stable housing. To address
these concerns, the City should work to provide protections that help
ensure tenant safety, discourage discrimination, and aid those facing
displacement. Although these initiatives do not increase the housing
supply or address housing affordability, they can contribute to a more
sustainable base of renters in the city. They can also promote long-
term connections to the community.
Recommended Actions
6.1 Create requirements to provide fair housing information. The
City should work to pass ordinances that require property managers to
provide information to all tenants regarding tenant rights and property
manager responsibilities under federal fair housing law.
6.2 Create anti-discrimination requirements for tenants. The City
should work to pass ordinances to affirm that discrimination against
prospective tenants based on source of income, race, ability, or other
factors is not permitted, and provide protections against discriminatory
behavior by landlords.
Additional Actions
6.3 Provide rental housing inspection programs. The City could
provide for an ordinance or program to educate property owners,
managers, and renters about City housing codes. This could also
include requirements for owners to register all rental units and verify
their properties meet building standards. Note that this would require
additional City resources and should be assessed to determine the
capacity needed for implementation.
6.4 Develop a tenant relocation assistance program. The City could
also develop a program to provide financial assistance and services
to households that are physically displaced due to the demolition or
renovation of rental units. This program would be financed through
charges on the owners of the demolished units but would need to be
tailored to ensure that it would have a benefit to tenants while not
significantly increasing the costs of development.
23
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Next Steps
• Develop a fair housing ordinance for review by Council that
requires the distribution of relevant fair housing information at the
time of a residential lease.
• Create a fair housing information packet to be distributed to
residential tenants upon the lease of a housing unit.
• Develop a housing anti-discrimination ordinance for review
by Council which affirms that the City of Edmonds prohibits
anyone from being denied housing, evicted unfairly, or otherwise
discriminated against based on race, ancestry, color, age, religion,
sex, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, source of income,
or national origin.
• Develop public information for distribution to ensure that the
public is informed about the anti-discrimination ordinance and the
process for reporting discrimination in housing.
• Examine the expected costs, benefits, and impacts on
development resulting from options for tenant relocation
programs and outline recommended program characteristics.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
24
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
July 2018APPENDICES
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Top Row
(Left) Townhomes in Seattle.
https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/2850-S-Nevada-St-98108/home/8187294
(Center) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live-work-
play architecture.
Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http://www.seattle.gov/council/adu-eis
(Right) Mixed-use, mixed-type, and mixed-income housing in the Westlawn Gardens
neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI.
https://planning.org/awards/2018/westlawn/
Second Row
(Left) Highpoint is a development located in West Seattle with a mix of low-income
and market rate housing—it offers 1,600 housing units, with nearly half being
affordable, with a mix of publicly and privately funded units. High Point offers a
variety of housing styles and scales, and is integrated with retail and civic amenities.
Mithun, Juan Hernandez, http://comm-aps.com/portfolio_page/high-point/
(Center) One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide
resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current
housing units—such programs could include home modification, transportation,
recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling.
Edmonds Senior Center, http://www.facebook.com/EdmondsSeniorCenter/
(Right) Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is a five-story apartment community that
serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-planning-
project.html
Third Row
(Left) Edmonds Lutheran Church and Compass Housing Alliance have partnered to
develop a multistory housing development for low-income individuals and couples
in the City of Edmonds. The housing will feature an innovative new modular building
technique that greatly shortens design and construction time to lower costs.
https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/seattle-startup-chooses-edmonds-for-first-stackable-housing-
project/1756401
(Center) Anthem on 12th is a workforce housing development in Seattle financed
through a multifamily tax exemption program.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-planning-
project.html
(Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island.
HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study_102011_2.html
Bottom Row
(Left) Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved from a
tent camp for the homeless.
http://quixotevillage.com/
(Center) Capitol Hill Housing is a publicly owned corporation that developers
affordable housing and provides resident and homeless services in collaboration with
local economic development organizations, service provider networks, and other
affiliates. The Fleming Apartment building in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood serves
households earning 50% of area median income.
https://www.capitolhillhousing.org/ourproperties/buildings/flemin.php and https://www.apartments.com/
fleming-apartments-seattle-wa/ycwvmns/
(Right) Section 8 Vouchers can be used by people with low-incomes to rent market-
rate housing units. The vouchers are intended to help people with low-incomes live
in neighborhoods that would otherwise be unavailable to them within their means.
Aline Ridge Apartments, pictured here, are a multifamily housing development in
Kirkland that accepts Section 8 vouchers.
https://www.kcha.org/housing/property.aspx?PropertyID=1
Cover Photos
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Appendix A.
Edmonds Housing
Needs Assessment
The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing.
Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that
match a diverse array of different household types and income levels.
This appendix presents an assessment of the current housing supply
and housing needs in Edmonds, across the full spectrum of household
types and income levels.
Household Incomes in Edmonds
When summarizing housing affordability by income level, household
income is typically compared to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income, or AMI. In Snohomish
County, AMI is $96,000. Exhibit 4 compares AMI to median income in
Edmonds for families (households with two or more related persons)
and non-families. Family incomes are typically higher than non-family
due to the potential for dual income households. However, the gap in
Edmonds is particularly wide with the median non-family income being
less than 50 percent of AMI.
Exhibit 5 on the following page breaks down all households in Edmonds
by income level and housing tenure. It shows a significant divide
between renter and owner-occupied households. Only 31 percent of
renter households earn at or above AMI, compared to 65 percent of
owner-occupied households.
ExhIBIT 4
Median Family Income
Source: HUD, 2017; 2012–2016 American
Community Survey (S1901); BERK, 2018.
Snohomish County 2017 HUDMedian Family Income (AMI)
Edmonds Median
Family Income
Edmonds Median
Non-Family Income
$96,000
$47,960
$104,477
27
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Housing Supply in Edmonds
There are 18,663 housing units in Edmonds. As shown in Exhibit 6,
nearly two thirds of these units are single family homes and nearly
one third are in multifamily buildings with five or more units, such as
apartments and condominiums. Only 7 percent of all units are in smaller
multifamily buildings such as duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes.
ExhIBIT 5
Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by Housing Tenure
7%8%10%9%65%
21%18%20%10%31%
12%11%13%10%55%
Owner
Renter
All Househo lds
30% or less 30–50%50–80%80–100%Above 100%
Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010–2014 5-year estimates).
ExhIBIT 6
Edmonds Housing Inventory
63%63%
2%2%5%5%
30%30%
HOUSING
INVENTORY
(2017)
Single Family
Duplexes
Multi-family (3 or 4 units)
Multi-family (5+ units)
Mobile Homes
Source: Washington State
Office of Financial Management
(OFM), 2018; BERK, 2018.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
28
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Exhibit 7 breaks down the housing stock in Edmonds by number of
bedrooms (in green) and households by household size (in yellow). Over
60 percent of the housing units in Edmonds have 3 or more bedrooms,
yet over 70 percent of the households have only 1 or 2 members. One
explanation for this mismatch is the large number of “empty nest” or
childless couples living in large single-family homes. Nonetheless there
is a severe lack of smaller format housing available to single workers
or small families seeking to live in Edmonds. Likewise, there are few
options available to existing households in Edmonds, such as retirees,
who may wish to downsize their home and stay in the community.
ExhIBIT 7
Household (HH) Sizes Compared
to Housing Unit Sizes
Source: U.S. Census American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011–2015.
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
30%
40%
14%
11%
5%
1 Person HH 2 Person HH 3 Person HH 4 Person HH 5+ Person HHPercent of Households1%
10%
26%
35%
21%
7%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
45%
40%
No Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5+ BedroomPercent of Housing Units29
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Ownership Housing
The cost of ownership housing in Edmonds is on the rise and out of
reach of most Snohomish County residents. During the past six years
median home values in Edmonds have increased by $240,000. Today
a household needs to make over $150,000 a year to afford the median
value home. That is 159 percent of area median family income.
The ownership housing market in Edmonds is dominated by large
single-family homes. There are very few options for smaller and
middle-income households seeking to get a foothold in the ownership
housing market through the purchase of a condo or small townhome.
Sources: Zillow Home Value Index, 2017; BERK, 2017.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING
Median home values have
increased by $240,000
over the past 6 years
$314,500
$554,400
SEP ’11 SEP ’17
Annual household
income needed to
afford median
value home$
$152,556
(159% of county AMI)
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
30
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Rental Housing in Edmonds
Rental housing in Edmonds is significantly more affordable than
ownership. However, costs are rising, and options are limited for low
and moderate incomes households. As shown in Exhibit 8, one and
two-bedroom apartments in Edmonds are affordable to households
earning 60 percent of AMI or above. Households earning 50 percent
of AMI cannot afford average rents for any unit size.
The rental market in Edmonds includes units available at a variety of
affordability levels. Exhibit 9 breaks down all renter households in
Edmonds by income level and compares it to the rental housing supply
by affordability level, based on Census data collected from 2010 to
2014. It shows that there was a significant shortage of units available
for households with incomes at 30 percent of AMI or less, as well as
a shortage of units for middle and upper income households (above
80 percent AMI). However, the following chart, Exhibit 10, shows that
average rents have risen by over $600 since March 2011at a rate of 4.6
percent per year. Therefore, it is likely that the supply of units affordable
to lower income households, particularly those below 50 percent of
AMI, is significantly diminished today. Furthermore, undersupply of
units at higher affordability levels results (>80 percent AMI) results in
middle and higher income households competing for units that would
be affordable to lower income households. This diminishes the supply
of units available to those lower income households.
ExhIBIT 8
Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units by Income Level, 2017
household
Income % of AMI
Affordability of Average Cost Rental Units, Sept. 2017
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom
120%Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
100%Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
80%Yes Yes Yes Yes No
60%No Yes Yes No No
50% or less No No No No No
Source: Dupre+Scott, 2017; HUD, 2017; BERK, 2018.
31
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
ExhIBIT 9
Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level Compared to Household Need
1,150
975 1,100
2,235
435
1,925
2,390
940
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI >80% AMI
Household Income as a Percent of HUD Area Median Family Income
Households
Units Available
Source: HUD CHAS (based
on ACS 2010–2014 5-year
estimates); BERK, 2018.
ExhIBIT 10
Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011–2018
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
$1,699
$2,327
Monthly RentSource: Zillow, 2018;
BERK, 2018.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
32
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Housing Needs by Household Type
This section presents indicators of housing need based on the latest
and best available data. Since housing costs are rising fast in Edmonds
and neighboring communities, it is likely that many of these indicators
underestimate the full extent of needs in the current housing market.
Most notably, the estimates of cost-burdened households (those with
housing costs that exceed 30 percent of household income) are based
on household survey data collected between the years of 2010 and
2014. A lot has changed since this period. In 2010 the region was still
in the early stage of recovery from an economic recession and housing
market decline. The recent period of rapidly rising housing costs didn’t
begin until around 2013, near the end of the survey period. Despite
these limitations, these indicators do provide a sense of scale of the
problem among different household types and income levels.
Low-income Workforce Housing
Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place
of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.8
The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail,
accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries
are typically low-wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds
pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of AMI. Over a
quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than $15,000 per year, or about
15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these wage levels would have an
extremely difficult time finding anywhere to live in Edmonds without a
second job or a dual-income household. This helps explains why 87
percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of Edmonds and 42
percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace.
8 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap
Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
33
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Exhibit 12 provides estimates for low-income non-elderly renter
households who are living in Edmonds and have incomes between 30
and 50 percent of AMI (or between roughly $20,000 and $50,000 a
year depending on household size). It shows the largest need is among
workers living alone and smaller families. It is likely that the majority of
small families have only two members.
Market-rate apartment rents Edmonds are not significantly more than
what is affordable to many low-wage workers earning 50 percent of AMI,
435
Commute More Than25 Miles to Work
936
Commute More Than10 Miles to Work
Very Low Wage Workers
Monthly Wage1: up to $1,250Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375
658
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
1,518
Commute More Than10 Miles to Work
Low Wage Workers
Monthly Wage1: up to $3,333Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $1,000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015; BERK, 2017
(1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket.
ExhIBIT 11
Low-wage Workers Commuting Long
Distances to Jobs Located in Edmonds
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
34
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
although this varies by household size. The biggest problem is the lack
of supply. Even in cases where market rents are somewhat higher than
the affordability level for lower income workers, many of these workers
could save a great deal of money in transportation costs if they had the
opportunity to live closer to their workplace. However, fully addressing
the needs of low-income workers will require more income-restricted
housing available to qualifying households based on income level.
Moderate-income Workforce Housing
Households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of AMI are
typically considered moderate income and have unique housing needs.
Exhibit 13 shows the number of moderate income remter households
in Edmonds by household type. In addition to those households living
in Edmonds, there are over 800 workers earning 40 percent of AMI or
ExhIBIT 12
Renter Households with Incomes 30–50% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
Persons Living Alone or inNon-Family Hoseholds
Small Families(2-4 Persons)
Small Families(5+ Persons)
4000100200300
Cost Burdened Not Cost-Burdened
Source: HUD
CHAS (based on
ACS 2010–2014
5-year estimates);
BERK, 2018.
ExhIBIT 13
Renter Households with Incomes 50–80% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
Persons Living Alone or in
Non-Family Hoseholds
Small Families
(2-4 Persons)
Small Families
(5+ Persons)
400 600 7000500100200300
Cost Burdened Not Cost-Burdened
Source: HUD
CHAS (based on
ACS 2010–2014
5-year estimates);
BERK, 2018.
35
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
above that commute over 25 miles to jobs in Edmonds.9 Presumably
many of these households would prefer to live closer to their jobs if
suitable housing was available.
Special Needs Populations
Senior Households
One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and this share
is expected to grow significantly during the next 10 years. Exhibit 14
breaks down the population of Edmonds by age group. This shows that
there are over 7,000 residents aged 55–65 who will become seniors
within the next 10 years.
Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and mobility
challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing needs
that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to age
in place may require additional support services such as home
9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination
Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
ExhIBIT 14
Edmonds Population by Age Range
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Under 55 to 910 to 1415 to 1920 to 2425 to 2930 to 3435 to 3940 to 4445 to 4950 to 5455 to 5960 to 6465 to 6970 to 7475 to 7980 to 8485 and overPopulationAge
Source: American Community
Survey 5-Year estimates,
2011–2015; BERK, 2017.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
36
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or
care management and counseling. While many senior households in
Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and
services, many others will not. There are 3,200 senior households in
Edmonds with incomes below AMI. Over half of these households are
cost burdened and over a quarter of those households are renters.
Exhibit 15 breaks down these households by income level. The greatest
need is among those with incomes below 50 percent of AMI.
There are a variety of housing solutions that can help meet the needs of
low and moderate-income senior households. These include income-
restricted senior living facilities with coordinated support services
available onsite. Attached and detached accessory dwelling units can
also be a good solution for many seniors. For instance, many senior
households in Edmonds are homeowners. Those seeking to semi-
independently age in place with the support of family can do so by
moving into an accessory dwelling unit, freeing up the main home for
family.
ExhIBIT 15
Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below AMI, by Income Level
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Extremely
Low-Income
(30% AMI)
Very
Low-Income
(30-50% AMI)
Low-Income
(50-80% AMI)
Moderate Income
(80-100% AMI)HouseholdsSenior Living Alone
Senior Family
Source: HUD CHAS (based
on ACS 2010–2014 5-year
estimates); BERK, 2018.
37
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Homelessness
Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there
has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons,
from 344 to 515 in 2017.10 Chronic homelessness has increased at
an even faster rate, from 135 in 2013 to 313 in 2017. Many factors can
contribute to homelessness and present barriers to housing stability.
These include poverty, lack of affordable housing, disability, domestic
violence, mental illness, criminal records, and addiction. Reliable data
for quantifying homelessness within the City of Edmonds is limited.
The 2017 Snohomish County Point-in-Time (PIT) count indicates that
there were six unsheltered persons who slept in Edmonds the previous
night and four unsheltered persons whose last permanent residence
was in Edmonds. These are very likely to be undercounts. In southern
Snohomish County, “job loss” and “family crisis/Break up” were the
most common reasons for homelessness.
Data about homeless students from the Edmonds School District
are more comprehensive. Exhibit 16 shows total homeless students
by school year, inclusive of all schools in the district (which includes
10 Snohomish County Point-in-Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/41603
ExhIBIT 16
Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District
281 304 289 331 364 403
473
600
661
600
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17Students
School Year
Shelters
Doubled-Up
Unsheltered
Hotels/Motels
Source: OSPI, 2017; Edmonds School District, 2017
Note: Data for 2016–2017 excludes 40 students in foster care to maintain consistency with the data collection methods used
in previous years. The school district’s official count of homeless students for the 2016–2017 school year is 640.
Source: Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), 2017; Edmonds School District, 2017; BERK 2017.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
38
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
the cities of Lynwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway, and some
neighboring communities). School districts in Washington State define
homeless students as those “who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence.” This includes categories such as “doubled-up”
households that are sharing housing due to economic hardship. After
a long period of steady increase, the 2016–2017 school year saw a
decrease in homeless students. Much of the growth in homeless
student population has been among those who are doubled-up,
meaning they do not have a permanent residence and are staying with
family or friends. Among just those schools attended by children who
live in Edmonds, there were 260 homeless students during the 2016–
2017 school year.
There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing
stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs,
disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and
criminal records. Housing solutions must often be coordinated with
support services to help homeless residents address the underlying
causes of housing insecurity.
Veterans
Edmonds is estimated to have 3,310 veteran residents, nearly 10
percent of the total population.11 These residents are less likely than
the general population to have income below the poverty level (only
2.6 percent compared to 7.6 percent of non-veterans). However, a
significantly greater percentage of the veteran population is living with
a disability (31 percent compared to 10 percent of non-veterans).
The latest Point-in-Time count surveyed 44 unsheltered veterans and
22 staying in emergency shelters. The overall number of homeless
veterans has remained stable since 2013.
According to the 2017 PIT report, Snohomish County has sustained
“functional zero status” on veteran homelessness under the
guidance of Opening Doors, a Federal strategic plan to prevent
and end homelessness.12 Function zero is attained when there is
“a well-coordinated and efficient community system that assures
11 U.S. Census American Community Survey 2012–2016 5-Year Estimates.
12 Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.
Retrieved from https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/
USICH_OpeningDoors_Amendment2015_FINAL.pdf
39
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurring, and no Veteran is forced
to live on the street.”13 The Snohomish County summarizes resources
available: “Veteran specific prevention and rapid-rehousing programs
are offered, along with newly funded solutions. Sebastian Place, a
20-unit apartment complex dedicated to solely to house and provide
supportive services to homeless veterans has opened. A low barrier
veteran shelter program also began providing emergency shelter in
conjunction with services.”14
Based on the County’s assessment, veterans may be well served
compared to other special needs populations facing housing instability.
Artists
The City of Edmonds Arts & Culture 2017 Economic Impact Study15
recommends that the City “integrate arts and culture’s contributions to
the economy in new and existing community economic development
efforts.” One way it can do this is consider actions to support the housing
needs of artists living in Edmonds. Artists typically have incomes far
below the level needed to afford market-rate housing in Edmonds.
They also often have unique housing needs that could be addressed
through new kinds of live-work formats that allow for studios or gallery
space on the ground floor of artist housing.
13 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Ending Homelessness Among Veterans Overview”.
https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/ssvf/docs/Ending_Veterans_Homelessness_Overview.pdf
14 Snohomish County Point-in-Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017. p. 21 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/41603
15 Currently in draft form. Will likely be published by the time
the Housing Strategy is released publicly.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
40
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Appendix B.
Homeless Services and
Resources in Edmonds
Resource for homeless population in Edmonds are provided by
Snohomish County as well as local nonprofit organizations. The only
shelter in Edmonds is the South Snohomish County Emergency Cold
Weather Shelter, which is staffed by volunteers and housed at the
Edmonds Senior Center. This shelter is open any night the temperature
drops below 34 degrees. Other shelters are available in the City of
Lynnwood and elsewhere in Snohomish County. Several Edmonds
churches host meals and food banks and provide short-term services.
The cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood Police Departments share a
social worker outreach program that works to assist people struggling
with homelessness in finding long-term solutions that leads them
towards self-sustainability. This program is staffed by one social worker
who helps people to navigate the County’s coordinated entry system
for accessing housing, finding access to appropriate mental health or
drug and alcohol treatment services, or assistance in securing other
resources specific to the individual’s circumstances. According to
the current social worker, Ashley Dawson, the intent of this program
is not just to immediately house a person but rather to tackle some
of the issues that may be contributing to their homelessness so that
they will be successful once suitable housing is found. The Police
Department is also working with Verdant to develop a south-county
CHART program (Chronic-Utilizer Alternative Response Team) with a
goal of keeping these people out of the criminal justice system, out of
jail, out of hospital emergency departments, and reducing the number
of calls to emergency services.
Edmonds Police Department Patrol officers often encounter people
who are homeless, living in motor homes, vehicles, or in structures in
their family member’s yards. These officers typically refer people to
the social worker. According to Ms. Dawson, the Police Department
has taken a progressive approach in recognizing that there are many
layers to a person’s situation. She indicates that officers act as partners
in taking preventative approaches to supporting the full spectrum of
needs among the homeless population.
41
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Snohomish County is just opening a 16 bed Diversion Center in Everett
to provide up to 14 days shelter and services for homeless persons
who are addicted to drugs (primarily opioids) and may be struggling
with untreated mental health needs and/or committing low-level crimes
to live and support their addiction. An agreement with the county
provides Edmonds and Lynnwood access to two beds shared between
the two cities. More information about services provided in Snohomish
County are available on the County’s Human Services website.16 These
services include:
• Services to help maintain elderly and disabled adults in their own
home or in a community setting
• Drug and alcohol treatment for both youth and adults
• Mental Health counseling
• 24-hour services for persons in either a mental health or drug and
alcohol crisis
• Services to help low-income households meet their basic needs
or obtain specific help to overcome barriers to improving their
economic situation
• An Early Childhood Education Program for low-income families
with four-year old children
• Employment and community support programs for persons with
developmental disabilities and their families
• Community programs for children and families
• Help for veterans
• Weatherization and help for low-income households to pay their
heating bills
The Edmonds City Council recently set aside $250,000 in funds for
addressing homelessness. The City is currently conducting a study
to assess the needs of homeless persons in Edmonds and specific
approaches or programs for most effectively addressing those needs.
16 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/191/Human-Services
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
42
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Appendix C.
Glossary of Housing
Affordability Terminology
This glossary provides definitions for housing terms, acronyms, and
datasets used in the Edmonds Housing Strategy.
Affordable Housing
A home is generally considered to be affordable if the household is
paying no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. A
healthy housing market includes a variety of housing types that are
affordable to a range of different household income levels.
The term “affordable housing” is often used to describe income-
restricted housing available only to qualifying low-income households.
Income-restricted housing can be located in public, nonprofit, or for-
profit housing developments. It can also include households using
vouchers to help pay for market-rate housing.
In this report, “affordable housing” refers to any housing that is
affordable to the household that is occupying it, whether market rate
or subsidized.
American Community Survey (ACS)
An ongoing nationwide survey designed to provide communities with
current data about how they are changing. The ACS collects information
such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran
status, and other important data from U.S. households. ACS data is
used for demographic analysis in this study.
Area Median Income (AMI)
Analyses of housing affordability typically group all households by
income level relative to area median family income, or the median
income of all family households in the metropolitan region or county.
Median income of non-family households is typically lower than for
family households.
43
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
In this report AMI refers to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income. In Snohomish County,
AMI is $96,000.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
A small, self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an
existing single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary
residence (such as a basement unit) or detached from the primary
residence (such as a backyard cottage).
Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU)
An ADU that is detached from the primary single-family residence,
such as a backyard cottage.
HUD CHAS
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey
(ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as
the “CHAS” data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy),
demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs,
particularly for low income households. The CHAS data are used by
local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be
used by HUD to distribute grant funds.
The most recent CHAS data used for housing cost burden analysis in
this study reflect ACS data collected over a five-year period, 2010–2014.
Household Income
The U.S. Census defines household income as “The sum of the income
of all people 15 years and older living in the household. A household
includes related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such
as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing
unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated
people sharing a housing unit, is also counted as a household.”
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
44
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)
Inclusionary zoning is either a local requirement or incentive for
developers to create some below market-rate apartments or for-sale
homes in connection with a proposed market-rate development project.
These below-market rate units are income-restricted, or available only
to households that qualify based on their income level. Rents or housing
prices are set based on the affordability level specified in the ordinance.
IZ is allowed in Washington State under GMA (see RCW 36.70A.540).
Cities and counties wishing to implement IZ are required to provide
increased residential development capacity through zoning changes,
bonus densities, height and bulk increases, or other incentives to offset
the cost of providing the below market-rate units; other incentives could
include more flexible development standards, parking reductions, fee
waivers or reductions, or expedited permitting. Below market-rate units
may be required to be produced at the same location as the market-
rate units, but some localities have alternative compliance options
including off-site options, land dedication, and “fee in lieu.”
Washington State law also sets the affordability period for these units.
All income-restricted units developed through an inclusionary zoning
program must remain affordable for at least 50 years.
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE)
MFTE is a statewide program in Washington which allows the value of
eligible multifamily housing improvements to be exempt from property
taxes for a specified period of time, typically 8 to 12 years. The program
aims to stimulate construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of existing
structures to provide multifamily housing, including affordable housing,
in designated areas within a jurisdiction.
Cities can counties can choose to implement an MFTE program
within designated areas and select the requirements for participating
developers. These requirements can include a percentage set aside
of income-restricted units affordable to households at a designated
income level. Income-restricted unit must remain affordable for the
period of the tax exemption.
45
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Tiny House
This term generally applies to small detached residential structures
that are 500 square feet or less. Some tiny houses are designed to be
permanent stand-alone residences. However, the term is also commonly
used to describe very low cost temporary shelters of less than 200
square feet built in “villages” with shared facilities such as bathrooms
and kitchens. These temporary tiny homes typically do not comply with
local building codes and often do not include their own electricity or
plumbing. The City of Seattle has authorized the development of six
temporary tiny house villages located on public or nonprofit-owned
land. These villages are intended to provide temporary housing
for homeless individuals and families and are typically operated by
nonprofits who provide case management services.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
46
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Appendix D.
Public Involvement
in Implementation
All of the actions proposed in this Housing Strategy would require
further study, refinement, public outreach, and public comment before
being considered by the City Council for implementation. Many of the
actions would require a code amendment, or a change to the City’s
land development regulations. This appendix describes the typical
process and timeline for a code amendment.
Code Amendment Process in Edmonds
A code amendment is a change to the City’s land development
regulations. The City’s development regulations are found within Title
17 General Zoning Regulations of the Edmonds City Code.
Amendments to the development code may be initiated by the City
Council, Planning Commission, City staff, or citizens. Certain types of
actions would require a code amendment, such as a zoning change.
For example, implementing mandatory IZ, would likely require a more
detailed study in advance of this process.
1. Draft code amendment proposal is prepared.
2. Planning Board meeting for preliminary review of the proposal.
3. Additional Planning Board work sessions to discuss and refine (as
needed).
4. Conduct SEPA review if the amendment is a Growth Management
Act defined action, including 60-day notice to the State
Department of Commerce.17
17 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) provides a review process to consider the
potential impacts to the natural and built environment as a result of future development
allowed by proposed plans and policies, such as development code amendments. The
process allows the City to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures and to solicit
agency and public review and comment on the proposals before actions are taken..
Most proposals are exempt or only need a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS),
which involves a shorter review process and comment period than an environmental
impact statement (EIS). Some proposals require an EIS to explore alternatives and potential
mitigation measures.
Cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA), including the
City of Edmonds, must notify the Washington State Department of Commerce at least 60
days in advance of their intent to adopt comprehensive plan and development regulation
amendments.
47
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
5. Public notice, including newspaper, website notice, email to
interested parties
Additional workshops or other public information sessions may
also be held if appropriate
6. Planning Board Public Hearing
Planning Board may recommend to Council following hearing,
or defer to an additional review meeting to discuss/develop
recommendation to send to Council.
7. City Council meeting to review and discuss the proposal
8. Public notice, including newspaper, website notice, email to
interested parties.
9. City Council Public Hearing.
10. City Council may take action.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
48
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Appendix E.
Preliminary Assessment
of Housing Tools
This Appendix includes 47 housing tools, or actions that the City of
Edmonds could pursue to address housing needs. BERK Consulting
conducted a preliminary assessment of these tools and presented to
the results to city staff and the Housing Strategy Task Force. Some of
the recommended actions in the Draft Housing Strategy are selected
from this list of tools, while others reflect refinements or revisions
suggested by the Task Force or city staff. These tools are organized by
the same six objectives featured in the Draft Housing Strategy.
49
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
1. ENCOURAGE ThE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY hOUSING
Support transit-oriented development
(TOD) in applicable areas.
Areas which have higher levels of transit service
can support development which supports access
to regional and local transit systems. This can
include not only targeted rezoning and code
refinement for more intensive development,
but also support for a mix of residential, retail,
and service offerings, multimodal transportation
options, and parking management that
can support walkability and transit use.
Kenmore, Bothell, Shoreline, others. Several
communities across the Puget Sound Region
have used TOD District Overlays or other tools to
encourage TOD around corridors with frequent
bus service. These include the nearby cities of
Kenmore, Bothell, and Shoreline, among others.
Implemented in the highway 99 subarea. The
City has just completed a subarea plan and has
rezoned areas along the Highway 99 corridor
and the Swift Blue Line. These areas are the most
promising locations for a local TOD corridor.
Sounder Station TOD. The neighborhood
surrounding the Sounder station area can also be
considered for TOD projects, especially if local
transit connections can also provide this area with
sufficient levels of service.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable density of development
in areas close to transit stations or corridors can
increase the amount of multifamily housing that
can be accommodated in the City.
Transit access for less mobile populations.
Greater transit access can provide more
transportation alternatives for seniors, youth, the
disabled, and other sensitive populations.
Lower transportation costs. TOD provides
housing with lower transportation costs through
transit access and high walkability, improving
the combined affordability of housing and
transportation for a household.
Reduced parking. TOD can be combined
with reduced parking requirements in areas
where car ownership and use are expected to
decline. Reductions in parking can also reduce
development costs.
Locations limited by transit availability. TOD
project locations are limited to nodes and
corridors with high levels of transit service, and are
dependent on the maintenance of these services
into the future.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Increases in rent and property value. The
desirability of these neighborhoods can increase
property values and rents beyond those which
may be affordable for low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Allow greater building heights and
densities in multifamily zones.
Providing greater building heights and
densities on a site can allow more units to
be accommodated on available land in areas
zoned for multifamily development. This not
only increases the total amount of units that
can be developed in the city, it can also spur
redevelopment of older, obsolete housing.
Lynnwood. The City of Lynnwood has three
multifamily residential zones with height limits of
35–45 feet. (link)
Mountlake Terrace. The City’s RMM zone allows
for either 35 or 50 feet, depending on the location
relative to 216th St SW. (link)
Current height limits discourage development.
The current height limit of 25 feet in many areas
may not be attractive for multifamily development.
Standard multifamily products in this region are
more compatible with the mid-rise height limits
in neighboring communities. Analysis of building
permits indicates nearby communities are
attracting much more multifamily development.16
Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are
zoned multifamily, and expansions to development
capacity may be needed to meet local needs.
Improve development feasibility. Upzoning
to allow for more units in a project can reduce
development costs per unit. This can make
multifamily development projects in the city more
feasible and encourage unit development.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable height and density
of development can increase the number
of multifamily housing units that can be
accommodated in the city.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Limited area currently zoned multifamily. This
tool may be best paired with a rezone to expand
areas with multifamily zoning.
16 BERK pulled OFM data on multifamily production (5+ units in structure) by city for 2010–2017 and calculated percent of total housing unit production. Edmonds: 237
units (44 percent); Lynnwood: 1,040 (86 percent); Mountlake Terrace: 343 (60 percent); Shoreline: 1,286 (81 percent).
“Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing” continued on the next page
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
50
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
1. ENCOURAGE ThE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY hOUSING
Reduce residential parking requirements.
If the City can reduce the number of parking
stalls required for each new housing unit,
developers can reduce the amount of land
necessary to accommodate parking spaces,
and can reduce the need to accommodate
parking within a residential building. This can
make a project more feasible by reducing costs
and allowing more development on a site.
PSRC/Other cities. Many communities across the
Puget Sound Region have reduced requirements
in transit-rich areas. The PSRC has assembled a
summary that provides more information about
changing requirements. (link)
Seattle. Seattle has no parking minimum for
new construction within urban centers, areas
designated for transit-oriented development,
or urban villages served by frequent transit (10
minutes between bus arrivals or less).
Bellevue. Bellevue has reduced parking
requirements for affordable units downtown, with
0.25 stalls/studio unit required with 60 percent
AMI affordability or less. (link)
Implemented in the highway 99 subarea.
Edmonds recently reduced the required amount
of parking spaces per unit in the Highway 99
subarea to ~0.75 per unit (<700 sf), ~1.25 per unit
(700–1,100 sf), and 1.75 per unit (>1,100 sf).
Wider implementation possible. These standards
in the Highway 99 subarea could be extended to
other areas of the City, or parking minimums could
be reduced further in the Highway 99 area.
Available resources to support implementation.
King County’s “Right Size Parking” tool could help
to evaluate current parking minimums versus
predicted usage for different development types.
(link)
Significant project cost reductions. Reductions
in required parking can provide significantly
reductions in the cost of building new multifamily
housing. These reductions result from avoiding the
costs of structured / underground parking, and the
significant land requirements for surface parking.
This can make affordable units more economically
feasible to develop.
Increase in demand for transportation
alternatives. Reducing the amount of available
parking can also increase the demand for other
types of multimodal transportation: walking, biking,
transit, etc. When used appropriately, this can
support improved accessibility by these modes of
travel, and can reduce household transportation
costs.
Applications to areas served by transit. Larger
reductions in parking requirements may only be
possible in walkable areas and/or areas served
by transit, where the number of trips by personal
vehicles are lower.
Off-site parking impacts. If requirements are
set too low, there may be parking impacts in the
surrounding neighborhood as residents will use
street parking when on-site parking is unavailable.
Provide fast, predictable, and
user-friendly, permit review.
Improving the development process for market-
rate and nonprofit developers could entice
more to build in Edmonds. Developers seek fast
permit reviews, predictable timelines, and an
easy-to-understand process and requirements.
Tactics to accomplish these outcomes could
include: increased department staffing during
busy cycles; materials that clearly explain
requirements and the application process;
public reports on actual permit review times
(to increase predictability for applicants); and
providing one point of contact for applicants.
Multiple communities. Many communities in the
region provide support and performance statistics
for their permit processes. Marysville provides
annual reports on permit turnaround times, and
Seattle reports on permit review times through its
“Performance Seattle” webpage. (link, link)
Multiple communities. The National Association
of Home Builders’ 2015 Report, “Development
Process Efficiency: Cutting Through the Red Tape,”
describes strategies used by local governments
to make development review more efficient,
including increasing staff capacity through
dedicated revenue from development services,
and creating a more user-friendly process. (link)
Permit review information currently provided
online. Edmonds Development Services already
tracks permit review times; publishing this
information on the website should not require
large additional resources
Potential for contracted support. Many cities
in the Puget Sound Region enhance their
development review staff capacity through
contracting with private firms. This may offer
more flexibility than hiring additional full-time city
employees.
Reduces costs to developers. Reducing the time
necessary to process permits would reduce costs
for holding property prior to development, and
increase the number of developers interested
in building specific desired housing types in
Edmonds.
Increases staff time and funding requirements.
Increasing staff capacity to provide additional
support for permitting, whether through
contracting or hiring more city staff, would require
additional funding support.
Allow “micro-housing” style developments.
“Micro-housing” typically refers to multifamily
buildings with very small efficiency units
(200 square feet or less) or congregate
housing with private rooms and shared
kitchens and other facilities. It can provide
lower-cost options for smaller households
that do not need significant amounts of
living space. Modifications or relaxations
of code requirements may be necessary to
make this kind of development feasible.
Seattle. After several micro-housing projects were
developed, the City of Seattle recently modified
the building code to place additional restrictions
on micro-housing. (link)
Kirkland. The City of Kirkland has permitted
micro-housing (“Residential Suites”) with units
of 120–350 square feet in the Central Business
District and Totem Lake Business District. These
developments are required to have minimum
densities and common areas, and parking is
restricted to 0.5 spaces per unit. (link)
May be allowable under current code. Edmonds
code doesn’t have minimum unit sizes, but code
may prevent congregate housing (further research
needed).
Unclear if there is demand in Edmonds.
Additional research would be necessary to
determine if there are developers seeking to
build this kind of product in suburban locations
like Edmonds. These are typically found in high-
amenity neighborhoods of large cities. However,
it may make sense to provide for student housing
near ECC and CWU-Lynnwood.
Reduced development costs. Micro-housing
significantly reduces the development costs per
unit, particularly if there are lower (or no) parking
requirements. This can increase the viability of a
project.
Suitable for single-person households. These
types of units can meet the needs of single-person
households that do not need a substantial amount
of living area and can benefit from lower housing
costs.
Increased parking demands. There are potential
impacts to parking in surrounding areas, especially
if parking requirements are relaxed and residents
rely on street parking.
May be limited to high-amenity locations. Given
the lack of private space, micro-housing is most
often appropriate for higher amenity locations,
often with transit services available. These types
of units will be less attractive in locations where
these community facilities and resources are
limited.
“Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing” continued on the next page
51
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
1. ENCOURAGE ThE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY hOUSING
Lobby for state legislation to promote
condominium development.
The WA State Condominium Act is interpreted
to subject condo developers to an implied
warranty for constructions, which has resulted
in lawsuits against developers. This has had a
significant impact on condo development, as the
increased risk of liability has reduced the interest
of developers in this type of project. The City
could work with other stakeholders to lobby for
revisions to the Act, or pursue other options for
promoting these types of projects with developers.
Seattle. Seattle’s 2015 HALA report includes
this recommendation: “The City should work
with the University of Washington’s Runstad
Center to explore options to stimulate the condo
development market, including revising the
warranty scheme in the Condo Act. (link)
Outside the City’s jurisdiction. This solution
requires action by the state legislature, and
cannot be enacted directly by the City. However,
there may be opportunities to better coordinate
with other jurisdictions advocating for changes
to the Act or working with the state Insurance
Commissioner.
Addressing the “missing middle”. Supporting the
condo market in Edmonds could result in more
opportunities for ownership of “missing middle”
housing for small households.
Downsizing opportunities for seniors.
Condominiums are an option for senior
households seeking to downsize while staying in
the community. This can be supported by services
within these developments dedicated to the needs
of seniors.
Limited to market-rate units. New condominium
construction will support market-rate, owner-
occupied multifamily units, and is not likely to
provide housing that is affordable to low-income
households.
Coordinate communication and
outreach to developers.
Keeping local developers informed about city
regulations and incentives, especially those
designed to encourage specific housing types,
could help get more of these projects built in
Edmonds. Communication methods can include:
web and hard-copy informational handouts, city
email listservs, forums or workshops, and personal
communication. In developer interviews, several
were unaware of City incentive programs.
Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace. Fact sheets
on topics such as ADUs, affordable housing
regulations, critical areas, and more have been
developed by these communities. (link, link)
Burien, Mountlake Terrace. Email lists are
maintained by these communities where users can
sign up for updates on topics such as planning and
zoning. (link, link)
Developer information currently provided online.
The Edmonds Development Services Department
website provides information on long-range
planning projects, code updates, fees, and other
issues. Adding information on incentive programs
or zoning changes would fit with current efforts.
Provides opportunities to advertise major
programs. A greater understanding of available
programs to support new development may
increase the number of developers interested
in building specific desired housing types in
Edmonds, as well as the uptake of these incentive
programs.
Encourages communication with the
development community. Providing ongoing
support for resources to the development
community promotes transparency with
stakeholders, and clear communication about
the expectations for development and the use of
incentive programs.
Increases staff time commitment. Staff time
would be required for creating additional
informational handouts and keeping them up to
date, and for administering email lists.
Apply transfers of development
rights (TDR) in applicable areas.
Land preservation initiatives such as protection
of farmlands from development can often
employ “transfers of development rights”,
where the development rights to lands
being preserved are managed through a
conservation easement. When these rights are
separated in this way, the landowner receives
the rights to develop at increased densities
in designated urban “receiving areas”, which
can be sold to developers in these areas.
Bellevue / King County. King County first
developed a TDR program in 1988, which has
expanded significantly to protect forestry, farming,
and critical habitat lands in unincorporated King
County. As part of an interlocal agreement with the
City of Bellevue, development rights from sending
sites in the County can be used to increase base
FAR and base building heights within specific
zoning districts in the Bel-Red area. (link)
Snohomish County. Snohomish County has
identified farm and forest lands for conservation
through its TDR program. This allows for increased
development in locations zoned as “Urban Center”
in unincorporated Snohomish County, as well as
areas where rezoning has allowed for increases in
allowable lots or dwellings. (link)
Snohomish County program available. The
Snohomish County TDR program allows cities
to participate and designate “receiving areas”
through interlocal agreements. Edmonds currently
does not have an interlocal agreement with the
County for this program, however.
No strong linkage to housing production /
affordability. Note that while this program is
related to increasing potential density, it is not
directly linked with the production of market-rate
housing. In fact, this program could divert potential
sources of revenue away from programs such as
inclusionary housing.
Paired with upzoning. TDR programs are typically
combined with upzoning in urban areas that can
support additional density.
Support for preservation programs. TDR
programs assist in the preservation of natural
areas, farmland, and other areas in the region
under significant development pressures.
Increase in development costs. This program
increases the costs of development, which
can reduce the affordability of housing in the
community.
Diversion of funding to land preservation
from other housing programs. The additional
cost of development is transferred to rural land
conservation efforts, which are typically unrelated
to building affordable housing at the local or
regional level.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
52
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
2. ExPAND hOUSING DIVERSITY IN ThE “MISSING MIDDLE”
Relax restrictions on accessory dwelling
units and backyard cottages.
The City can promote the development of
accessory dwelling units for housing by relaxing
requirements that would make it less feasible for
homeowners to add these units to an existing
property. This can include reducing parking
requirements, changing owner occupancy
requirements, allowing diverse types of
households to reside in these units, and so forth.
Kent. In Kent, waivers to off-street parking
requirements are allowed near transit or where
available on-street parking is sufficient. (link)
Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood,
Everett. Requirements for ADUs are more
permissive for certain cases in these communities,
such as allowing unrelated households in a unit
and allowing detached accessory units. (link, link)
Seattle. The City of Seattle is considering relaxing
restrictions on accessory dwelling units further,
with possible changes in off-street parking
requirements and owner-occupancy limitations.
(link)
Potential for broad application across the City.
As 78 percent of the land in Edmonds is zoned as
single-family residential, and lot sizes are relatively
large, this policy could be applied over a wide
area.
More information about local demand and
impacts is needed. Additional research
into production of ADUs in similar suburban
communities with less restrictions could help
to evaluate potential demand and impacts on
relaxing these restrictions.
Increases the number of smaller, more affordable
dwelling units. Accessory units provide smaller
dwelling units that can expand overall housing
supply and choice, especially for smaller housing
types that are accessible to a wide range of
incomes.
Provides additional units in developed
neighborhoods. Promoting accessory units in
existing single-family residential neighborhoods
can also provide for more supply in areas with
existing development with less impact than infill or
redevelopment projects.
Neighborhood impacts. There can be impacts
to neighborhood character and parking with
accessory units, especially if usage is widespread.
Note that this can be mitigated through design
standards and appropriate parking requirements.
Additional investment from individual
homeowners. Accessory units need to be
constructed either as part of new construction or
renovation of an existing housing unit. This can
limit the rate of uptake as it can be based on the
investment decisions of individual homeowners.
Targeted rezoning of single-family
residential areas to allow multifamily units.
Portions of existing single-family neighborhoods
can be rezoned as appropriate to allow for
new multifamily housing. This may include
rezones that allow lower-density multifamily
housing, such as duplexes or townhomes,
as well as higher density development.
Shoreline. Recent rezones in Link light rail station
areas have redesignated single-family areas to
either low-rise (45 feet) or mid-rise (70 feet) mixed-
use zoning.
Potential areas for rezone in Edmonds. Single
family areas near the Highway 99 corridor and
Swift Blue Line may be good candidates for
rezone. They could serve as transition zones
to the General Commercial zone (up to 75 feet)
adopted in much of the Highway 99 subarea plan.
Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are
zoned multifamily, and expansions of these areas
may be needed to meet local needs.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable density of development
through upzoning can increase the amount of
multifamily housing that can be accommodated in
the city.
Address range of housing types in demand.
Rezoned areas can be tailored to promote
opportunities for housing in the “missing middle”
in historically single-family neighborhoods. This
may include townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily
housing.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Create/expand fee simple
unit lot subdivision.
The unit lot subdivision process provides
opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership
of land to create townhouses, rowhouses
and similar fee-owned dwelling units as an
alternative to both condominium ownership and
traditional single-family detached subdivision.
Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, etc.: Other
communities such as Mountlake Terrance and
Lynnwood have allowed unit lot subdivisions as of
2015–2016. (link, link)
Adopted in Edmonds. This tool was recently
adopted in Edmonds Community Development
Code, under ECDC 20.75.045. (link)
Additional research may be necessary to review
implementation. Work may be conducted to
determine the uptake of unit lot subdivision,
potential limitations or obstacles to this type of
development, and policy changes to improve this
approach.
Eases development of townhomes and
rowhouses. This can increase the market supply
of ownership housing products that may be
affordable to middle-income family households.
Increases “missing middle” supply. Supporting
the development of townhomes can provide more
opportunities for households to access housing
that is priced and scaled for their needs.
Circumvents limitations on condo development.
Supporting unit lot subdivision can allow
development on a single building site to be
divided between multiple owners without the
need for a condominium, which can avoid the
disincentives for this type of arrangement.
Limited to market-rate units. New townhome
construction can support market-rate, owner-
occupied multifamily units, but is not likely to
provide housing that is affordable to low-income
households.
“Expand Housing Diversity in the “Missing Middle”” continued on the next page
53
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
2. ExPAND hOUSING DIVERSITY IN ThE “MISSING MIDDLE”
Apply targeted rezones to allow for
townhouses, cottage housing, and/
or small-lot single-family housing.
Targeted rezones in single-family areas can
permit more flexibility with building types in
projects, with the development of smaller,
less expensive housing units possible as
part of infill and new development.
Mountlake Terrace. The City of Mountlake Terrace
created a smaller lot overlay district near the town
center, including new design standards to ensure
the quality of new development. (link)
Everett. Everett had provided zoning for small lot
single-family dwellings, as well as development
standards for duplexes. (link)
Kirkland. Kirkland allowed demonstration projects
in 2002 for small-lot development, and these pilot
programs were permanently adopted in 2007.
(link)
Additional examples can be found at MRSC
website (link)
Potential areas for targeted rezones. Single-
family areas near the Highway 99 corridor and
Swift Blue Line may be good candidates for
rezone. They could serve as transition zones to
the higher density General Commercial zone
adopted in much of the Highway 99 subarea plan.
This PSRC document provides additional
examples and steps to implementation (link)
Increases “missing middle” supply. Supporting
the development of townhomes, cottage housing,
and other housing types can provide more
opportunities for households to access housing
that is priced and scaled for their needs.
Can be implemented in tandem with design
standards. Targeted rezoning should be paired
with design standards that encourage pedestrian
orientation for higher density development.
Limited to market-rate units. New townhome
and cottage housing construction can support
market-rate, owner-occupied units in the “missing
middle”, but is not likely to provide housing that is
affordable to low-income households.
Promote planned unit
development (PUD) projects.
PUD ordinances allow developers flexibility
to depart from existing zoning requirements
in exchange for fulfilling an established set of
planning criteria. These criteria may include
housing goals such a density, affordable housing,
diversity of housing stock, or sustainability.
This PSRC tool description provides additional
examples and steps to implementation. (link)
This MRSC tool description provides examples of
implementation in different communities (link)
Available but not typically used in the city. The
City has this option available in the Zoning Code
as “Planned Residential Development” (ECDC
20.35). It has not been used for recent projects
given the scale of these projects and nature of the
benefits to developers.
Flexibility with development standards.
Negotiated standards for a PRD can promote more
efficient site designs and lower infrastructure and
maintenance costs
Applicable to a range of ownership types.
Although PRDs are typically focused on residential
subdivisions for owner-occupied housing, this can
incorporate the
Provides opportunities for site-specific
considerations. PRDs give the City an opportunity
to tailor a project design to meet goals for a
specific neighborhood or site.
More applicable to larger-scale projects.
Planned unit developments are intended to
be larger-scale projects, often at the level of a
subdivision. Negotiation for specific development
considerations may not be feasible for smaller
developments.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
54
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
3. SUPPORT ThE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION
Pursue partnerships to
support aging in place.
Demographic forecasts indicate that the senior
and elderly population of Edmonds will grow
significantly over the next decade. One way to
address the housing needs of this population is
to provide resources to support aging in place.
Such programs could include home modification,
transportation, recreation and socialization,
or care management and counseling.
Seattle-King County. The Seattle-King County
Advisory Council on Aging & Disability Services
is exploring models such as “virtual villages” for
supporting aging in place. There are at least three
different virtual villages in the Seattle/King County
area: NEST (link), PNA Village (link), and Wider
Horizons (link).
Identify appropriate role for the City. This tool
may be best pursued in partnership with another
entity such as Aging and Disability Services of
Snohomish County.
Addresses the growing needs from seniors.
Aging-in-place programs help address the housing
needs of a senior and elderly population in
Edmonds that is expected to grow considerably in
the coming years.
Does not expand the housing supply or improve
housing affordability. These programs are
intended to provide seniors with the ability to stay
in their own homes, but does not include creating
new, affordable units.
Requires additional funding and administrative
costs. This program will require additional funding
from the City, and may compete against other
budget priorities.
Promote or develop property tax relief
and utility rate/tax relief programs.
Low-income homeowners can be at risk of
economic displacement when property tax
or utility charges increase. Edmonds could
expand participation in the County exemption
and deferral program, and could also
coordinate similar programs for utility costs.
Bellevue. Bellevue’s Utility Tax Relief Program
offers a year‐end rebate check of the utility
occupation taxes paid to the city. This program
is open to residents who meet low‐income
guidelines. (link)
Bellevue. The City offers low‐income seniors and
low-income permanently disabled persons relief
on their utility costs for water, wastewater and
drainage. Rate Relief offers up to 75 percent off
utility costs. (link)
Snohomish County. Snohomish County has a
property tax exemption and deferral programs
for senior and disabled persons as well as
property tax deferral program for limited income
homeowners. (link)
County currently provides property tax relief. As
noted, this program is currently in place for county
taxes for the residents of Edmonds.
Expansion of the program possible. Additional tax
and fee exemptions may be possible from the City
of Edmonds. This could be focused on property
taxes and/or utility fees.
Reduced housing costs. Tax and fee relief
provides a reduction in housing costs for low-
income homeowners and those on fixed-incomes,
allowing them to stay in their homes.
Reduced utility/tax revenue for City. Encouraging
fee or tax relief for low-income homeowners
requires that the City address the shortfall in
revenue through cuts in services or increases in
charges to other residents.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to existing homeowners, and
does not encourage the creation of new affordable
housing.
Reduce barriers to group homes
and housing for seniors.
Housing in retirement and assisted living
communities, as well as units in nursing homes
or memory care facilities, may have certain code
requirements which are less applicable to the
needs for seniors or other group home residents.
Modifications or relaxations of code requirements
can help to reduce the costs of development,
as well as the associated costs of housing for
seniors and other special needs populations.
Additional research needed. While these kinds of
facilities are in communities across the State, we
have not yet found examples of jurisdictions that
have taken actions to reduce barriers.
Edmonds currently has facilities available.
According to WA DSHS data the following licensed
facilities have mailing addresses in Edmonds:
• 47 adult family homes (accept Medicaid)
• 5 assisted living facilities (no Medicaid)
• 2 nursing homes (accept Medicaid)
Current examples of new development. A
memory care assisted living facility was recently
permitted for development in Edmonds. Review
of that permitting process may provide insight
into the barriers (if any) with Edmonds code
requirements.
Provides more senior housing options in the
community. Increasing the supply of senior
housing can provide more options for Edmonds
residents who wish to remain in the City during
their later stages of life. More supply will be
needed as the elderly population of Edmonds
grows in coming years.
Additional research needed. Further research is
necessary to determine if there are any barriers
currently that can be addressed by the City.
“Support the Needs of an Aging Population” continued on the next page
55
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
3. SUPPORT ThE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION
Waive or reduce utility connection
fees for affordable housing.
Development projects may also be charged
a fee to connect with city services, such as
sewer and stormwater systems. These fees
could be discounted or completely waived
for affordable housing projects to reduce
the associated costs to the developer and
improve the feasibility of development.
Kirkland. In 2017, the City of Kirkland passed an
ordinance to allow sewer, potable water, and
stormwater connection charges to be waived
“with respect to the construction of any shelter
or low-income housing project found by the city
manager to serve low-income persons” under
RCW 35.92.38. (link, link, link)
Fee waivers would need to balance revenue
needs and cost incentives. Waivers of these fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. However, waivers must be balanced
with the need for this revenue to support
connections to local infrastructure.
Reduces cost to develop new affordable housing.
Eliminating or reducing utility connection fees
can reduce the costs to developers, which can
help to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
Reduced City revenue. The cost of connecting
new affordable housing to services would have
to be funded with other revenue sources, or
otherwise passed on to utility rate payers.
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
56
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Facilitate donations of land.
Although the City does not own significant
parcels of land that are appropriate for new
affordable housing development, it can play
a role in facilitating donations of land from
other organizations for affordable housing.
Bellevue. The City of Bellevue has provided direct
assistance in the form of leases or donations of
public lands for four affordable housing projects:
Hopelink Place, Habitat Eastmont, Brandenwood
Apartments, and Park Highlands at Wilburton
Apartments. (link)
Significant parcels of land available for
development. Although there are few larger tracts
of land available for new greenfield development
in the City, some institutions (including local
churches) do hold vacant or underutilized parcels
that could be used for developing new housing.
Supporting role for the City. As the City does
not have substantial land holdings to donate and
will not typically be involved directly as a land
developer, it will likely serve as a champion and
mediator for these types of arrangements.
Supports productive use of available lands
for affordable housing. Encouraging the use of
donated lands for affordable housing can move
sites that are currently vacant or underutilized into
productive use to support affordability in the local
market.
Addresses costs of land acquisition to affordable
housing projects. As land prices can be one major
factor in the feasibility of nonprofit affordable
housing projects, providing land at a low cost can
improve the feasibility of development.
Cooperation with other stakeholders required.
As the City of Edmonds does not have substantial
surplus land reserves to donate, the success of
land donation programs will require coordination
with other stakeholders. While the City can
mediate these efforts, it will require decisions
by these organizations to succeed, and may be
subject to goals and considerations specific to
these organizations.
Coordinate rental assistance programs.
Rental assistance programs such as federal
Section 8 Public Housing and Housing Choice
Vouchers and local and county programs
supported by state funding opportunities.
Subsidies are based on HUD’s Fair Market
Rent, which, in Edmonds, is set based on
the Seattle-Bellevue HUD FMR area (King
and Snohomish Counties combined).
Nationwide / Snohomish County. Section 8
Housing Choice vouchers are a federal program
available nationwide to provide rent subsidies
for households with 50 percent AMI or lower. For
Edmonds, this program is administered by the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO).
Currently administered by hASCO. Local
management of Section 8 programs is through
HASCO. The Authority also manages rent-
controlled properties for low-income households
and households with special needs, and has
participated in voucher programs with the Sound
Families Initiative of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City of
Edmonds does not manage rental assistance
programs as part of municipal operations.
Coordinating rental assistance programs may
require partnerships with public housing agencies
or other nonprofits.
Significant demand for housing subsidies could
be met. Additional investment by Edmonds could
provide direct subsidies to support housing
affordability to vulnerable populations in the city
itself. This could provide a direct means to support
affordability in the city.
Institutional capacity for administering rental
assistance is limited. Although providing rental
assistance may contribute needed resources to
these programs, administration by the City may
be difficult given the current lack of local capacity.
Coordination with existing public housing agencies
such as HASCO would be more effective.
Expand the multifamily tax
exemption (MFTE) program.
The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a
voluntary incentive that exempts private multifamily
housing developments from property taxes for
up to 12 years if income-restricted affordable
units are maintained in the development.
Shoreline. The Shoreline Property Tax Exemption
(PTE) program is offered in seven specific areas
of the City. Under the program, 20 percent of a
project’s units must be rented at “affordable” rates
to qualify. For studio and 1-bedroom units, this is
calculated according to 70 percent of King County
AMI, with 2-bedroom or larger units affordable to
80 percent of King County AMI. (link)
Lynnwood. The MFTE program in Lynnwood
provides exemptions for apartment and
condominium projects of 50 units or more located
within the City Center. Tax exemptions of eight
years are permitted for any multifamily project,
with a 12-year exemption permitted if 20 percent
of the units are affordable. (link)
Currently adopted in Edmonds. The City recently
adopted a new MFTE program in the Westgate
Mixed-use District and SR-99 subarea. The
program requires 10 percent of units affordable at
80 percent AMI and 10 percent affordable at 150
percent AMI. No projects have been built to date
under this program, however.
Lack of awareness in the development
community. Interviews indicated that there
was a lack of awareness of the MFTE program
among developers in the community. Better
communication by the City could increase
participation in this program.
Affordable units built and managed by private
developers. The City is required to monitor the
status of affordable units provided by private
developers for the MFTE program
helps provide housing for moderate- and middle-
income households. MFTE programs can require
housing affordable to 80 percent of AMI, providing
opportunities for housing to meet the needs of this
income group that may otherwise be priced out of
the community.
Can provide incentives for market-rate housing.
MFTE programs may also be used to promote the
development of new multifamily housing units that
are not income restricted in specific areas where
redevelopment is desirable.
Expiration of program benefits. Under the
legislation, affordability requirements for units
built under this program will expire after 12 years.
These could be retained as affordable units, but it
would require additional expenditures by the City.
Reduced City revenue. An MFTE program will
reduce future property tax revenue from the
corresponding development, which could have
fiscal impacts if its use is widespread in the City.
Not applicable for very low income households.
This incentive is typically only feasible if the
income-restricted units are targeted at 80
percent of AMI or above. Requiring units at lower
affordability levels would reduce the economic
feasibility and therefore lower the likelihood that
a developer would choose to participate in the
program.
“Increase the Supply of Income-restricted Affordable Housing” continued on the next page
57
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Develop voluntary inclusionary zoning
/ density bonusing programs.
Changes to the Edmonds Municipal Code
can permit greater building height and/
or densities for residential developments in
certain areas, in exchange for a percentage
of the units being allocated to affordable
housing for a specified period.
Shoreline. Under the Shoreline Municipal Code,
density bonuses are provided in multifamily
areas, with up to a 50 percent increase in density
provided for units affordable for households up to
80 percent AMI. Covenants are registered on the
property to retain this affordable housing on the
site for a 30-year period. (link)
Federal Way. Multifamily housing that includes
affordable housing (80 percent AMI) can include
one bonus market rate unit for each affordable
unit included in the project. In single-family
developments with affordable units, lot sizes may
be reduced by 20 percent. Units are required to
be affordable for the lifetime of the project through
a covenant on the land. (link)
Fiscal assessment required. The feasibility for
inclusionary zoning requirements must be carefully
designed to provide enough incentives to make
development feasible.
An Urban Land Institute report provides guidance
on optimizing the effectiveness of incentives for
inclusionary development. (link)
Additional resources from the PSRC provide
details about inclusionary zoning. (link)
MRSC provides links to other resources related
to inclusionary zoning. (link)
No public funding required. As inclusionary
zoning provides incentives through increased
entitlements for development on a site, these
projects do not require direct public investment or
diversion of revenue from the City.
Units built and managed by private developers.
The units developed from inclusionary zoning
are managed over the long term by private
developers, and do not require intervention by the
City.
Expiration of program benefits. Under
inclusionary zoning requirements, affordability
requirements for units built under this program
will expire after a specific period (typically longer
than for MFTE programs). These could be retained
as affordable units, but it would require additional
expenditures by the City.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Not applicable for very low income households.
This incentive is typically only feasible if the
income-restricted units are targeted at 80
percent of AMI or above. Requiring units at lower
affordability levels would reduce the economic
feasibility and therefore lower the likelihood that
a developer would choose to participate in the
program.
Waive or reduce impact fees
for affordable housing.
Impact fees in the City of Edmonds are collected
to finance capital spending for community
infrastructure such as parks and streets.
Discounts are provided for certain levels of
affordable housing. This program could be
modified to further reduce or waive impact
fees for new affordable housing, which would
reduce development costs and improve the
financial feasibility of the development.
Everett. Affordable housing projects for
households of 50 percent median family income
or less in Everett may apply for a transportation
impact fee exemption, which is granted on a
case-by-case basis. An exemption requires the
developer to register a covenant on title to ensure
the site remains in use for affordable housing. (link)
Bellingham. Affordable housing projects for
households of 80 percent median family income or
lower may receive exemptions from 80 percent of
applicable park, transportation, and school impact
fees. These exemptions require a covenant to be
registered with the property. (link, link, link)
Currently adopted in Edmonds. Discounts for
certain impact fees are already implemented
in Edmonds for new affordable housing
development.
Further discounts or waivers would need to
balance revenue needs and cost incentives.
Additional discounts/waivers of impact fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. This must be balanced, however,
with the need for this revenue to support local
infrastructure.
Reduces the cost to develop new affordable
housing. Eliminating or reducing impact fees
can reduce the costs to developers, which can
help to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
Reduced City revenue. Waiving impact fees
can reduce revenue for the City that is typically
earmarked for capital improvement programs,
such as for parks and streets. This may also
require the City to expend other funds directly to
replace these fees (depending on the amount of
the waiver).
“Increase the Supply of Income-restricted Affordable Housing” continued on the next page
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
58
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Support community land trusts.
Community land trusts (CLTs) are one way
to enable stakeholders to get involved in
the development of affordable housing
through land ownership. This involves
alternative ownership structures for land
that can reduce costs for development.
homestead Community Land Trust (Renton,
Seattle, Tukwila). Homestead Community Land
Trust is a local CLT with projects throughout King
County, many of which involve the local city as a
partner. Homebuyers typically have incomes from
60–80 percent AMI to qualify for the program.
(link)
Oriented to a range of possible housing types.
CLTs can be employed in different situations where
down payments or monthly mortgage payments
are a significant obstacle to homeownership. As a
result, this can include a range of owner-occupied
housing types, including townhomes, duplexes,
cottage housing, and single-family detached
housing.
Requires an assessment of potential sites
for use. Although this could be appropriate
for Edmonds, identifying appropriate sites for
CLTs will require an evaluation of properties,
including opportunities for donations of land in the
community.
Provides affordable homeownership. CLTs are a
model to enable affordable home ownership for
lower income households, and can reduce the
down payments and monthly costs for households
to access single-family housing units in the
community.
Viable as a long-term program. Re-selling
households are often required to sell the home at
resale-restricted and affordable price to another
low-income household. This ensures the unit
maintains permanent affordability.
Land and capital required to begin a land trust.
CLTs typically require donations of land and capital
to the managing trust to start up projects. The
availability of sites and funding may impact the
feasibility of a trust to operate in Edmonds, but
the City could serve in a coordinating role for this
work.
Focuses on owner-occupied housing. CLTs are
focused on owner-occupied housing, and typically
include single-family options for larger households.
This model does not include income-restricted
rental housing for lower-income households.
Expedite the permitting process
for affordable housing.
The City can choose to prioritize the processing of
permits for affordable housing projects, which will
reduce the time spent in the permitting process
and the associated costs with holding the property.
Pierce County. Affordable housing projects for
households with less than 80 percent of Pierce
County median income can pursue an expedited
permit process. Under this process, the permit
is considered a priority for review by county
departments, and a project manager from the
Department of Planning and Land Services is
assigned to coordinate the review process. (link)
Balance between permit processing times
for different development types. Unless the
permitting department is expanded, prioritizing
one permit type leads to more delays for
other permit types. This could result in making
Edmonds a less desirable location for market-rate
development.
Reduces time and costs to build new affordable
housing. Expediting these permits can reduce
the amount of time this process will take for
developers. This can also reduce associated costs
with holding property and carrying financing.
Increases delays in processing other
applications. Providing expedited services
will delay other projects, potentially those that
will contribute additional housing. Developers
interviewed for this study expressed frustration
with delays under the current system, and further
delays could make the market less attractive for
new market-rate housing.
Provide historic tax credits.
At the federal level, Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) can be used in conjunction with
the Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate
older buildings for use as low-income housing.
At the local level, this can be supported
through special assessments of the value of
certain historic buildings after rehabilitation.
Seattle. Properties such as the Pacific Hotel and
the Downtowner Hotel in the City of Seattle have
been rehabilitated into affordable housing units
through a combination of LIHTCs and HTCs. (link)
Applicable for developers. Tax credits under the
HTC program are applicable for developers only.
The City of Edmonds may have a role in promoting
this program with developers, and providing
support for applications.
Additional research required for historic tax
credits. Program criteria from the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development indicates
funds can only can be used for income-producing
certified historic structures. Further research
required to determine if there are any such
structures that are appropriate to be used for
affordable housing in Edmonds, but widespread
use is unlikely. (link)
Provides an external source of fiscal support.
Tax credits from the federal level can offset up
to 20 percent of the costs of rehabilitating older
buildings for affordable housing.
Supports reuse of historic buildings in the
community. In communities that have historic
buildings available for reuse, these credits can be
applied to repurpose these buildings to provide
value for the community.
Supports building reuse only. Historic tax credits
are not applicable to new development, only
building reuse.
Limited to historic buildings. These tax credits
are allocated for rehabilitating certified historic
buildings with a “substantial investment” for use as
low-income housing. In the case of Edmonds, this
tax credit would not be applicable to a wide range
of sites.
“Increase the Supply of Income-restricted Affordable Housing” continued on the next page
59
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Support low-income housing tax credits.
The federal government provides Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for use in subsidizing
affordable low-income housing projects through
tax credits of up to approximately 9 percent of the
amount of a building’s qualified basis annually for
10 years. In Washington State, these tax credits are
issued by the State Housing Finance Commission,
which requires applications for prospective
projects interested in receiving these credits.
Everett. Housing Hope Properties was approved
for almost $1.4 million in tax credits for HopeWorks
Station II, a 65-unit mixed-use affordable housing
project for disadvantaged veterans, families, and
youth that incorporates a 1,000-sf kitchen as a
community meeting place and location for culinary
training programs. (link)
Renton. The Low-Income Housing Institute (LIHI)
successfully applied for $984,979 in tax credits for
Renton Commons, a 48-unit affordable housing
building in downtown Renton. Half of the units
in the building are reserved for households at
50 percent AMI or less, and half are reserved for
households at 30 percent AMI or less.
Applicable for developers. Tax credits under the
LIHTC program are applicable for developers only.
The City can provide support for applications and
promote this program with developers.
Provides significant tax credits to support
development or rehabilitation. Under the LIHTC
program, up to around 9 percent of the amount
of a building’s qualified basis annually for 10
years, up to a present value of 70 percent of the
building’s qualified basis. A 4 percent annual credit
up to 30 percent of present value is available
for projects receiving federal subsidies or for
rehabilitation.
Support for special needs populations. Additional
consideration is provided in the application for
LIHTCs to projects that provide housing for the
homeless, large households, the disabled, and the
elderly.
Support for specific types of projects. In addition
to special needs populations, LIHTC applications
favor projects in transit-oriented areas and areas
at risk for market conversion, as well as projects
involving donations, nonprofits, and public funding.
Applications and competitive review required.
Tax credits under this program are issued by the
Housing Finance Commission from a limited pool
under a competitive process, and receiving credits
under the program is not guaranteed.
Waive or reduce building permit
fees for affordable housing.
Permit fees are charged by the City to cover
the costs of reviewing and auditing building
and development permits during the process of
construction. These fees could be discounted
or waived for affordable housing projects to
reduce the associated costs to the developer
and improve the feasibility of development.
Everett. Fees for development permits may be
waived at the discretion of the planning director if
a landowner agrees to register a covenant on title
to retain affordable units on the site for a 30-year
period. (link)
Kirkland. Development permit fees are waived in
Kirkland for affordable units and the associated
bonus market-rate units developed under
inclusionary zoning requirements. (link)
Fee waivers would need to balance revenue
needs and cost incentives. Waivers of these fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. However, waivers must be balanced
with the need for this revenue to support staff
resources to process permits, and the costs that
would be distributed to other applicants.
Reduces cost to develop new affordable housing.
Eliminating or reducing building permit fees can
reduce the costs to developers, which can help
to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
Potential for reduced City revenue. Waiving
building permit fees will reduce the revenue
received by the City specifically to offset the
costs of permit review and processing. This would
require the City to offset these losses with other
sources of funding.
Potential increases in other building permit fees.
If the need for additional revenue from permit fees
is passed to other applicants, this can increase the
costs of other permits and reduce the feasibility of
these types of development.
Establish linkage fees.
Fee charged to developers for every square
foot of new development. Funds used
to pay for new affordable housing.
Seattle. The recently adopted Mandatory Housing
Affordability (inclusionary zoning) legislation
includes a “performance option” which charges
a per square foot fee on all new commercial
development in designated areas, with funds
dedicated to affordable housing.
Additional research required. Evaluation could
be informed by a comparison of developer cost
burdens in Edmonds to other communities.
Adopting a fee that is too high can be a
disincentive to development when similar
opportunities can be found in neighboring
communities.
New funding source for permanent affordable
housing. Funds can be targeted to specific groups
in need who aren’t addressed by other tools.
Disincentive to development in Edmonds.
Particularly if not implemented in neighboring
communities. May reduce the production of new
housing supply.
“Increase the Supply of Income-restricted Affordable Housing” continued on the next page
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
60
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Develop mandatory inclusionary zoning.
A requirement that all new development
include a certain percentage of units that
are affordable and rented to qualifying low-
income households. Some programs provide
the option of paying a fee instead of providing
housing on site. Fees are then used by the
City to fund affordable housing elsewhere.
Redmond. Requires 10 percent of units to be
affordable to an 80 percent AMI household.
Applies to all new residential and mixed-use
development in several neighborhoods. (link)
Issaquah. The City of Issaquah provides both
mandatory and voluntary programs, with the
primary focus of the mandatory programs on 70
percent AMI households. (link)
Seattle. The Mandatory Housing Affordability
(MHA) program requires 5–11 percent of units
in new multifamily buildings to be affordable, or
payment of an in-lieu fee. (link)
Federal Way. The City requires 5 percent of rental
units to be affordable at 80 percent AMI, with up to
10 percent additional market units permitted. (link)
Must be paired with upzone. Washington State
law requires cities to implement a rezone allowing
additional height or density when implementing
mandatory inclusionary zoning.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine appropriate affordability
requirements that still incentivize market rate
production while also providing affordable units.
New affordable housing. Provides new affordable
housing funded by developers, and thus requires
no city investment.
Mixed-income projects. The inclusion of
affordable units in market-rate developments
allows for a mix of incomes, providing better
outcomes for families and children.
Can be a disincentive to new development.
Particularly if the requirements are set too high.
This can paradoxically result in less new affordable
housing than would be the case with lower
requirements.
Apply for Washington State
housing Trust Fund grants.
The Washington State Department of Commerce
(DOC) administers a Housing Trust Fund (link),
which can be used to support projects involving
the construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation
of affordable housing, preferably for households
with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of
the Area Median Income. Other expenses related
to low-income housing may also be eligible.
Communities across Washington State.
Nonprofit housing providers across the region
access Housing Trust Fund support for financing
affordable housing projects.
Funding uncertainty. For 2017, trust fund is
unfunded by Washington State legislature due to
failure to pass a Capital Budget. Future funding
availability will be dependent on future Capital
Budgets.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine the competitiveness of a
specific proposal from Edmonds.
State funding source for affordable housing
projects. The Housing Trust Fund represents a
state-level funding source available for housing
projects.
Competitive process. An application under this
process may not result in a successful grant.
Focus of the grants. Priority for grants is given to
projects with local government contributions and
several other factors.
Apply for CDBG and other hUD grants.
The US Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and other sources of grant
funding are administered by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Edmonds
is a member of an Urban County Consortium
in Snohomish County which administers funds
from HUD in partnership with cities through
an interlocal agreement. These funds can be
used to support rehabilitation and infrastructure
development to support affordable housing.
Snohomish County. Deadline for 2019 grant
applications for public facilities and infrastructure
projects is likely to be in fall 2018. Applications
must be consistent with the 5-year consolidated
plan, and the applicant can be a city or nonprofit.
(link)
Generally, only for low-income areas. There are
no Low-Income Housing Tax Credit qualifying
census tracts in the City of Edmonds. Additional
research would be required to determine if this
makes Edmonds less competitive for all grant
types.
New funding source. These grants would provide
an external source of funds for public facilities
and infrastructure projects that support affordable
housing.
Requires successful application. Funding
from these grants is limited, and a competitive
application is required to secure funds for specific
projects or programs.
“Increase the Supply of Income-restricted Affordable Housing” continued on the next page
61
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Institute a City affordable housing levy.
A City-wide affordable housing levy can
be instituted as part of the local property
tax. This levy is typically developed as an
excess levy, and requires voter approval
(with a 60 percent supermajority).
Seattle. Housing levies have been approved in
Seattle since 1981, with a median cost of $112 per
year over 7 years. (link)
King County. In 2017, King County voters passed
a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1000 for housing and
human services needs of veterans, seniors and
vulnerable populations.
Bellingham. In 2012, Bellevue passed a 7-year
levy combining a single-year levy lid lift with an
affordable housing levy under RCW 84.52.105.
(link)
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine potential level of public
and elected official support. A successful
campaign would also require the support of
community organizations and funders.
Potential for future partnerships. Edmonds could
also pursue a countywide levy in partnership with
other cities and the county.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
who aren’t addressed by other tools.
Requires voter approval. Voter approval is
necessary to raise property taxes through a
housing levy.
Increases tax burden. Local residents and
property owners would need to pay additional
taxes under this levy.
Institute a City sales tax for
affordable housing.
The local sales tax can be increased to fund
affordable housing programs serving households
with income below 60 percent of the Area
Median Income and within specific categories,
including: individuals with mental illness, veterans,
senior citizens, homeless families with children,
unaccompanied homeless youth, persons with
disabilities, or domestic violence victims. This
increase must be approved by a ballot measure.
Ellensburg. In 2017 voters in Ellensburg, WA
approved a 0.1 percent sales tax to support
affordable housing projects. The tax passed with
61 percent in favor. (link)
Additional research required. Further research
is necessary to determine potential level of
public and elected official support. A successful
campaign would also require the support of
community organizations and funders.
Potential partnerships. Edmonds could also
pursue a countywide sales tax in partnership with
other cities and the county.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
who are not addressed by other tools.
Limited in scope. Increasing sales taxes beyond
the maximum allowed under RCW 82.14.030 are
typically allowed only for specific uses, such as
chemical dependency or mental health treatment
services. Housing subsidies would be limited to
these specific categories.
Can be repealed by referendum. Under the law,
increases in sales taxes require a referendum to
be upheld, and could be repealed by popular vote.
Impact on the cost of living in the City. Sale taxes
are regressive and can increase cost of living for
low income households.
Revenue reliability is tied to retail economy. As
more residents buy products online, revenues
from a sales tax can decline.
Support employer-assisted
housing programs.
Employer-assisted housing programs typically
involve housing support programs funded by
major employers that provide financial and
educational assistance to employees, typically to
allow them to live within the community where
they work. These programs may be co-sponsored
or provided additional support by the City.
Resort communities. Employer-assisted
housing programs are commonly found in resort
communities where local housing costs far exceed
that which is affordable to service workers, and
housing access is necessary to support the local
labor pool.
Requires a major employer partner. This tool has
only limited potential unless a willing partner is
identified in the city or surrounding area.
Addresses housing options for the local
workforce. Affordable housing can meet the
needs of the workforce for a major employer, and
ensure that employees can live in the community
where they work.
Requires a major employer partner. This
program requires a major employer or coalition
of employers in the city as a partner to provide
funding and/or other support for affordable
housing programs.
“Increase the Supply of Income-restricted Affordable Housing” continued on the next page
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
62
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
4. INCREASE ThE SUPPLY OF INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE hOUSING
Provide funding for affordable housing
from the City General Fund.
Another source of funding for affordable housing
programs is through specific allocations from the
General Fund in the City budget. While this does
not represent a new funding source and may be
subject to tradeoffs within the budget, this does
not require tax increases or ballot measures.
Local funding for government programs is
typically drawn from the General Fund.
Political focus. The recent move by City Council to
allocate general funds for homelessness indicates
an openness to using funds for programs that
address housing needs.
Regional coordination. The amount of funding
from this tool is not likely to be significant
compared to scale of need. In this case,
contributing to a regional fund may be more
effective.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
that are not addressed by other tools.
Tradeoffs in budgeting. The use of general fund
dollars requires a trade-off with funding other City
priorities.
Contribute to down payment
assistance programs.
Some cities have down payment assistance
programs to help first-time low- or moderate-
income homebuyers. Such programs are
typically run in coordination with local
nonprofits and lending institutions.
Seattle. The Office of Housing works with
nonprofit partner organizations to provide down
payment assistance to first-time homebuyers at or
below 80 percent of area median income. (link)
Best when preserving long-term affordability.
Down payment assistance programs may be more
effective when paired with CLTs or other tool that
uses affordability covenants to ensure homes
remain permanently affordable. (link)
Supports moderate income households in
purchasing their first home. Providing assistance
with down payments addresses one of the main
obstacles to homeownership, and can target
demographics that may be excluded from the
housing market.
Not viable for rental units. Low-income
households or other households that are not
seeking homeownership may not be directly
supported with this program.
63
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
5. PARTICIPATE IN SOUTh SNOhOMISh COUNTY STRATEGIES TO REDUCE hOMELESSNESS
Reduce barriers to tiny houses, boarding
homes, and single room occupancy housing.
These are forms of multi-tenant housing where
residents occupy individual rooms and typically
share bathrooms and/or kitchens. These are
typically rented as permanent housing for low-
income and formerly homeless individuals. Certain
code requirements in Edmonds may be less
applicable to this kind of housing. Modifications
or relaxations of code requirements can help
to reduce the costs of development, as well
as the associated costs of housing for low-
income and formerly homeless individuals.
Seattle. Othello Village is a City-authorized
homeless encampment with 28 96-square foot
tiny houses and 12 tent platforms. It is intended
as a short-term housing solution for up to 100
people. Donations to LIHI fund the materials for
the tiny houses, with construction mostly courtesy
of volunteers. Seattle has five other similar
encampments. These are permitted for 12 months
with the option to renew for a second 12 months.
(link)
Additional research needed. The City will need
to determine there are any current legal or
development code barriers that would prevent tiny
house villages. Similar analysis would be needed
to evaluate whether there are barriers to more
permanent structures such as SROs or boarding
houses.
Appropriate locations would need to be
identified. One option is underutilized parking lots
owned by the City or a willing community partner
such as a church.
Provides short-term housing that is inexpensive
to build. Tiny houses can be rapidly and
inexpensively built when sufficient long-term
affordable housing is not available.
Neighborhood opposition. Community outreach
would be required to hear and address concerns
of nearby neighbors. While Seattle’s camps have
been controversial, the City has succeeded in
generating some community support in nearby
neighborhoods.
Temporary housing option only. Tiny houses do
not provide adequate long-term housing options
for formerly homeless individuals and families.
Pursue partnerships to develop
winter shelter programs.
Edmonds could work in partnership with
nonprofits to develop emergency overnight
shelter programs that operate during the winter
months. Such programs can also help connect
homeless individuals with services resources.
Multiple communities. Many communities have
emergency winter shelters provided during
extreme weather conditions.
Edmonds currently has one winter shelter
program. We All Belong is currently located at the
Edmonds Senior Center near the ferry terminal.
It opens for night where the temperature drops
below 34 degrees. Outreach to this shelter
could help inform level of demand and need for
additional capacity. (link)
Provides emergency shelter options in the
community. Winter shelter programs provide
a warm place to sleep when temperatures are
dangerously low, and potentially connecting
homeless individuals and families with resources.
Does not provide long-term housing stability.
Limited long-term benefits for people suffering
from homelessness and housing instability,
although winter shelters can be an opportunity
to connect homeless persons with services and
permanent housing opportunities.
Pursue partnerships to develop
a housing first program.
Edmonds could partner with nonprofits or
regional partners to develop a housing first
program that prioritizes providing permanent
housing to people experiencing homelessness.
Snohomish County. According to the Snohomish
County Homeless Prevention and Response
System Strategic Plan, the County uses a
housing first approach to quickly move people to
permanent housing. (link)
Requires the availability of permanent housing.
For a housing first program to work, housing
units appropriate for persons transitioning from
homelessness must be available. Therefore, this
tool may be best pursued as a regional strategy in
partnership with the County Office of Community
& Homeless Services or nonprofit developers of
permanent housing for individuals and families
transitioning out of homelessness.
housing stability. The purpose of these programs
is to provide stability and attend to necessities
like food and shelter without preconditions such
as sobriety, treatment, or service participation
requirements.
Additional research is needed. Research is
necessary to determine what kinds of partnerships
would be most effective and what role(s) the City
can play.
Pursue partnerships to develop
housing for veterans.
Military veterans can experience post-traumatic
stress, injury and other unique challenges
as they return from duty and re-integrate
into society. Edmonds could partner with
nonprofits to help fund and develop new
housing targeted towards veterans which
may include case management services.
King County. In 2017, King County voters passed
a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1,000 for housing and
human services needs of veterans, seniors and
vulnerable populations.
Requires a partner seeking to develop a facility
in Edmonds. Census data and the Snohomish
County PIT report indicates there aren’t likely to
be a lot of veterans in Edmonds that suffer from
poverty or housing instability.
Provides options for additional support. New
affordable housing designed to meet the unique
needs of veterans can access programs and
funding sources specifically for these households.
Limited impact on overall housing issues. The
needs assessment for the City indicates that there
is not a sizeable number of veterans in Edmonds
who are challenged by poverty or homelessness.
“Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce Homelessness” continued on the next page
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
64
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
5. PARTICIPATE IN SOUTh SNOhOMISh COUNTY STRATEGIES TO REDUCE hOMELESSNESS
Pursue coordination of housing and
social service assistance programs.
Many factors can contribute to homelessness
and housing instability. These can include
poverty, illness, domestic violence, mental
health, and addiction. Edmonds can explore
ways to address these root causes of
homelessness through support for and
coordination with social service providers.
Snohomish County. According to the Snohomish
County Homeless Prevention and Response
System Strategic Plan “The homeless housing
and service system, which uses a low-barrier and
housing first approach to quickly move individuals
and families to permanent housing consists
of: outreach services, Coordinated Entry and
navigation services, homelessness prevention,
emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid
rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and
other permanent housing.” (link)
Identify appropriate role for the City. If Edmonds
decides to develop more homeless housing in the
city, it can play a role in making sure it is integrated
in the county’s coordinated homeless housing and
service system.
Connecting services to households in need.
Providing coordinating services can ensure that
residents are connected with appropriate services
from different agencies, presenting a “one-stop”
solution for accessing these services in the
community.
Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City of
Edmonds does not currently manage housing
or social service assistance programs as part of
municipal operations. Coordinating assistance
programs would require partnerships with public
housing agencies or other nonprofits.
65
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
6. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME TENANTS
Create requirements to provide
fair housing information.
An ordinance which requires property
managers to provide information to all tenants
regarding tenant rights and property manager
responsibilities under federal fair housing law.
Seattle. Under city regulations, landlords in the
city must provide state and city landlord/tenant
regulations as addenda to the lease, as well as
voter registration information. (link)
Additional research required. Additional research
may be required to determine if discrimination
(particularly against households using vouchers) is
a significant problem in Edmonds.
Promotes educated tenants that are aware
of their rights. If successful, could aid with the
education of and outreach to tenants who may be
at risk of discrimination.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Challenges to enforcement. Enforcing the
requirement could be difficult, and it does not
ensure that property managers abide by fair
housing laws.
Create anti-discrimination
requirements for tenants.
Ordinances intended to prevent the discrimination
of prospective tenants based on source of
income, race, ability, or other factors.
Seattle. A Source of Income Protection Ordinance
prohibits discrimination against renters who use
subsidies or alternative sources of income, among
other requirements. Landlords must accept first
qualified applicant. (link)
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to determine if discrimination
(particularly against households using vouchers) is
a significant problem in Edmonds.
Controversial application in other communities.
Seattle’s requirement for landlord to accept
first qualified applicant has been controversial.
However, without this requirement it is difficult to
enforce fair housing laws.
Increases access to affordable housing by
voucher users. Could provide significant benefits
to low-income households who use vouchers to
subsidize rents.
Reduces potential discrimination in the housing
market. Could help reduce other forms of housing
discrimination that may exist in Edmonds.
Additional costs to the City. Developing and
administering a program would be an additional
cost to the city.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Provide rental housing inspection programs.
An ordinance or program intended to educate
property owners, managers, and renters
about City housing codes. It may also include
requirements for owners to register all rental
units and verify their property meets standards.
Seattle. A Rental Registration & Inspection
Ordinance helps ensure rental units are safe and
meet basic housing maintenance requirements.
(link)
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to determine if significant
portions of Edmonds’ rental housing stock present
unsafe or unhealthy conditions for tenants.
Promotes healthy and safe rental units. Helps to
ensure that rental units in Edmonds are safe and/
or healthy to live in.
Additional costs to the City. Developing and
administering a program would be an additional
cost to the city.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Develop a tenant relocation
assistance program.
An ordinance or program that provides financial
assistance and/or services to households that
are physically displaced due to redevelopment
or renovation of their rental unit.
Seattle. A Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance
(TRAO) aids low income (below 50 percent AMI)
households displaced due to demolition or
renovation of their rental unit. Half of the cost is
paid by the property owner and half paid by the
city. (link)
Range of options for tenant education and
assistance. There are many ways to crafts
ordinances to help educate tenants of their rights
and prevent property owners from exploiting
loopholes.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to assess whether there are
many building with renter households that are at
risk of demolition and redevelopment.
Potential to expand to include economic
displacement. City Council members in Seattle
have proposed expanding their program to include
economic displacement due to rising rents.
Assists with members of the community
displaced by rising rents. This program can help
current renters who are displaced during times
of rapid redevelopment. Financial assistance can
relieve some of the financial burdens of moving
and move-in costs.
households may relocate outside Edmonds.
These programs do not provide any assurance the
renters will find housing that is affordable or will
choose to remain in Edmonds.
Increase in costs to developers. Requiring
developers to pay for relocation provides a small
disincentive to redevelopment and therefore
could, potentially, reduce new housing production.
“Provide Protections for Low-income Tenants” continued on the next page
EDMONDS HOuSING STRATEGy | July 2018
66
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
6. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME TENANTS
Support third-party purchases
of existing affordable housing
for long-term preservation.
Units in older, more affordable apartment
buildings may be at risk of loss due to
redevelopment, renovation, or expiration of
affordability requirements as rents continue to
rise. The City could provide funds to a nonprofit
to purchase for long-term preservation.
Seattle. The City of Seattle uses Housing Levy
funds for housing preservation with a required
minimum affordability period of 50 years. (link)
Additional research. Further research would
be required to determine if there are known
properties in Edmonds that would be good
candidates for such a program.
Promotes preservation of existing affordable
housing. Third-party purchases can ensure the
long-term affordability of existing low-cost housing
units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or price
increase.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to rental housing renovations
only, and does not increase the number of units on
the market.
Does not provide net new affordable housing.
This program provides an opportunity to preserve
existing low-income housing, but does not provide
new units.
Assist property owners with improvements
in return for affordability covenant.
Owners of rental housing that is currently priced
for lower income tenants can face a tradeoff
between raising rents and making needed
improvements, or selling the property due to
inability to finance needed repairs. The city could
create a program to provide low cost rehab
loans in exchange for an affordability covenant.
Seattle. Assistance for renovations in exchange
for affordability covenants has been proposed
in Seattle’s HALA Report as one option for
encouraging affordable housing. (link)
Additional research. Further research would
be required to determine if there are known
properties in Edmonds that would be good
candidates for such a program.
Cost-effective approach to maintain existing
affordable housing. Renovating existing housing
stock can be more cost-effective than building
new affordable housing. This can ensure the long-
term affordability of existing low-cost housing
units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or price
increase.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to rental housing renovations
only, and does not increase the number of units on
the market.
Does not provide net new affordable housing.
This program provides an opportunity to preserve
existing low-income housing, but does not provide
new units.
67
DRAFT
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0719 (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 2
firms from locating in the BD-1 zones, and it may be appropriate to explicitly include them in the creative district. Director Hope agreed that is an option but emphasized that the first step is to submit an application that meets the State requirements, and then people can get together to work on it. Board Member Robles observed that tech sectors are getting quite “artsy” and they belong in this same category. Chair Monroe asked for information about the consultant services contract, which was a topic of discussion at the June 7th Tree Board meeting. Director Hope answered that, over the past several years, the City has hired a consultant for the Tree Board (up to $6,000 per year) to help gather information, submit an application for Tree City U.S.A. and develop brochures and outreach materials. DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2015 calls for having a Housing Strategy to “increase the supply of affordable housing for a range of income levels and to meet diverse housing needs.” For the past several years, the Board has received information and had discussions about a variety of housing issues such as housing affordability, housing availability, housing types and changing demographics. Not counting the draft Housing Strategy, the Board has had housing issues on its agenda 35 times between early 2015 and 2018. Director Hope reminded the Board that an early draft of the Housing Strategy was presented to them on May 23rd for discussion and review, and a public hearing was conducted on June 13th. Since the hearing, the Board has received additional written comments from the public, which were forwarded to them. She also reminded the Board that the Mayor appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force in the summer of 2017, which was primarily composed of housing specialists. The Task Force provided feedback on strategies on what the City could do to increase the supply of housing affordable for a range of people. The outreach program included a housing forum in the spring, several press releases and articles in the local news media, a dedicated webpage, Facebook, and other public notices and publications. The draft was also presented at a public open house on May 21st. Director Hope explained that the draft Housing Strategy includes a lot of data and background information, followed by six priority objectives that cover a range of topics. She observed that the intent was to summarize the housing issues and provide some key information. The purpose of tonight’s discussion is for the Board to respond to the following questions related to the draft document so staff can determine the next steps.
• Does the draft Housing Strategy address a broad range of housing needs relevant to Edmonds?
• Are there aspects of the draft Housing Strategy that you particularly appreciated?
• Are there aspects of the draft Housing Strategy that concern you or that need more clarification?
• What is needed for the Planning Board’s next meeting on this topic? Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that at the public hearing, she asked if any corporations within Edmonds are looking at sponsoring employee housing. Director Hope said there are none currently, and she doesn’t know of any that are planning to,
either. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that staff previously advised that the hospital may be considering this opportunity. Director Hope said that, currently, there is no clear plan to do so. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Housing Strategy could include an additional strategy to look at opportunities for corporations located in Edmonds to provide housing for their own employees. Director Hope pointed out that the Housing Strategy includes quite a bit about workforce
housing, but it does not specifically focus on corporations.
Chair Monroe recalled that some of the illustrations in the draft document show “tiny homes,” which are not something the Board discussed or thought was relevant for Edmonds’ needs. He suggested that these illustrations should be eliminated. He also commented that when discussing the needs of Edmonds, they are really talking about housing efficiency and the variety of sizing. The report did a good job of laying these needs out, but it could have done a better job of making it clear that the
Board is concerned about housing sizes and not just housing prices. The thrust of the report is the need for a greater variety of housing options than what currently exist in Edmonds. Board Member Robles suggested that perhaps the list of housing needs could be articulated a little stronger to identify the different groups of people that the strategy is intended to address. The list could include people who want to age in place,
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 3
school teachers, public safety workers, people who grew up in Edmonds and want to return, kids coming back to live with parents, divorced couples, etc. Once they were able to get to these points in the public hearing discussion, people started to see how the City is trying to be creative by solving so many problems with a single solution. Board Member Robles noted that the strategy does not address entrepreneurial opportunities that offer a type of bridge product that allows someone to purchase a home with the promise of future cash flows from an ADU unit. Director Hope responded that the strategy does reference a non-profit organization (Community Land Trust) that offers this type of opportunity. Board Member Robles suggested that this reference could be expanded to include a variety of other products, such as crowd funding where a group of homeowners can borrow money from themselves in order to do renovation on a condominium structure. Currently, the only options are to assess all of the owners or borrow money from a bank at high interest. Entrepreneurial tools allow people to borrow the money from themselves, helping to distribute the load and restore housing that already exists. He felt these options could have a powerful impact on the strategy. Board Member Crank said she appreciated that the Housing Strategy deals with a diversity of housing options, plus trying to address some affordability and subsidized housing issues. As she explained at the public hearing, she lived previously in a community (Mountain View, CA) that used a Below Market Rate (BMR) program as one of its housing strategies. The program required developers of multi-use projects to set aside 10% of all new housing units for low and moderate-income persons. In many cases, the developers opted to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing the units, and the in-lieu fee was used to build new affordable housing or support other affordable housing programs. She recalled that, at the public hearing, citizens were concerned that the Housing Strategy would result in a flood of people into Edmonds, but this was not part of the conversation in Mountain View because the program established priorities for who could live in the units. Based on a priority system, first preference was given to Mountain View public safety employees, public school teachers who work in Mountain View, households who live in Mountain View and households who have worked in Mountain View for at least two years. The simple supply and demand dictated that those who ended up in the affordable units would be people who were already there. The program was all about serving people who were already contributing members of the community, which she believes is also the spirit of the draft Housing Strategy. She suggested that being overt in saying who the plan is trying to serve and identifying certain priorities within the housing piece might allow the plan to garner more community support. Board Member Cloutier said he likes how the strategies are so explicitly stated rather than simply a list of wishes for better housing. The strategies in the plan are real and supported by research. He pointed out that Strategies 4 and 5 speak to the concerns about the homeless population and low-income housing, but additional language could be added to make sure it is clear that the plan is primarily intended to address the people who are already in Edmonds. The meaning of the words “low-income” will continue to change, and perhaps additional language could be added to be more explicit about the intent to continue dialogue rather than drawing the line based on today. Director Hope emphasized that “affordable housing” does not mean the type of housing that is typically considered “the projects.” The challenge is that Area Median Income (AMI) is $96,000, which still isn’t enough to get a lot of housing in the community. People who earn less than AMI have it even tougher. She pointed out that the Housing Strategy has 32 basic pages, plus some appendices, and only 1.5 pages are about homelessness issues. It recognizes the range and types of homelessness and provides strategies the City could use to address the problems. But the strategies are not plans, they are just ideas the City could consider. The City Council is doing a more detailed study on homelessness, itself, and they will be looking at the actual needs and issues in Edmonds and what more specifically the City should consider doing. Vice Chair Chang said he appreciates the comprehensive nature of the draft Housing Strategy. He observed that the Board has discussed housing issues more than 35 times over the past few years, so the topics have evolved over time. Without having the Board’s previous discussions to provide context, he can see how the strategy came across to citizens as primarily dealing with homelessness or low-income housing. He recalled that the Board discussed a variety of scenarios. For example, there is a large number of single-family homes with 3 or 4 bedrooms that are being filled with single individuals who might want to downsize for a variety of reasons but still stay in their community. Many of these are seniors who want to age in place. Currently, there are not a lot of options for 1 and 2-bedroom units. He recognized that not every scenario can be addressed in the Housing Strategy, but perhaps the narrative could be shifted to focus on the problems they are trying to solve and the people they are trying to help. Director Hope suggested that some graphics, such as the tiny homes, could be changed because they were intended to show a range of options rather than an actual proposal. She also agreed that it is
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 4
important to be clear that the bulk of the strategy addresses moderate types of housing for average people, but recognizes situations where people may need special help, as well. Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the document is intended to be a high-level strategy and not a specific plan. He suggested it would be helpful to have a perspective slide showing the purpose of the strategy and emphasizing that nothing would change based solely on the strategy. Perhaps staff could throw out an example about how a problem could be addressed by referring to the strategy and then seeing it through to a code change, etc. However, it is important to be clear that the Housing Strategy is a guiding document, and future programs, code changes, etc. must be consistent. Director Hope agreed that the Housing Strategy is meant to provide a toolbox of ideas. Whatever is adopted, the next step will be to tease out strategies that could be put in place. Anything that requires a code change or funding will require more details and another public process. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, throughout all of the Board’s discussions relative to housing, her main concern was the lack of a variety of housing stock. She likes that the strategy addresses a diverse housing stock, particularly the missing middle (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc.). Through the process of reviewing information from the staff and consultant and hearing feedback from the public, the Board has been able to hone in on the idea of “caring for our own.” She felt that the draft Housing Strategy responds well to this concept. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that homelessness is more of a regional issue, and perhaps this could be stressed more in the strategy. Director Hope noted that one strategy calls for participating in South Snohomish County’s strategies to reduce homelessness. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Edmonds must be part of a larger, regional effort to address homelessness. Chair Monroe voiced concern that the draft Housing Strategy explains the housing crisis, but it does not explain how it happened. Part of the answer is that there are a lot of regulations on the housing that is allowed to be constructed in Edmonds. He specifically pointed to the condominium laws and the Growth Management Act. These constraints have done nothing but depress the supply and increase demand. He felt the strategy does an adequate job of pointing out the need to remove some of the barriers that have been put in place so the market can take care of the rest. Chair Monroe pointed out that subsidized housing is a sticky issue for a lot of people. Many feel the strategy is asking people who can afford the housing they are living in to pay more property taxes to subsidizes housing for someone else. However, there are lot of strategies that aren’t subsidized housing that could help solve the problem and get the City halfway to its goal. Of the six strategies, most do not require subsidized housing. Board Member Rosen thanked the public in attendance for taking the time to listen to the Board’s discussion. He recalled that, at the public hearing, concern was raised about whether or not the community had an adequate opportunity to engage in the process, and he cautioned that the City may need to look at other opportunities and tools to make sure they are giving the public meaningful opportunities to express their concerns. Board Member Rosen said he likes the clarity of the draft Housing Strategy, recognizing it is a strategy and not a plan. However, he feels that part of his responsibility is to listen to and address more than just his opinion. He listened carefully to the people who spoke at the hearing and read all the written comments the Board received. He has also listened to the social media chatter that is going on about the topic, noting that there are a lot of strong feelings. While there is no consensus on a number of items, there are also some things everyone can agree on. For example, we want safety, and we want kids to be safe and to reach their potential. If they are in trouble, the community wants to rally to help. We want to protect the aesthetics of the community and protect the natural spaces. We don’t want to compromise our property rights and values, and we don’t mind if tourists come and spend their money and go away. Concerns he heard related to the strategy included questions about the validity and clarity of the statistics and their relevance to Edmonds and the public process. Although there has been a lot of outreach, perhaps the Board should include another step in the process to make sure everyone’s voices are heard. There was concern about the unintended consequences or impacts of the strategies and whether or not the police and fire departments have been engaged in the process, and there was an assumption that the strategy intends to provide subsidized housing and that is why the document exists. More clarity in perspective and context would likely help. There was a perception that the strategy would result in increased density, with ugly, low-income boxes, that there would be more homeless population and crime and drug use would increase.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 5
Board Member Rosen summarized that there appears to be some philosophical differences driving the discussion, and you can like or not like the plan based on where you are standing. For example, there are some who are okay with exclusivity and believe that not everyone should be able to live in Edmonds. There was also a perception that homeless people choose that lifestyle and they are already provided with many options. These differences will drive the lens through which people look at the strategy. He summarized his belief that there are opportunities to improve the strategy in these areas, but he believes in and supports the strategy. Chair Monroe reviewed that the Board has reviewed the plan four times, and their views are a stark contrast to those of people who are seeing it for the first time. They need to do a better job of communicating their positions. Board Member Robles suggested it would be beneficial to have local professionals (social scientists, scientists, etc.) in the community critique the plan and provide input as to whether or not the strategies are viable. He felt their points of view would be valid and something that people would listen to as opposed to a consultant who is hired by the City and has a vested interest. This concept could be added as a tool to study the value and endorse certain strategies. Board Member Crank went back to an analogy she made at the public hearing about “trying to put meat on the skeleton before putting the skeleton together.” Without negating any of the feedback that has been given, she reminded the Board to keep in perspective that a lot of the suggestions are further down the line than what the Board needs to do to move the draft Housing Strategy to the City Council. People should not feel disappointed if certain concepts are not reflected in the strategy because it is not the right time for it. Again, she said a lot of what has been suggested are things that will come further down the pipeline. Director Hope emphasized the need to send the draft Housing Strategy to the City Council in the near future, and the next steps are very important. She suggested that staff make certain changes to reflect some of the things they have heard and to refine and clarify the document. The Board could review the updated draft and forward a recommendation to the City Council on July 11th. The City Council could start their review on July 24th and hold a public hearing in early August. The public hearing could be followed by additional meetings, with the goal of final approval in late August or early September. She cautioned that the draft Housing Strategy cannot move forward to the City Council until the Planning Board has formulated its recommendation. Chair Monroe asked Director Hope to summarize the changes that would be made to the draft Housing Strategy based on input from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope identified the anticipated minor changes as follows:
• More clarification and framing of the issues.
• Changes to the graphics
• Add a little more about scenarios
• Emphasize they are talking about their neighbors, friends, family, etc.
• Clean up the data and provide additional clarification Board Member Cloutier asked if the Board Members are satisfied with the strategies outlined in the document or are there missing strategies that need to be added. The Board Members indicated they were satisfied with the strategies as currently proposed. Board Member Cloutier summarized that it appears the Board is ready to move forward at the next meeting with the minor revisions. He re-emphasized the need to make it completely clear at the beginning of the next presentation that there is no proposal to change the codes. The draft Housing Strategy is simply intended to identify the problems and offer potential solutions. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the revisions suggested by the Board at their last meeting were incorporated into the document. Director Hope answered that staff would review all of the Board’s discussions and incorporated their recommended changes prior to the next meeting. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the draft Housing Strategy provides the facts of the situation in Edmonds. The Board cannot be proactive in addressing the spectrum of issues unless it can agree to the scope of the issue. From letters received for the public hearing and from social media regarding the issue of homelessness, there is concern for the
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 6
accountability of tax money: Where is the funding coming from and how will the City assess success or impact? There is also concern to actively police the burgeoning presence of homeless camps and transient vehicle living. Rather than cast aspersion on the “downtrodden,” Board Member Rubenkonig referred to one of the most poignant points she saw on social media, which proposed an action for our neighbors. “The money (reference to the $250,000 the City Council allocated for homelessness) could be used to help the elderly before they get behind in property taxes, or mortgage payments in Edmonds, and other individuals who have lost their jobs and may lose their homes in Edmonds. Maybe a qualification would be that the person needs to have lived in Edmonds for five years.” Board Member Rubenkonig also quoted another social media post, “Affordable housing would go a very long way toward helping get people off the streets. Ever heard of working homeless?” She commented that many homeless people hold down jobs, and many have children who are enrolled in the Edmonds School District. She cautioned that the words spoken by the Board at this meeting will not alter the problems their neighbors face tomorrow. She said she believes Edmonds cares but prefers to see a structured approach focusing on chosen priorities as identified by the City Council. Again, she expressed her belief that the report provides facts about Edmonds situation and possibly provides a direction to take. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if staff would propose a recommendation for the Board to consider at its next meeting. Director Hope said staff would identify the changes. Board Member Rubenkonig asked that staff provide the Board with some options as to how to craft the discussion and come up with a recommendation to the City Council. Director Hope explained that, typically, Planning Board recommendations are not expected to be big statements. The Board can recommend that the Council approve the document as is or with some changes. They do not need to summarize all of the various opinions. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW INTRODUCTION Mr. Lien reviewed that the City just completed a comprehensive update of the SMP in June of 2017. This update was a complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent with new regulations and guidelines that were adopted by the Department of Ecology (DOE) in 2003 (WAC 173-26). The Board completed its work on the comprehensive update in 2015, but it took a few years to get through the Council due to a few issues. Mr. Lien advised that the SMA requires each city and county in the State to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least once every eight years. The City’s periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Given that they just completed the comprehensive review in 2017, only minor tweaks are needed at this time. He referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 4), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during the periodic review. Most of the amendments are minor and no substantive changes are proposed. Mr. Lien said in addition to the potential amendments identified on the checklist, updates to the SMP may result from the site-specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City, including updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed-Use IV shoreline jurisdictions. He explained that the Edmonds Marsh was identified in the updated SMP as a Shoreline of the State, which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. In the previous SMP it was not considered a Shoreline of the State so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the marsh. This new shoreline jurisdiction that applied to Harbor Square was a controversial topic during the SMP update, and the City Council initiated the study to get more information about the marsh and appropriate buffers. At this time, he is not sure that the study will be completed in time to be incorporated into the periodic review. Mr. Lien said that another potential amendment is related to public hearings (ECDC 24.80.100). In the previous SMP, all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits went to the Hearing Examiner as a Type III decision. With the updated SMP, only certain Shoreline Substantial Development Permits can go to the Hearing Examiner. If a Conditional Use Permit or design review is required, applications automatically go to the Hearing Examiner. However, minor projects that do not otherwise require a hearing are staff decisions. As per the current SMP, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits begin as a Type II staff decision and change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner upon written request during the
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED JUNE 27TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 13, 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Megan Livingston, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director Report, but there were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Mr. Shipley reviewed that the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of housing affordable to a range of incomes and to meet special housing needs. He commented that the Puget Sound region is growing at a rapid pace. Housing prices are becoming unaffordable for many due to a combination of the City’s close proximity to Seattle, its location at the north end of a strip of land that is sandwiched between two large bodies of water (Puget Sound and Lake Washington), state regulations that protect natural resources by concentrating growth and reducing sprawl, and a lack
of new land to build upon. In addition to the above-mentioned factors, much of the Puget Sound area remains zoned for low-
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 2
density single-family development. In Edmonds, approximately 77% of the land area is zoned for single-family housing compared to only 7.5% that is zoned for multi-family housing, 7.3% for commercial mixed use, and 5.7% for parks. The remainder is open space or lands covered by water. He understands this is a desirable way to live for many because he is also fortunate enough to own a single-family home in Edmonds. He is also fortunate, as many others in attendance area, to enjoy federally-subsidized housing in the form of a mortgage interest tax deduction. Mr. Shipley acknowledged that there are no easy answers, and the City cannot escape these regional issues by building a wall around it. The draft Housing Strategy represents a multi-faceted approach to address housing needs now and into the future so that everyone—from the fixed-income retiree, to the disabled vet, to the local barista, to our hair stylists, teachers, kids and grandkids—can all find ways to call Edmonds their home. Mr. Shipley explained that the purpose of the hearing is to hear from the public and have an opportunity to address questions and concerns. Staff is not asking the Board to make a decision at this time. The strategies outlined in the document could be adopted either in whole, in part, or modified to incorporate the input developed through the review process. He introduced Kevin Ramsey, with Berk Consulting, who would present the draft Housing Strategy. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, advised that Mayor Earling appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force in July of 2017. This task force met several times over the past year to work with the consultant and staff to identify the strategies that make the most sense for Edmonds. Their work culminated in an open house on May 21st, at which time the draft Housing Strategy was
introduced and the public was invited to comment. The draft plan was also presented to the Planning Board on May 23rd. The comments received at the open house, as well as those received from the Planning Board, were incorporated into the revised draft Housing Strategy that is the subject of the hearing. Mr. Ramsey briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people
can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income-restricted housing. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, specifically noting the following:
• There are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost-burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AMI. AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost-burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the needs of the low and very-low income households.
• One reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of AMI). He provided a chart showing the average rental costs in Edmonds, noting that people earning $50,000 per year or less cannot afford the average rents.
• Currently, a substantial number of workers are commuting very long distances to get to their jobs in Edmonds. Most commute from more affordable communities. While the chart illustrates the situation for very-low and low wage workers, the problem also exists for the moderate wage workers. It is estimated that about 2,400 low and very-low wage workers
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 3
are commuting more than 10 miles to work in Edmonds, and more than 1,000 of them commute more than 25 miles. This creates traffic, pollution, and high transportation costs.
• A study of the existing housing stock in Edmonds compared to the current housing needs found a shortage of smaller housing types. Over 70% of households have only 1 or 2 members, but only 11% of the housing units have one or less bedrooms. There is a significant mismatch between the size of the units and the size of households. Having a more diverse housing stock would provide more opportunities for people to live in Edmonds. Next, Mr. Ramsey reviewed each of the six objectives included in the draft Housing Strategy as follows: 1. Increase the supply of market-rate multifamily housing. There is currently a high level of need for low and moderate-income workforce housing for those who live in Edmonds as well as those who have to commute long distances to get to Edmonds for work. When there is limited land area in a community, apartments and condominiums can efficiently provide a lot of new housing. Actions associated with this strategy include: encouraging transit-oriented development by leveraging transit corridors and focusing higher-density development in those areas to take advantage of the transit service; allowing for greater flexibility in multifamily zones, such as reduced parking and unit size requirements and greater height limits; and providing for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process. Currently, the permitting process in Edmonds is more time-consuming and there is a bit more uncertainty in it when compared to other communities, and this creates a disincentive to doing more housing development in Edmonds. Developers who participated on the task force suggested that the permit process could be streamlined without lowering design and safety standards. City staff is already looking for these opportunities. Example: The City of Portland, Oregon, has goals of encouraging more infill development in traditionally single-family areas and allowing for a greater diversity of housing options. The intent is to ensure that the design of new development is consistent with neighborhood character without putting up permitting barriers. They brought together community members and stakeholders to develop several housing prototypes that meet the regulations and design standards. If a developer uses one of the prototypes, a project can get through the permitting process more efficiently. The program has been successful and is currently being expanded. 2. Expand housing diversity. Currently, there are few housing options other than single-family (63%) and larger multifamily (30%) units. There is very little in the “other” category of duplexes, townhouse, etc. That means there are not a lot of opportunities for moderate and middle-income people who want to get into the ownership market. Potential actions for this goal include identifying single-family areas in Edmonds that might be appropriate for infill development such as townhomes and duplexes and encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or backyard cottages. ADUs allow for more affordable housing options in existing single-family areas with minimal impacts on community character. They can provide a source of income to homeowners who are struggling to afford rising housing costs or an opportunity for moderate and middle-income households to enter into the ownership market.
Example: The City of Mountlake Terrace encourages ADUs via more flexible requirements and providing guidance materials and outreach for homeowners. The intent is to make the process more transparent and get the word out about the benefits of ADUs. 3. Support the needs of an aging population. About 20% of the population in Edmonds is over 65, and a significant amount of the population falls within the 50 to 65 range. In the next 10 years, these individuals will be reaching the senior status of 65 plus and will have unique housing needs and a wide spectrum of incomes. Potential actions to address this goal include playing a more active role in partnerships that support aging in place, examining how property tax and utility rate relief programs can be expanded and reducing the barriers to the development of more group homes and other housing solutions for seniors so that people can stay within the community when their housing needs change. Many communities look at ADUs as a strategy to address this issue.
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted housing. Many workers and families in Edmonds cannot afford market-rate rents. Even if the supply and diversity of housing is expanded, this group would still not be able to afford to live in Edmonds. The current supply of income-restricted housing is extremely modest compared to the level of need, and this strategy is aimed at what can be done to provide more opportunities. Potential actions include contributing City dollars to
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 4
support income-restricted housing projects for 30% AMI or below. When a non-profit housing developer is seeking to pull together grant funding and other sources to make an affordable project work, having some investment from the City helps with grant competition and making projects pencil out. Other potential actions include expanding developer incentives or making it mandatory that developers include income-restricted units in market-rate developments and reducing or eliminating fees for income-restricted housing projects. For example, the City’s current multifamily exemption program could be expanded to become more effective at incentivizing the production of income-restricted housing in return for abatement from property taxes. Example: The Highpoint is a 1,600-unit master planned development in West Seattle. About half of the units are income-restricted for low-income households, and the other half are market-rate housing. The project was developed via a mix of private and public funding and offers a diversity of housing types for a mixture of incomes. This is a successful example of a level of density that might be appropriate for Edmonds. 5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. Homelessness is a growing problem in Snohomish County and is not something that Edmonds can tackle on its own. However, the City can play a more proactive role in addressing barriers to the development of housing for the homeless. Data indicates there are 260 students attending schools located in Edmonds who are homeless or housing insecure. Potential actions include exploring partnerships with current service providers and county health and youth services and looking at ways to reduce barriers (code restrictions) to the development of permanent supportive housing. Example: Othello Village in Seattle is a city-authorized homeless encampment with 28 tiny homes on city-owned property that was not being used. The village includes shared kitchen and shower facilities and is intended to be a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. This village is operated by a local non-profit housing organization and appears to work well. A local church in Edmonds has expressed interest in this type of project, as well. 6. Provide protection for low-income tenants. As housing costs rise, renters are at the most risk of displacement. The City can take more actions to help ensure that laws around fair treatment of low-income tenants are abided by and that tenants have full information about what their rights are. Potential actions include creating requirements to provide fair housing information and creating anti-discrimination requirements for tenants.
Mr. Ramsey summarized that the next step is to incorporate Board and public feedback into the draft Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy Task Force will meet on June 14th to review the draft and provide final thoughts and recommendations, as well. The document will come back to the Board for additional discussion and potential recommendation to the City Council on June 27th. Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the public hearing. Terry Reule, Edmonds, voiced support for the draft Housing Strategy. Although the recent focus in much of the Puget Sound has been on the homeless crisis, and the draft Housing Strategy includes some ideas, she was encouraged by the additional focus on the incentives for developers and landlords to provide options for middle, low and very-low income families who are currently living in the City. There are a significant number of citizens living in various areas of the City who have been paying
their rents, contributing to City sales tax and sending their children to Edmonds schools who are in the process of losing their current homes due to the recent high increases in rental and utility costs. As landlords face higher property taxes, they are forced to increase the rental costs per unit. Many of these families are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and a mere incident of a flat tire can set in motion a process that ends in eviction. It is not just the cost of fixing the tire, it is the cost of lost wages during the time it takes to repair the tire and the hit to the already strained budget when it is not possible to save for an emergency fund. Ms. Reule pointed out that the planned revitalization along the Highway 99 Corridor is welcome for increasing aesthetics and safety, but it also puts additional pressure on these same families to find an affordable housing situation. The draft Housing Strategy includes incentivizing developers to create new, very-affordable homes along the corridor that could allow for these families to have a small emergency fund. It also would allow incentives for building smaller homes for sale in the area that would be affordable to middle-income families. She said it is encouraging that Edmonds is realistically approaching a future
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 5
that foresees a diverse and welcoming City. While she does not expect that Edmonds is going to solve the homeless crisis or even the affordability crisis, having a strategy that provides various options is a step in the right direction. Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, said he strongly opposes the draft Housing Strategy for several reasons. First, the high-density, low-cost, subsidized housing would drastically diminish the quality of life in Edmonds and is a bad idea. It would increase the population and density, as well as traffic and congestion. Cars would be parked everywhere because there would be no parking restrictions on the amount of parking space available to accommodate the number of apartments. Neighborhoods would deteriorate. While the plan emphasizes that the high-density projects would be located primarily on Highway 99, it is likely to expand. He referred to the example provided by the consultant of a 1,600-unit master planned development in Seattle (The Highpoint) and said he is against this type of development in Edmonds and felt it would raise taxes further. Mr. Bernstein suggested that the data provided by the consultant is not totally correct. For example, how many of those with incomes less than $11,000 are students working during the summer, people working part time, and people who have others in the household with more substantial incomes. He pointed out that landlords have to raise their rents when taxes and utility rates increase. He asked if the statistics on the number of people who have to travel to Edmonds for work includes gardeners, contractors, and others who work in Edmonds and elsewhere. He summarized his belief that, if the draft Housing Strategy is adopted, the City will degenerate, property values will go down, and taxes will increase. Mr. Bernstein said it is not clear what the statistic that indicates there are 260 school children who are homeless really means. He read it to mean that homelessness includes unstable households, and many of these children are living in a sheltered place with relatives, friends or other types of foster homes. They are typically out of their homes because of other issues such as violence, abuse, etc. He agreed that these people need help, but it should be provided on an individual basis. Mr. Bernstein commented that homelessness has become a catastrophe, and the problem has only increased in cities where there is homelessness. Increased homelessness brings drugs, alcoholism, mental illness, etc. and no one seems to have a solution. He noted that the plan suggests “safe parking” as a potential strategy, which means that people will be living in their vehicles. A judge in Seattle recently determined that a vehicle could be considered a “home,” which means they can be parked anywhere and city residents must deal with the garbage and filth. When someone comes up with a solution that actually works, he will support it. He emphasized that the City Council works for the residents of Edmonds, and they are not doing their job
if they allow the quality of the City to deteriorate by bringing in tents, vans, narcotics, crime, drug dealing, etc. into the City. This will not result in a safe situation for the residents of the City, particularly the children, and he is opposed to it. George Keefe, Edmonds, urged the Board to recommend adoption of the draft Housing Strategy to address the housing affordability crisis in Edmonds. He pointed out that the statewide homeless student count by district for the 2016-17 school year reports that there were 638 homeless students in the Edmonds School District. Two-thirds of these students were “doubled up” in shared housing due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. More than 100 were in shelters, 50 were in hotels/motels, and 29 were unsheltered. These statistics about children are shameful. It is difficult to do homework in the back seat of a car or in a tent city. He expressed his belief that all children deserve a home in which to study, learn and thrive. Carolynne Harris, Edmonds, said that when she grew up in Edmonds, it was considered the country. Edmonds was the kind of city where people took care of each other. They weren’t rich, but they weren’t poor, either. They were rich in spirit. To her, “an Edmonds kind of day” isn’t the kind of day when you don’t think and care for “the least among you.” She does not want the City to become like that. She recently inherited her mothers home on 98th, which is acreage with an old home and a
barn. The property is connected by woods to the property owned by the Edmonds Presbyterian Church where drug deals currently take place in the parking lot. She described the recent vandalism and burglary that took place on her property. There are many problems in Edmonds, and it is not just the poor and homeless. The opioid problem exists amongst the rich, too. Keeping out homeless children will not make a better world and will not help the world heal. She said she supports the draft Housing Strategy and is proud of all those involved in its creation. The City needs to do something now by thinking about others. Brian Goodnight, Edmonds, said he has been a developer for 35 years, and the idea of “affordable housing” is ridiculous. What they are really talking about is subsidized housing. While he does not think this is a bad idea, it must be done right and put in the right locations. He referred to a large project in Mountlake Terrace that was well done. He stressed that there is no
way for the City to build its way out of the housing crisis. Subsidized housing will have to be done at a larger scale to make it
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 6
more affordable, but it is not likely that single-family residential properties in Edmonds will be rezoned to higher densities to provide the space needed for these projects. Building subsidized housing is extremely expensive. People with very large incomes are moving from South Lake Union in Seattle to the suburbs, and this is pushing housing prices up. Seattle has tried to build its way out of the problem, but the new units are extremely expensive to rent and/or purchase. The only way to help the low-income people is to build subsidized housing, which is costly. Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, said he is happy with the draft Housing Strategy, which provides some solutions to the housing problems. He especially likes strategies such as ADU’s that provide more housing on existing lots. This strategy has been utilized by other jurisdiction for a long time. While ADUs will not completely solve the problem, it is a start and will probably help. He suggested that transportation is very important when addressing housing issues. More people are moving into Edmonds to have a place to raise their families, but they also want the transportation that is available with the Sounder Train. Rather than finding places to park more cars, he suggested the City should consider ways to get people living in the outlying areas to the train. Mr. Thuesen said is shameful that 260 students who attend schools in Edmonds are homeless, and something must be done about it. As a good example, he referred to the “Cocoon Project” in Everett, which focuses on young people at risk. These people do not necessarily have drug problems, and they are trying to get their lives together. Programs of this type are constructive, and he would recommend the City start with a project where they can have success. Once success has been achieved, it is likely that more community people will offer support. Mr. Thuesen said it is important to allow more flexibility in multi-family zones. He has been talking with City staff for over 10 years about potential changes to the regulations to allow this greater flexibility. Recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance that changed the 0-lot-line provisions to be more flexible, and this made a great difference in the affordability of townhome development. He commented that these changes are important, and he would like them to happen quickly. He agreed that undeveloped land is scarce in Edmonds, and it would be helpful for the City to provide a map to identify undeveloped lands or lots that could be redeveloped. This information would help the City come up with the right solutions. He summarized that now is the time for the City make sacrifices for the betterment of the community. Eric Soll, Edmonds, observed that there has been no acknowledgement anywhere that government actions on all levels have
been a substantial cause of the housing problems. The increase of home ownership costs for most Edmonds residents will increase once again by implementing more government programs. The efforts to minimize the homeless situation can be best summed up by the Seattle disaster, where over $1 billion has been spent by Seattle/King County but the problem is worse than ever. When he arrived in Seattle 49 years ago, it was a pristine City; now it is a lawless pigsty. He suggested that Edmonds would go down that same path if it imports homelessness from elsewhere. The active homeless community the programs outlined in the strategy will attract will add a whole new meaning to the expression “have an Edmonds kind of day.” As in the field of dreams, “If you build it, they will come,” but it will be a field of nightmares. He suggested that a regional or national approach to homelessness, is needed, or it will be a waste of money. Mr. Soll voiced concern about the theory that allowing more density in single-family neighborhoods would make housing more affordable. Most of the single-family neighborhoods do not want apartments, tiny houses, row houses, duplexes, triplexes or ADUs. Single-family homeowners have sacrificed and become residentially cost burdened to live in Edmonds, and they should not have their expectations destroyed. It was recently suggested that a more intensive development could answer all of the demand from out-of-town businesses that want to relocate to downtown Edmonds. However, the City Council rejected to even study the concept, in part, to protect the “charm” of Edmonds. Another Councilmember stated that the downtown is “perfect” the way it is. Homeowners in single-family neighborhoods should also be given the opportunity to reject increased density if their neighborhoods are deemed to be “charming” and “perfect” by them. Mr. Soll stated that any increase in taxes to pay for “affordable housing” will result in greater economic distress and out migration of Edmonds by residents who can no longer afford the taxes or the rent. Edmonds is 1% of the population of Puget Sound. Not everyone can afford to live in the Edmonds, just as not everyone can afford to live in Woodway. He would never expect Woodway to subsidize his Sound view residential fantasy any more than he should have to pay for other people to reside in Edmonds. There are less expensive cities surrounding Edmonds for low-income residents, just as Edmonds is less expensive for those who cannot afford Woodway. The draft Housing Strategy indicates that a large percentage of commuters make less than $40,000 a year, but nothing in the report talks about income from spouses or partners or other assets and income. If the
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 7
City is really worried about the commuters, it should do a survey of where they live and get those jurisdictions to provide free public transportation as Portland/Columbus, Ohio has done for their employees. He commented that the cost of subsidized housing is greater than just building the housing. More services are needed for the tenants. You will need a bureaucracy to administer the program, and there will be fraud and abuse. In addition, these programs are a disincentive to improve one’s economic circumstances. Mr. Soll concluded by suggesting that if the City wants more affordable housing for everyone, it should: 1) Work to end or repeal the Growth Management Act and Washington State Condominium Law; 2) Stop raising property taxes on all levels; 3) Stop financing every program on the backs of real estate; 4) Educate the populace that property tax initiatives increase the cost of housing for owners and renters; 5) Reduce the cost of building market-rate housing by eliminating needless regulations and streamlining the process for building housing for those in needs; 6) Keep the government on all levels limited; and 7) Eliminate wasteful government programs. Teresa Holland, Edmonds, said she and her husband moved to Edmonds from Seattle a year ago for the quality of life, the beautiful town, the lovely people, etc. She was shocked that the City Council was even considering allowing any type of tiny homes in Edmonds. She can attest from real-life experience that the homeless situation has destroyed Seattle, with people shooting up on the street and discarded needles everywhere. She did not think this is what Edmonds residents want. The homeless situation needs to be addressed, starting with the children and their families, followed by outreach to individuals who want to get off the street. There are people who are on the street through no fault of their own, but the majority of people in the homeless encampments are mentally ill, drug addicted, or alcoholics. They want to continue living this lifestyle because they can do whatever they want. Edmonds needs to enforce its current laws and clean out homeless encampments every week, if necessary. She believes that ADUs are a good idea for people who want to subsidize their income, but they should not be used as a strategy to address homelessness. Mike O’Malley, Edmonds, asked if the City has collected statistics on how the crime rate would increase if the strategies in the proposed plan for addressing homelessness and low-income housing are implemented. He suggested that the police and fire officials should be asked to respond relative to the likely increase in the demand for services. The City should also research how other jurisdictions have been impacted. While the draft Housing Strategy contains a lot of positive solutions, it does not address any of the potential negative impacts.
Dennis O’Malley, Edmonds, pointed out that the draft Housing Strategy does not address the potential impacts to roads and other City infrastructure or the likely increase in crime. He anticipates that implementation of the plan will increase traffic and the crime rate will skyrocket. Crime is already moving into Edmonds from Everett. His truck was recently stolen from downtown Edmonds, and it was found near a low-income housing development in Everett, full of crack cocaine and stolen tools. He questioned why the Board would want to bring these problems to Edmonds. John Reid, Edmonds, said he is a 41-year resident of the City and sat on the Planning Board for 8 years. He voiced concern that the process has been going on for almost a year, but there has only been one opportunity for public input on May 21st. He expressed his belief that more public input is needed in the process. He noted that about 75 people attended the public open house and about 100 people are in attendance at the hearing to learn more about the plan because there has not been a lot of opportunity for public input. He said he is concerned that, as per the proposed schedule, the Planning Board would have a
discussion on June 27th and then make a recommendation to the City Council. The report is very directive and does not indicate there are options or that items will be removed. He is afraid it will end up being a document that will be waived in front of the citizens as something they agreed to. He encouraged the Board to spend more time discussing the document and reviewing each of the strategies individually. They should make suggestions as opposed to directives so that when the document is done, there is still a lot of flexibility as it goes through the rest of the process. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires that a Housing Strategy be developed by 2019, and there is more time to give the public an opportunity for input. Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, said she does not believe the data provided by the consultant portrays what is actually going on in Edmonds. She is also not convinced that more housing would result in cheaper rent. She said that, as a Nurse Practitioner, she talks to homeless people and elderly people on a weekly basis. Elderly people want to live in their own homes and maintain independence. On the other hand, some homeless people like the flexibility. She agreed that students need to have a home, and shared housing is one strategy for addressing this concern. Students in shared housing should not necessarily be classified
as homeless, and some of them may be emancipated children. She agreed that infrastructure improvements must be part of the
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 8
equation. The recent multi-family development on 212th Street has significantly increased traffic. Perhaps other strategies besides tax increases should be considered, such as incentives to builders. Housing affordability is an important issue, but she does not necessarily agree with the assumptions that were made in the strategy based on the data. Dave Cooper, Edmonds, voiced concern that the presentation made by the consultant has never worked anywhere. It hasn’t worked in Seattle or San Francisco, and it won’t work in Edmonds. Bringing people who are homeless into Edmonds and providing subsidized food, medical care and housing will not help to reduce the level of homelessness. This approach will turn Edmonds into another Seattle. If the citizens want to stop it, they must vote against the people running the City Council and make their voices heard. He noted that the consultant who made the presentation, as well as the head of the Low-Income Housing Institute, are not interested in reducing homelessness. They are making money off of it and the citizens are going to pay. He said he worked hard as a developer for 30 years, and he never felt he had a right to live in Edmonds. He and his wife are retired and pay $1,000 per month in property tax to live in Edmonds. He is in favor of building affordable housing, which means they must increase the density along Highway 99 to accommodate multi-family development. He said he does not want Edmonds to go down the same path as San Francisco and Seattle, yet that seems to be where it is headed. Chair Monroe closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Crank said that, as someone who spent 16 years in the Bay area, she lived through what Edmonds residents are starting to experience now. She knows what did and did not work, as well as the mentalities that would need to be helped. She hopes her experiences can help form some good strategies for addressing the City’s housing issues. She emphasized that Edmonds cannot be and should not be Seattle. Not everyone can live in Edmonds, and that shouldn’t be something the City strives for. Edmonds does not have a lot of available land for new housing development, so it is important to make good decisions. Board Member Crank said she is concerned with the mindset that they are trying to bring homeless people into the City. In reality, they are already here. We are talking about our neighbors and people who have lived in the City for a long time who are finding themselves in situations where they may have to leave the community that they know. For her, part of the housing strategy is to keep her neighbors here. It is not about bringing in an element that is going to be harmful to the community. The Housing Strategy is about figuring out how to help the 260 students and their families who are displaced, as well as community
leaders, teachers and others who may have to move away because they can no longer afford to live in Edmonds. Board Member Crank said she comes from a background of banking and investment, and it helps her to compare the Housing Strategy to an Investment Strategy. An investment strategy is not a plan; it is a selection of different strategies a financial advisor can use to figure out what will work for the person he/she is doing the investment for. The Housing Strategy is not intended to be a plan that is set in stone and can never be changed. It’s a list of options or strategies to figure out what will fit where. Not every strategy will work in every community in every neighborhood. A thoughtful approach is needed to figure out what makes sense and where. Density along transit corridors absolutely makes sense. Board Member Crank said she thought she was earning a decent salary as a single person in the Bay Area. However, based on the income level scale for the area, she was considered low income. When people think of low income, she encouraged them not to think of poverty or ne’er do well people who cannot hold down a decent job. There were people making $55,000 to $60,000 a year who, on the scale of affordability in a high-income area, are rated lower on the scale than you would think. When making certain assumptions, she encouraged people to look through a broader lens. Subsidized housing does not mean “the projects.” Her hope is that if the Housing Strategy is implemented, it is done with the thought of how to help their current neighbors who have invested in the community. These people include our teachers, our favorite baristas, hostesses at restaurants and others who now find they have to move an hour outside of the community to find housing. Board Member Crank commented that there have been success stories in other communities, as well as cautionary tales. She shared an example of a community where the in-lieu fees became so predominant that the City collected almost $30 million and didn’t do anything with it around affordability or housing in the community until much later. There must be oversight around the strategies that are used to incentivize development to provide a check and balance. Finally, Board Member Crank said crime is everywhere. When reading the My Edmonds News Crime Blotter, she is sometimes surprised at the level and types of crimes that occur in Edmonds. These crimes are not done primarily by people of “no means.” Crimes are also
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 9
committed by people you would not expect. She cautioned against pigeonholing the people they are trying to help with the Housing Strategy to something that is inherently negative. Board Member Crank agreed with Mr. Thuesen’s suggestion that it would be helpful to have a map that identifies available lands for development or redevelopment that could be considered as a location to implement a strategy of mixed-use housing. This would help guide the City to make better informed decisions. She referred to the Kenmore Town Square Project as a good example and noted that news was just recently released about a potential housing project on the Edmonds Lutheran Church property. Implementing the strategies should be done on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Shipley explained that the Housing Strategy is intended to be a guide, and staff is not proposing any rezones at this point. Implementation of any of the strategies would require a separate process. Although he cannot provide a map at this point, he Housing Strategy has broadly defined large multi-family housing projects as being adjacent to transit corridors, which are primarily Highway 99 and SR-104. He reminded the Board that light rail is scheduled to come on line adjacent to the Lake Ballinger area in 2024. These are potential places for development, but they are not at the level where they can actually start to draw lines around certain areas. That being said, a lot of effort was taken with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan to make it economical for developers to build, but also putting in place design standards to improve the streetscape and make it a safer place for everyone. Although not part of the Housing Strategy, another concept the City could consider is providing more spaces for active transit, such as protected bicycle lanes, to help reduce transportation costs. Board Member Robles said he is fairly proud of the report. He felt that the staff and consultant listened to input from the Board. The intent of the Housing Strategy is to get at a place where the citizens and developers have equal opportunities. If the City makes rules that give developers incentives, these same incentives need to be offered to citizens. The ADU concept came about as a way to create a better balance. ADUs would not only be for individuals seeking to increase their income; the concept could also help people qualify to purchase homes in Edmonds with the additional income that would be provided by an ADU. ADUs are not intended to just address homelessness. They could be used by children who return to live with their families, aging parents coming to live with the children, divorced couples who both want to live close to their children. ADUs would also offer housing options for teachers, baristas and others who want to serve the community but cannot afford to live in Edmonds. It is not the City’s intent to import the homeless.
There was a disruption from some members of the audience. Chair Monroe reminded everyone of the need to be respectful. He summarized that the public has had an opportunity to speak, and it was the Board’s turn to make comments and try to answer some of the questions that were raised. He noted that the public would have an opportunity to speak again at the Board’s next meeting as part of general public comments or when the Housing Strategy is presented to the City Council. In addition, members of the public can submit written comments via the City’s website. Board Member Robles commented that, as a foster parent, he is surprised at why people become homeless. He challenged that many of these events could happen to anyone in the room without warning, and this may cause them to see things differently. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is not intended to solve the problem of homelessness. The intent is to create resiliency in the community so that citizens have the same economic advantage as developers. ADUs would have to meet specific requirements to ensure they are well-constructed and safe. A lot of work will go into this future discussion, and the Board Members have expertise in engineering, social science, etc. The Board is working to balance all of the issues as best it can in proposing a set of strategies to the City Council. It will be up to the City Council to decide which strategies, if any, will be implemented. Board Member Lovell commented that the Planning Board has been briefed at least twice on the draft Housing Strategy. At the outset of the project, staff aptly pointed out that this was a task force study undertaken by the Council and represents only a menu of possible ideas for addressing various housing challenges. It should not be considered a plan to address any of the strategies that are set forth. This important process could potentially impact every resident in the City, and there needs to be a lot of study, public input and discussion to hone in on what can realistically be done. The purpose of the study was to provide a menu of ideas. The study will go on to the City Council, and there will be a lot more opportunities for public input. If the City Council decides they want to move forward with a plan to implement some of the strategies identified in the document, they will provide further direction to the Board and staff and a separate public process will follow.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 10
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how many households there are in Edmonds. Mr. Shipley answered that there are approximately 18,500 households in Edmonds. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that this number should be added to the graph provided in the presentation to help people better understand the significance of the facts. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the $40,000 per year figure that was provided in the presentation represents the combined household income or individual income. Mr. Ramsey said the figure was intended to represent individual incomes, but they were summarized by household. Mr. Shipley clarified that the figures used to identify the number of households that are housing cost burdened are based on combined household income, but the data provided to illustrate the average wage for people who work in Edmonds is based on individual income. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that these two different data points should be better clarified in the report. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that concern was expressed about how the data was presented. She said it is important that the significance of all the data provided in the report is easy for everyone to understand. The terms used in the report are familiar to the consultant and staff, but those who are not as steeped in the terminology and how the facts and figures impact the community need help in understanding the data better. Board Member Rubenkonig said several members of the public raised concern about impacts on the City’s infrastructure. These concerns were based on the image that large housing complexes would be constructed and impact the existing roadways. She asked if the consultant has reviewed studies to show how these types of projects might impact the infrastructure. Mr. Ramsey reminded the Board that the Housing Strategy identifies potential ideas that have worked in other communities that could be evaluated in more detail to determine their applicability to Edmonds. If and when the City moves forward with any one of the strategies, further study will be done to identify and understand potential impacts to roadways, utilities, etc. Mr. Shipley further clarified that it would not be feasible to do this detailed work for each of the strategies because they are simply ideas at this point. However, infrastructure impacts would be studied as part of any rezone or other strategy implementation. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it ever came up in any of the consultant’s discussions with the task force, Mayor, City Council or community that some of the major employers were concerned about housing affordability for their employees. Mr. Shipley responded that Swedish Hospital is a large employer and they are looking at potentially developing a portion of their property to provide employee housing. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that this information was not included in the
report. Board Member Rubenkonig said it would be helpful to go over why the different people were selected to serve on the Housing Strategy Task Force every time the report is presented. The community needs to be informed as to why these individuals were selected and their background. Board Member Rosen thanked the public for participating in the hearing. The intent of the process is for the citizens to say what is on their mind and the Board to listen. He encouraged them to continue to show up and say their peace. He commented that the number of people and the passion that was expressed also speaks to this issue, and the Board is listening and hearing their concerns. It is real that Edmonds is nearly built out and incomes are not keeping pace with the cost of housing. It is real that that the current housing mix does not represent who the City is becoming as the age level, alone, reflects and how younger people feel about housing and transportation. It is real that issues related to homelessness are very complex and can’t be dealt with separately. He pointed out that Seattle grew by more than 1,000 people a month in 2017, and he does not want this growth and the problems that come with it moving north to Edmonds. However, the fact that this kind of population base is moving to the Northwest does say that a lot of people are headed in this direction Board Member Rosen emphasized that housing is not a single issue, and there will not be a single solution. It will take a lot of different approaches to solve the problems. Like the citizens, he has a long list of wants. He wants to make sure that homes and neighborhoods are safe and that kids are safe and allowed to reach their individual and full potential. He wants to make sure the elderly can age in place and live in their homes if they want to. He would like if young professionals could live, work and grow their families in Edmonds without having to move out until they can afford to move back. He does not want to negatively impact the City’s aesthetics and public spaces, and he does not want to compromise property rights or values. He would like not to significantly impact the environment, which is very precious and part of why they all live in Edmonds. He wants to ensure that homeowners and developers are both a part of the solution and that both can benefit and play on an equal
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 11
playing field. He wants to implement the solutions that represent the core values of the community. He would also like to have room for tourists to come and spend their money and then leave. Board Member Rosen applauded the City for looking at the housing issue through multiple lenses because there is not a single fix. He wants the draft Housing Strategy to go forward representing the City’s values. The residents should continue to work with the City to make decisions that are data-driven and based on science and not purely on emotion. Whatever they finally do decide will have a very long and large impact. Vice Chair Cheung said that if he were seeing the draft Housing Strategy for the first time, he might have similar concerns as those expressed by the public that the entire point of the study is to address homelessness and low-income populations. However, it is much more than that. He shared the example of his mother, who has lived in Edmonds for 20 years. His stepfather took care of everything but passed away about a year ago. His mom deals with health issues and is now faced with a house and lot that are too large for her to care for. She has a dog, which further limits where she can actually move. She wants to stay in Edmonds but there are not a lot of options that meet her needs, and she is being priced out of the area. Vice Chair Cheung summarized that there is a large number of 1 and 2-person households, but hardly any 1-bedroom homes. People need more options, particularly elderly people who don’t want to or can’t live in larger home. He looks at the issue as more than just affordable housing, but also a variety of housing options. They need to be able to take care of the people who already live in Edmonds who may not fit with the existing housing supply. It is not the intent to replace $1 million homes with multi-family housing units. However, there may be opportunities for redeveloping properties that are near the end of their life. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands peoples’ concerns about safety and said he moved out of Seattle for the same reasons that were stated in the hearing: high prices, crime, etc. However, right now they are just looking at potential strategies to address the existing problems and changing demographics. There is no proposal on the table at this time to change the code. Aging in place is a strategy that the study is trying to address. A potential option for his mother would be to develop a small ADU on her property where she could live and then rent out the larger home. Board Member Lovell referred to a recent report in THE EDMONDS BEACON and MY EDMONDS NEWS about a proposal by the Lutheran Church and the Compass Housing Alliance to put in a stackable, pre-constructed, low-income housing complex
on the church property that is located on SR-524. He encouraged the public to provide their comments on this proposal. The first unit is anticipated to go in mid-July. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the City has not received an application for the 60 units, but the single unit has been approved. A lot-line adjustment is currently in progress, as well. He added that the Lutheran Church will host a public meeting on July 12th. (A number of citizens commented from the audience about the lack of information regarding this project.) Mr. Shipley pointed out that additional information about the project can be found on the City’s website, and public notices have been released as required by code. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there used to be a lot more apartments in Edmonds, but they were later converted to condominiums and new apartments were never built. She asked staff to provide additional information about the recently-approved condominium law, which is the type of change the Board is interested in addressing so as to provide a variety of housing. Mr. Shipley advised that, as per the State’s condo law, responsibility is placed back on the developer after condos have been developed, and there have been significant frivolous lawsuits. Many developers do not want to develop
condominiums and changing the law will require a State amendment. Board Member Rubenkonig said she heard from a builder that this law is why they aren’t seeing as much condo development in Edmonds. She suggested this law has impacted housing affordability. If it were changed, developers would be more willing to construct new units and the availability of housing variety would increase. Mr. Ramsey agreed that more condominiums would definitely provide a greater variety of housing options in Edmonds, and the City of Edmonds, as well as other cities are already lobbying the state for changes to the law. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that “condo” refers to the type of ownership, but these developments can be townhomes, units within large buildings, etc. Mr. Ramsey commented that condos are an important part of a broader housing ecosystem that could be a good option for people who want to age in place. They are typically more affordable ownership products that are easier to maintain and fit the needs of smaller households. This type of development is encouraged in the draft Housing Strategy. Chair Monroe summarized that the current condominium law, the Growth Management Act, and rising housing prices in Seattle
have all contributed to the current housing crisis. He recalled that the Planning Board has had several discussions about how
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 12
ADUs can be a key strategy, and he is glad to see the concept reflected in the draft document. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is the beginning of the conversation, and any kind of real structural change will have to go through another process, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process where issues such as infrastructure impacts will be discussed. Chair Monroe asked if the fire and police departments have been involved in the Housing Strategy process. Mr. Shipley said the draft document is intended to provide broad-level list of housing strategies. As the City begins to select strategies for implementation, the fire and police departments will be invited to engage in the discussions and share their thoughts on potential impacts. Mr. Lien announced that there is a link to the Housing Strategy website on the City’s homepage, and the Housing Strategy website has a link for written comments. All written comments will be incorporated into the record. The Board took a short break at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE – WETLANDS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed a comprehensive review of its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in May 2016, with adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland section (ECDC 23.50) of that document was based on the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) “Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities.” However, in June of 2016, the DOE subsequently issued new guidance for wetlands in a publication titled, “Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates.” When the more recent guidance was published, the City was in the process of completing a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the City Council indicated a desire to incorporate the most current regulations within the SMP, which means that the regulations in the SMP are different than what’s in the CAO. Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) conflict with each other. The SMA rules in shoreline jurisdictions within 200 feet of shorelines, and the GMA rules outside of the shoreline jurisdictions. The CAO implements the GMA and the SMP implements the SMA. Currently, the City has two versions of wetland regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and another that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June 2019, and the overall plan is to update the CAO before
completing the periodic review of the SMP and then adopt the CAO again. Mr. Lien advised that the SMP adopted most of the CAO regulations, but there were some that were excepted out. In particular, the wetland ratings were excepted out because the new guidance came out after the CAO was adopted. The proposed amendments would update the CAO to be consistent with the most recent wetland guidance from the DOE. When the SMP is revised, the City will adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City. Mr. Lien advised that two other minor revisions to the CAO are also being proposed. He reviewed that during the last CAO update, a new provision was added that dealt with adding or developing within the footprint of existing development that required some enhancement. A proposed amendment would delete the “allowed activity” section in ECDC 23.50.020.E, to be consistent with the updated regulations. Another amendment would correct a scrivener’s error in the Wetland Buffer Averaging section. As part of the CAO update, the wetland buffer cannot be reduced by more than 25%, but language was inadvertently
left in that said a buffer could be reduced by 50%. He summarized that the main intent of the amendments is to make sure that the wetland regulations, ratings, buffers and mitigation measures, as well as a section dealing with small wetlands, are updated consistent with the most recent wetland guidance. Board Member Rosen asked if the proposed amendments would maintain, strengthen or weaken the protection of wetlands. Mr. Lien answered that because the changes are based on the DOE’s newest guidance document that is based on Best Available Science (BAS), the City’s regulations would be strengthened to provide greater protection. The first change has to do with how wetlands are categorized, and the proposed amendment would simply add more description without significantly changing the protection. He explained how wetland determinations and categorizations are done using the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and advised that the buffer requirements in the DOE’s newest guidance document are similar to those in the current CAO. However, the newest guidance requires certain mitigation measures for each wetland classification. If the mitigation measures are not met, the buffers are enlarged. To make this clear, the update includes two buffer tables, one to identify the buffers that apply if you do the required mitigation measures and a second table with wider buffers that would
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: PBMinutes-Housing (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED JUNE 27TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 13, 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Megan Livingston, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director Report, but there were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Mr. Shipley reviewed that the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of housing affordable to a range of incomes and to meet special housing needs. He commented that the Puget Sound region is growing at a rapid pace. Housing prices are becoming unaffordable for many due to a combination of the City’s close proximity to Seattle, its location at the north end of a strip of land that is sandwiched between two large bodies of water (Puget Sound and Lake Washington), state regulations that protect natural resources by concentrating growth and reducing sprawl, and a lack
of new land to build upon. In addition to the above-mentioned factors, much of the Puget Sound area remains zoned for low-
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 2
density single-family development. In Edmonds, approximately 77% of the land area is zoned for single-family housing compared to only 7.5% that is zoned for multi-family housing, 7.3% for commercial mixed use, and 5.7% for parks. The remainder is open space or lands covered by water. He understands this is a desirable way to live for many because he is also fortunate enough to own a single-family home in Edmonds. He is also fortunate, as many others in attendance area, to enjoy federally-subsidized housing in the form of a mortgage interest tax deduction. Mr. Shipley acknowledged that there are no easy answers, and the City cannot escape these regional issues by building a wall around it. The draft Housing Strategy represents a multi-faceted approach to address housing needs now and into the future so that everyone—from the fixed-income retiree, to the disabled vet, to the local barista, to our hair stylists, teachers, kids and grandkids—can all find ways to call Edmonds their home. Mr. Shipley explained that the purpose of the hearing is to hear from the public and have an opportunity to address questions and concerns. Staff is not asking the Board to make a decision at this time. The strategies outlined in the document could be adopted either in whole, in part, or modified to incorporate the input developed through the review process. He introduced Kevin Ramsey, with Berk Consulting, who would present the draft Housing Strategy. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, advised that Mayor Earling appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force in July of 2017. This task force met several times over the past year to work with the consultant and staff to identify the strategies that make the most sense for Edmonds. Their work culminated in an open house on May 21st, at which time the draft Housing Strategy was
introduced and the public was invited to comment. The draft plan was also presented to the Planning Board on May 23rd. The comments received at the open house, as well as those received from the Planning Board, were incorporated into the revised draft Housing Strategy that is the subject of the hearing. Mr. Ramsey briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people
can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income-restricted housing. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, specifically noting the following:
• There are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost-burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AMI. AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost-burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the needs of the low and very-low income households.
• One reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of AMI). He provided a chart showing the average rental costs in Edmonds, noting that people earning $50,000 per year or less cannot afford the average rents.
• Currently, a substantial number of workers are commuting very long distances to get to their jobs in Edmonds. Most commute from more affordable communities. While the chart illustrates the situation for very-low and low wage workers, the problem also exists for the moderate wage workers. It is estimated that about 2,400 low and very-low wage workers
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 3
are commuting more than 10 miles to work in Edmonds, and more than 1,000 of them commute more than 25 miles. This creates traffic, pollution, and high transportation costs.
• A study of the existing housing stock in Edmonds compared to the current housing needs found a shortage of smaller housing types. Over 70% of households have only 1 or 2 members, but only 11% of the housing units have one or less bedrooms. There is a significant mismatch between the size of the units and the size of households. Having a more diverse housing stock would provide more opportunities for people to live in Edmonds. Next, Mr. Ramsey reviewed each of the six objectives included in the draft Housing Strategy as follows: 1. Increase the supply of market-rate multifamily housing. There is currently a high level of need for low and moderate-income workforce housing for those who live in Edmonds as well as those who have to commute long distances to get to Edmonds for work. When there is limited land area in a community, apartments and condominiums can efficiently provide a lot of new housing. Actions associated with this strategy include: encouraging transit-oriented development by leveraging transit corridors and focusing higher-density development in those areas to take advantage of the transit service; allowing for greater flexibility in multifamily zones, such as reduced parking and unit size requirements and greater height limits; and providing for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process. Currently, the permitting process in Edmonds is more time-consuming and there is a bit more uncertainty in it when compared to other communities, and this creates a disincentive to doing more housing development in Edmonds. Developers who participated on the task force suggested that the permit process could be streamlined without lowering design and safety standards. City staff is already looking for these opportunities. Example: The City of Portland, Oregon, has goals of encouraging more infill development in traditionally single-family areas and allowing for a greater diversity of housing options. The intent is to ensure that the design of new development is consistent with neighborhood character without putting up permitting barriers. They brought together community members and stakeholders to develop several housing prototypes that meet the regulations and design standards. If a developer uses one of the prototypes, a project can get through the permitting process more efficiently. The program has been successful and is currently being expanded. 2. Expand housing diversity. Currently, there are few housing options other than single-family (63%) and larger multifamily (30%) units. There is very little in the “other” category of duplexes, townhouse, etc. That means there are not a lot of opportunities for moderate and middle-income people who want to get into the ownership market. Potential actions for this goal include identifying single-family areas in Edmonds that might be appropriate for infill development such as townhomes and duplexes and encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or backyard cottages. ADUs allow for more affordable housing options in existing single-family areas with minimal impacts on community character. They can provide a source of income to homeowners who are struggling to afford rising housing costs or an opportunity for moderate and middle-income households to enter into the ownership market.
Example: The City of Mountlake Terrace encourages ADUs via more flexible requirements and providing guidance materials and outreach for homeowners. The intent is to make the process more transparent and get the word out about the benefits of ADUs. 3. Support the needs of an aging population. About 20% of the population in Edmonds is over 65, and a significant amount of the population falls within the 50 to 65 range. In the next 10 years, these individuals will be reaching the senior status of 65 plus and will have unique housing needs and a wide spectrum of incomes. Potential actions to address this goal include playing a more active role in partnerships that support aging in place, examining how property tax and utility rate relief programs can be expanded and reducing the barriers to the development of more group homes and other housing solutions for seniors so that people can stay within the community when their housing needs change. Many communities look at ADUs as a strategy to address this issue.
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted housing. Many workers and families in Edmonds cannot afford market-rate rents. Even if the supply and diversity of housing is expanded, this group would still not be able to afford to live in Edmonds. The current supply of income-restricted housing is extremely modest compared to the level of need, and this strategy is aimed at what can be done to provide more opportunities. Potential actions include contributing City dollars to
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 4
support income-restricted housing projects for 30% AMI or below. When a non-profit housing developer is seeking to pull together grant funding and other sources to make an affordable project work, having some investment from the City helps with grant competition and making projects pencil out. Other potential actions include expanding developer incentives or making it mandatory that developers include income-restricted units in market-rate developments and reducing or eliminating fees for income-restricted housing projects. For example, the City’s current multifamily exemption program could be expanded to become more effective at incentivizing the production of income-restricted housing in return for abatement from property taxes. Example: The Highpoint is a 1,600-unit master planned development in West Seattle. About half of the units are income-restricted for low-income households, and the other half are market-rate housing. The project was developed via a mix of private and public funding and offers a diversity of housing types for a mixture of incomes. This is a successful example of a level of density that might be appropriate for Edmonds. 5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. Homelessness is a growing problem in Snohomish County and is not something that Edmonds can tackle on its own. However, the City can play a more proactive role in addressing barriers to the development of housing for the homeless. Data indicates there are 260 students attending schools located in Edmonds who are homeless or housing insecure. Potential actions include exploring partnerships with current service providers and county health and youth services and looking at ways to reduce barriers (code restrictions) to the development of permanent supportive housing. Example: Othello Village in Seattle is a city-authorized homeless encampment with 28 tiny homes on city-owned property that was not being used. The village includes shared kitchen and shower facilities and is intended to be a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. This village is operated by a local non-profit housing organization and appears to work well. A local church in Edmonds has expressed interest in this type of project, as well. 6. Provide protection for low-income tenants. As housing costs rise, renters are at the most risk of displacement. The City can take more actions to help ensure that laws around fair treatment of low-income tenants are abided by and that tenants have full information about what their rights are. Potential actions include creating requirements to provide fair housing information and creating anti-discrimination requirements for tenants.
Mr. Ramsey summarized that the next step is to incorporate Board and public feedback into the draft Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy Task Force will meet on June 14th to review the draft and provide final thoughts and recommendations, as well. The document will come back to the Board for additional discussion and potential recommendation to the City Council on June 27th. Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the public hearing. Terry Reule, Edmonds, voiced support for the draft Housing Strategy. Although the recent focus in much of the Puget Sound has been on the homeless crisis, and the draft Housing Strategy includes some ideas, she was encouraged by the additional focus on the incentives for developers and landlords to provide options for middle, low and very-low income families who are currently living in the City. There are a significant number of citizens living in various areas of the City who have been paying
their rents, contributing to City sales tax and sending their children to Edmonds schools who are in the process of losing their current homes due to the recent high increases in rental and utility costs. As landlords face higher property taxes, they are forced to increase the rental costs per unit. Many of these families are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and a mere incident of a flat tire can set in motion a process that ends in eviction. It is not just the cost of fixing the tire, it is the cost of lost wages during the time it takes to repair the tire and the hit to the already strained budget when it is not possible to save for an emergency fund. Ms. Reule pointed out that the planned revitalization along the Highway 99 Corridor is welcome for increasing aesthetics and safety, but it also puts additional pressure on these same families to find an affordable housing situation. The draft Housing Strategy includes incentivizing developers to create new, very-affordable homes along the corridor that could allow for these families to have a small emergency fund. It also would allow incentives for building smaller homes for sale in the area that would be affordable to middle-income families. She said it is encouraging that Edmonds is realistically approaching a future
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 5
that foresees a diverse and welcoming City. While she does not expect that Edmonds is going to solve the homeless crisis or even the affordability crisis, having a strategy that provides various options is a step in the right direction. Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, said he strongly opposes the draft Housing Strategy for several reasons. First, the high-density, low-cost, subsidized housing would drastically diminish the quality of life in Edmonds and is a bad idea. It would increase the population and density, as well as traffic and congestion. Cars would be parked everywhere because there would be no parking restrictions on the amount of parking space available to accommodate the number of apartments. Neighborhoods would deteriorate. While the plan emphasizes that the high-density projects would be located primarily on Highway 99, it is likely to expand. He referred to the example provided by the consultant of a 1,600-unit master planned development in Seattle (The Highpoint) and said he is against this type of development in Edmonds and felt it would raise taxes further. Mr. Bernstein suggested that the data provided by the consultant is not totally correct. For example, how many of those with incomes less than $11,000 are students working during the summer, people working part time, and people who have others in the household with more substantial incomes. He pointed out that landlords have to raise their rents when taxes and utility rates increase. He asked if the statistics on the number of people who have to travel to Edmonds for work includes gardeners, contractors, and others who work in Edmonds and elsewhere. He summarized his belief that, if the draft Housing Strategy is adopted, the City will degenerate, property values will go down, and taxes will increase. Mr. Bernstein said it is not clear what the statistic that indicates there are 260 school children who are homeless really means. He read it to mean that homelessness includes unstable households, and many of these children are living in a sheltered place with relatives, friends or other types of foster homes. They are typically out of their homes because of other issues such as violence, abuse, etc. He agreed that these people need help, but it should be provided on an individual basis. Mr. Bernstein commented that homelessness has become a catastrophe, and the problem has only increased in cities where there is homelessness. Increased homelessness brings drugs, alcoholism, mental illness, etc. and no one seems to have a solution. He noted that the plan suggests “safe parking” as a potential strategy, which means that people will be living in their vehicles. A judge in Seattle recently determined that a vehicle could be considered a “home,” which means they can be parked anywhere and city residents must deal with the garbage and filth. When someone comes up with a solution that actually works, he will support it. He emphasized that the City Council works for the residents of Edmonds, and they are not doing their job
if they allow the quality of the City to deteriorate by bringing in tents, vans, narcotics, crime, drug dealing, etc. into the City. This will not result in a safe situation for the residents of the City, particularly the children, and he is opposed to it. George Keefe, Edmonds, urged the Board to recommend adoption of the draft Housing Strategy to address the housing affordability crisis in Edmonds. He pointed out that the statewide homeless student count by district for the 2016-17 school year reports that there were 638 homeless students in the Edmonds School District. Two-thirds of these students were “doubled up” in shared housing due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. More than 100 were in shelters, 50 were in hotels/motels, and 29 were unsheltered. These statistics about children are shameful. It is difficult to do homework in the back seat of a car or in a tent city. He expressed his belief that all children deserve a home in which to study, learn and thrive. Carolynne Harris, Edmonds, said that when she grew up in Edmonds, it was considered the country. Edmonds was the kind of city where people took care of each other. They weren’t rich, but they weren’t poor, either. They were rich in spirit. To her, “an Edmonds kind of day” isn’t the kind of day when you don’t think and care for “the least among you.” She does not want the City to become like that. She recently inherited her mothers home on 98th, which is acreage with an old home and a
barn. The property is connected by woods to the property owned by the Edmonds Presbyterian Church where drug deals currently take place in the parking lot. She described the recent vandalism and burglary that took place on her property. There are many problems in Edmonds, and it is not just the poor and homeless. The opioid problem exists amongst the rich, too. Keeping out homeless children will not make a better world and will not help the world heal. She said she supports the draft Housing Strategy and is proud of all those involved in its creation. The City needs to do something now by thinking about others. Brian Goodnight, Edmonds, said he has been a developer for 35 years, and the idea of “affordable housing” is ridiculous. What they are really talking about is subsidized housing. While he does not think this is a bad idea, it must be done right and put in the right locations. He referred to a large project in Mountlake Terrace that was well done. He stressed that there is no
way for the City to build its way out of the housing crisis. Subsidized housing will have to be done at a larger scale to make it
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 6
more affordable, but it is not likely that single-family residential properties in Edmonds will be rezoned to higher densities to provide the space needed for these projects. Building subsidized housing is extremely expensive. People with very large incomes are moving from South Lake Union in Seattle to the suburbs, and this is pushing housing prices up. Seattle has tried to build its way out of the problem, but the new units are extremely expensive to rent and/or purchase. The only way to help the low-income people is to build subsidized housing, which is costly. Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, said he is happy with the draft Housing Strategy, which provides some solutions to the housing problems. He especially likes strategies such as ADU’s that provide more housing on existing lots. This strategy has been utilized by other jurisdiction for a long time. While ADUs will not completely solve the problem, it is a start and will probably help. He suggested that transportation is very important when addressing housing issues. More people are moving into Edmonds to have a place to raise their families, but they also want the transportation that is available with the Sounder Train. Rather than finding places to park more cars, he suggested the City should consider ways to get people living in the outlying areas to the train. Mr. Thuesen said is shameful that 260 students who attend schools in Edmonds are homeless, and something must be done about it. As a good example, he referred to the “Cocoon Project” in Everett, which focuses on young people at risk. These people do not necessarily have drug problems, and they are trying to get their lives together. Programs of this type are constructive, and he would recommend the City start with a project where they can have success. Once success has been achieved, it is likely that more community people will offer support. Mr. Thuesen said it is important to allow more flexibility in multi-family zones. He has been talking with City staff for over 10 years about potential changes to the regulations to allow this greater flexibility. Recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance that changed the 0-lot-line provisions to be more flexible, and this made a great difference in the affordability of townhome development. He commented that these changes are important, and he would like them to happen quickly. He agreed that undeveloped land is scarce in Edmonds, and it would be helpful for the City to provide a map to identify undeveloped lands or lots that could be redeveloped. This information would help the City come up with the right solutions. He summarized that now is the time for the City make sacrifices for the betterment of the community. Eric Soll, Edmonds, observed that there has been no acknowledgement anywhere that government actions on all levels have
been a substantial cause of the housing problems. The increase of home ownership costs for most Edmonds residents will increase once again by implementing more government programs. The efforts to minimize the homeless situation can be best summed up by the Seattle disaster, where over $1 billion has been spent by Seattle/King County but the problem is worse than ever. When he arrived in Seattle 49 years ago, it was a pristine City; now it is a lawless pigsty. He suggested that Edmonds would go down that same path if it imports homelessness from elsewhere. The active homeless community the programs outlined in the strategy will attract will add a whole new meaning to the expression “have an Edmonds kind of day.” As in the field of dreams, “If you build it, they will come,” but it will be a field of nightmares. He suggested that a regional or national approach to homelessness, is needed, or it will be a waste of money. Mr. Soll voiced concern about the theory that allowing more density in single-family neighborhoods would make housing more affordable. Most of the single-family neighborhoods do not want apartments, tiny houses, row houses, duplexes, triplexes or ADUs. Single-family homeowners have sacrificed and become residentially cost burdened to live in Edmonds, and they should not have their expectations destroyed. It was recently suggested that a more intensive development could answer all of the demand from out-of-town businesses that want to relocate to downtown Edmonds. However, the City Council rejected to even study the concept, in part, to protect the “charm” of Edmonds. Another Councilmember stated that the downtown is “perfect” the way it is. Homeowners in single-family neighborhoods should also be given the opportunity to reject increased density if their neighborhoods are deemed to be “charming” and “perfect” by them. Mr. Soll stated that any increase in taxes to pay for “affordable housing” will result in greater economic distress and out migration of Edmonds by residents who can no longer afford the taxes or the rent. Edmonds is 1% of the population of Puget Sound. Not everyone can afford to live in the Edmonds, just as not everyone can afford to live in Woodway. He would never expect Woodway to subsidize his Sound view residential fantasy any more than he should have to pay for other people to reside in Edmonds. There are less expensive cities surrounding Edmonds for low-income residents, just as Edmonds is less expensive for those who cannot afford Woodway. The draft Housing Strategy indicates that a large percentage of commuters make less than $40,000 a year, but nothing in the report talks about income from spouses or partners or other assets and income. If the
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 7
City is really worried about the commuters, it should do a survey of where they live and get those jurisdictions to provide free public transportation as Portland/Columbus, Ohio has done for their employees. He commented that the cost of subsidized housing is greater than just building the housing. More services are needed for the tenants. You will need a bureaucracy to administer the program, and there will be fraud and abuse. In addition, these programs are a disincentive to improve one’s economic circumstances. Mr. Soll concluded by suggesting that if the City wants more affordable housing for everyone, it should: 1) Work to end or repeal the Growth Management Act and Washington State Condominium Law; 2) Stop raising property taxes on all levels; 3) Stop financing every program on the backs of real estate; 4) Educate the populace that property tax initiatives increase the cost of housing for owners and renters; 5) Reduce the cost of building market-rate housing by eliminating needless regulations and streamlining the process for building housing for those in needs; 6) Keep the government on all levels limited; and 7) Eliminate wasteful government programs. Teresa Holland, Edmonds, said she and her husband moved to Edmonds from Seattle a year ago for the quality of life, the beautiful town, the lovely people, etc. She was shocked that the City Council was even considering allowing any type of tiny homes in Edmonds. She can attest from real-life experience that the homeless situation has destroyed Seattle, with people shooting up on the street and discarded needles everywhere. She did not think this is what Edmonds residents want. The homeless situation needs to be addressed, starting with the children and their families, followed by outreach to individuals who want to get off the street. There are people who are on the street through no fault of their own, but the majority of people in the homeless encampments are mentally ill, drug addicted, or alcoholics. They want to continue living this lifestyle because they can do whatever they want. Edmonds needs to enforce its current laws and clean out homeless encampments every week, if necessary. She believes that ADUs are a good idea for people who want to subsidize their income, but they should not be used as a strategy to address homelessness. Mike O’Malley, Edmonds, asked if the City has collected statistics on how the crime rate would increase if the strategies in the proposed plan for addressing homelessness and low-income housing are implemented. He suggested that the police and fire officials should be asked to respond relative to the likely increase in the demand for services. The City should also research how other jurisdictions have been impacted. While the draft Housing Strategy contains a lot of positive solutions, it does not address any of the potential negative impacts.
Dennis O’Malley, Edmonds, pointed out that the draft Housing Strategy does not address the potential impacts to roads and other City infrastructure or the likely increase in crime. He anticipates that implementation of the plan will increase traffic and the crime rate will skyrocket. Crime is already moving into Edmonds from Everett. His truck was recently stolen from downtown Edmonds, and it was found near a low-income housing development in Everett, full of crack cocaine and stolen tools. He questioned why the Board would want to bring these problems to Edmonds. John Reid, Edmonds, said he is a 41-year resident of the City and sat on the Planning Board for 8 years. He voiced concern that the process has been going on for almost a year, but there has only been one opportunity for public input on May 21st. He expressed his belief that more public input is needed in the process. He noted that about 75 people attended the public open house and about 100 people are in attendance at the hearing to learn more about the plan because there has not been a lot of opportunity for public input. He said he is concerned that, as per the proposed schedule, the Planning Board would have a
discussion on June 27th and then make a recommendation to the City Council. The report is very directive and does not indicate there are options or that items will be removed. He is afraid it will end up being a document that will be waived in front of the citizens as something they agreed to. He encouraged the Board to spend more time discussing the document and reviewing each of the strategies individually. They should make suggestions as opposed to directives so that when the document is done, there is still a lot of flexibility as it goes through the rest of the process. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires that a Housing Strategy be developed by 2019, and there is more time to give the public an opportunity for input. Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, said she does not believe the data provided by the consultant portrays what is actually going on in Edmonds. She is also not convinced that more housing would result in cheaper rent. She said that, as a Nurse Practitioner, she talks to homeless people and elderly people on a weekly basis. Elderly people want to live in their own homes and maintain independence. On the other hand, some homeless people like the flexibility. She agreed that students need to have a home, and shared housing is one strategy for addressing this concern. Students in shared housing should not necessarily be classified
as homeless, and some of them may be emancipated children. She agreed that infrastructure improvements must be part of the
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 8
equation. The recent multi-family development on 212th Street has significantly increased traffic. Perhaps other strategies besides tax increases should be considered, such as incentives to builders. Housing affordability is an important issue, but she does not necessarily agree with the assumptions that were made in the strategy based on the data. Dave Cooper, Edmonds, voiced concern that the presentation made by the consultant has never worked anywhere. It hasn’t worked in Seattle or San Francisco, and it won’t work in Edmonds. Bringing people who are homeless into Edmonds and providing subsidized food, medical care and housing will not help to reduce the level of homelessness. This approach will turn Edmonds into another Seattle. If the citizens want to stop it, they must vote against the people running the City Council and make their voices heard. He noted that the consultant who made the presentation, as well as the head of the Low-Income Housing Institute, are not interested in reducing homelessness. They are making money off of it and the citizens are going to pay. He said he worked hard as a developer for 30 years, and he never felt he had a right to live in Edmonds. He and his wife are retired and pay $1,000 per month in property tax to live in Edmonds. He is in favor of building affordable housing, which means they must increase the density along Highway 99 to accommodate multi-family development. He said he does not want Edmonds to go down the same path as San Francisco and Seattle, yet that seems to be where it is headed. Chair Monroe closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Crank said that, as someone who spent 16 years in the Bay area, she lived through what Edmonds residents are starting to experience now. She knows what did and did not work, as well as the mentalities that would need to be helped. She hopes her experiences can help form some good strategies for addressing the City’s housing issues. She emphasized that Edmonds cannot be and should not be Seattle. Not everyone can live in Edmonds, and that shouldn’t be something the City strives for. Edmonds does not have a lot of available land for new housing development, so it is important to make good decisions. Board Member Crank said she is concerned with the mindset that they are trying to bring homeless people into the City. In reality, they are already here. We are talking about our neighbors and people who have lived in the City for a long time who are finding themselves in situations where they may have to leave the community that they know. For her, part of the housing strategy is to keep her neighbors here. It is not about bringing in an element that is going to be harmful to the community. The Housing Strategy is about figuring out how to help the 260 students and their families who are displaced, as well as community
leaders, teachers and others who may have to move away because they can no longer afford to live in Edmonds. Board Member Crank said she comes from a background of banking and investment, and it helps her to compare the Housing Strategy to an Investment Strategy. An investment strategy is not a plan; it is a selection of different strategies a financial advisor can use to figure out what will work for the person he/she is doing the investment for. The Housing Strategy is not intended to be a plan that is set in stone and can never be changed. It’s a list of options or strategies to figure out what will fit where. Not every strategy will work in every community in every neighborhood. A thoughtful approach is needed to figure out what makes sense and where. Density along transit corridors absolutely makes sense. Board Member Crank said she thought she was earning a decent salary as a single person in the Bay Area. However, based on the income level scale for the area, she was considered low income. When people think of low income, she encouraged them not to think of poverty or ne’er do well people who cannot hold down a decent job. There were people making $55,000 to $60,000 a year who, on the scale of affordability in a high-income area, are rated lower on the scale than you would think. When making certain assumptions, she encouraged people to look through a broader lens. Subsidized housing does not mean “the projects.” Her hope is that if the Housing Strategy is implemented, it is done with the thought of how to help their current neighbors who have invested in the community. These people include our teachers, our favorite baristas, hostesses at restaurants and others who now find they have to move an hour outside of the community to find housing. Board Member Crank commented that there have been success stories in other communities, as well as cautionary tales. She shared an example of a community where the in-lieu fees became so predominant that the City collected almost $30 million and didn’t do anything with it around affordability or housing in the community until much later. There must be oversight around the strategies that are used to incentivize development to provide a check and balance. Finally, Board Member Crank said crime is everywhere. When reading the My Edmonds News Crime Blotter, she is sometimes surprised at the level and types of crimes that occur in Edmonds. These crimes are not done primarily by people of “no means.” Crimes are also
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 9
committed by people you would not expect. She cautioned against pigeonholing the people they are trying to help with the Housing Strategy to something that is inherently negative. Board Member Crank agreed with Mr. Thuesen’s suggestion that it would be helpful to have a map that identifies available lands for development or redevelopment that could be considered as a location to implement a strategy of mixed-use housing. This would help guide the City to make better informed decisions. She referred to the Kenmore Town Square Project as a good example and noted that news was just recently released about a potential housing project on the Edmonds Lutheran Church property. Implementing the strategies should be done on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Shipley explained that the Housing Strategy is intended to be a guide, and staff is not proposing any rezones at this point. Implementation of any of the strategies would require a separate process. Although he cannot provide a map at this point, he Housing Strategy has broadly defined large multi-family housing projects as being adjacent to transit corridors, which are primarily Highway 99 and SR-104. He reminded the Board that light rail is scheduled to come on line adjacent to the Lake Ballinger area in 2024. These are potential places for development, but they are not at the level where they can actually start to draw lines around certain areas. That being said, a lot of effort was taken with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan to make it economical for developers to build, but also putting in place design standards to improve the streetscape and make it a safer place for everyone. Although not part of the Housing Strategy, another concept the City could consider is providing more spaces for active transit, such as protected bicycle lanes, to help reduce transportation costs. Board Member Robles said he is fairly proud of the report. He felt that the staff and consultant listened to input from the Board. The intent of the Housing Strategy is to get at a place where the citizens and developers have equal opportunities. If the City makes rules that give developers incentives, these same incentives need to be offered to citizens. The ADU concept came about as a way to create a better balance. ADUs would not only be for individuals seeking to increase their income; the concept could also help people qualify to purchase homes in Edmonds with the additional income that would be provided by an ADU. ADUs are not intended to just address homelessness. They could be used by children who return to live with their families, aging parents coming to live with the children, divorced couples who both want to live close to their children. ADUs would also offer housing options for teachers, baristas and others who want to serve the community but cannot afford to live in Edmonds. It is not the City’s intent to import the homeless.
There was a disruption from some members of the audience. Chair Monroe reminded everyone of the need to be respectful. He summarized that the public has had an opportunity to speak, and it was the Board’s turn to make comments and try to answer some of the questions that were raised. He noted that the public would have an opportunity to speak again at the Board’s next meeting as part of general public comments or when the Housing Strategy is presented to the City Council. In addition, members of the public can submit written comments via the City’s website. Board Member Robles commented that, as a foster parent, he is surprised at why people become homeless. He challenged that many of these events could happen to anyone in the room without warning, and this may cause them to see things differently. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is not intended to solve the problem of homelessness. The intent is to create resiliency in the community so that citizens have the same economic advantage as developers. ADUs would have to meet specific requirements to ensure they are well-constructed and safe. A lot of work will go into this future discussion, and the Board Members have expertise in engineering, social science, etc. The Board is working to balance all of the issues as best it can in proposing a set of strategies to the City Council. It will be up to the City Council to decide which strategies, if any, will be implemented. Board Member Lovell commented that the Planning Board has been briefed at least twice on the draft Housing Strategy. At the outset of the project, staff aptly pointed out that this was a task force study undertaken by the Council and represents only a menu of possible ideas for addressing various housing challenges. It should not be considered a plan to address any of the strategies that are set forth. This important process could potentially impact every resident in the City, and there needs to be a lot of study, public input and discussion to hone in on what can realistically be done. The purpose of the study was to provide a menu of ideas. The study will go on to the City Council, and there will be a lot more opportunities for public input. If the City Council decides they want to move forward with a plan to implement some of the strategies identified in the document, they will provide further direction to the Board and staff and a separate public process will follow.
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 10
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how many households there are in Edmonds. Mr. Shipley answered that there are approximately 18,500 households in Edmonds. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that this number should be added to the graph provided in the presentation to help people better understand the significance of the facts. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the $40,000 per year figure that was provided in the presentation represents the combined household income or individual income. Mr. Ramsey said the figure was intended to represent individual incomes, but they were summarized by household. Mr. Shipley clarified that the figures used to identify the number of households that are housing cost burdened are based on combined household income, but the data provided to illustrate the average wage for people who work in Edmonds is based on individual income. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that these two different data points should be better clarified in the report. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that concern was expressed about how the data was presented. She said it is important that the significance of all the data provided in the report is easy for everyone to understand. The terms used in the report are familiar to the consultant and staff, but those who are not as steeped in the terminology and how the facts and figures impact the community need help in understanding the data better. Board Member Rubenkonig said several members of the public raised concern about impacts on the City’s infrastructure. These concerns were based on the image that large housing complexes would be constructed and impact the existing roadways. She asked if the consultant has reviewed studies to show how these types of projects might impact the infrastructure. Mr. Ramsey reminded the Board that the Housing Strategy identifies potential ideas that have worked in other communities that could be evaluated in more detail to determine their applicability to Edmonds. If and when the City moves forward with any one of the strategies, further study will be done to identify and understand potential impacts to roadways, utilities, etc. Mr. Shipley further clarified that it would not be feasible to do this detailed work for each of the strategies because they are simply ideas at this point. However, infrastructure impacts would be studied as part of any rezone or other strategy implementation. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it ever came up in any of the consultant’s discussions with the task force, Mayor, City Council or community that some of the major employers were concerned about housing affordability for their employees. Mr. Shipley responded that Swedish Hospital is a large employer and they are looking at potentially developing a portion of their property to provide employee housing. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that this information was not included in the
report. Board Member Rubenkonig said it would be helpful to go over why the different people were selected to serve on the Housing Strategy Task Force every time the report is presented. The community needs to be informed as to why these individuals were selected and their background. Board Member Rosen thanked the public for participating in the hearing. The intent of the process is for the citizens to say what is on their mind and the Board to listen. He encouraged them to continue to show up and say their peace. He commented that the number of people and the passion that was expressed also speaks to this issue, and the Board is listening and hearing their concerns. It is real that Edmonds is nearly built out and incomes are not keeping pace with the cost of housing. It is real that that the current housing mix does not represent who the City is becoming as the age level, alone, reflects and how younger people feel about housing and transportation. It is real that issues related to homelessness are very complex and can’t be dealt with separately. He pointed out that Seattle grew by more than 1,000 people a month in 2017, and he does not want this growth and the problems that come with it moving north to Edmonds. However, the fact that this kind of population base is moving to the Northwest does say that a lot of people are headed in this direction Board Member Rosen emphasized that housing is not a single issue, and there will not be a single solution. It will take a lot of different approaches to solve the problems. Like the citizens, he has a long list of wants. He wants to make sure that homes and neighborhoods are safe and that kids are safe and allowed to reach their individual and full potential. He wants to make sure the elderly can age in place and live in their homes if they want to. He would like if young professionals could live, work and grow their families in Edmonds without having to move out until they can afford to move back. He does not want to negatively impact the City’s aesthetics and public spaces, and he does not want to compromise property rights or values. He would like not to significantly impact the environment, which is very precious and part of why they all live in Edmonds. He wants to ensure that homeowners and developers are both a part of the solution and that both can benefit and play on an equal
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 11
playing field. He wants to implement the solutions that represent the core values of the community. He would also like to have room for tourists to come and spend their money and then leave. Board Member Rosen applauded the City for looking at the housing issue through multiple lenses because there is not a single fix. He wants the draft Housing Strategy to go forward representing the City’s values. The residents should continue to work with the City to make decisions that are data-driven and based on science and not purely on emotion. Whatever they finally do decide will have a very long and large impact. Vice Chair Cheung said that if he were seeing the draft Housing Strategy for the first time, he might have similar concerns as those expressed by the public that the entire point of the study is to address homelessness and low-income populations. However, it is much more than that. He shared the example of his mother, who has lived in Edmonds for 20 years. His stepfather took care of everything but passed away about a year ago. His mom deals with health issues and is now faced with a house and lot that are too large for her to care for. She has a dog, which further limits where she can actually move. She wants to stay in Edmonds but there are not a lot of options that meet her needs, and she is being priced out of the area. Vice Chair Cheung summarized that there is a large number of 1 and 2-person households, but hardly any 1-bedroom homes. People need more options, particularly elderly people who don’t want to or can’t live in larger home. He looks at the issue as more than just affordable housing, but also a variety of housing options. They need to be able to take care of the people who already live in Edmonds who may not fit with the existing housing supply. It is not the intent to replace $1 million homes with multi-family housing units. However, there may be opportunities for redeveloping properties that are near the end of their life. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands peoples’ concerns about safety and said he moved out of Seattle for the same reasons that were stated in the hearing: high prices, crime, etc. However, right now they are just looking at potential strategies to address the existing problems and changing demographics. There is no proposal on the table at this time to change the code. Aging in place is a strategy that the study is trying to address. A potential option for his mother would be to develop a small ADU on her property where she could live and then rent out the larger home. Board Member Lovell referred to a recent report in THE EDMONDS BEACON and MY EDMONDS NEWS about a proposal by the Lutheran Church and the Compass Housing Alliance to put in a stackable, pre-constructed, low-income housing complex
on the church property that is located on SR-524. He encouraged the public to provide their comments on this proposal. The first unit is anticipated to go in mid-July. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the City has not received an application for the 60 units, but the single unit has been approved. A lot-line adjustment is currently in progress, as well. He added that the Lutheran Church will host a public meeting on July 12th. (A number of citizens commented from the audience about the lack of information regarding this project.) Mr. Shipley pointed out that additional information about the project can be found on the City’s website, and public notices have been released as required by code. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there used to be a lot more apartments in Edmonds, but they were later converted to condominiums and new apartments were never built. She asked staff to provide additional information about the recently-approved condominium law, which is the type of change the Board is interested in addressing so as to provide a variety of housing. Mr. Shipley advised that, as per the State’s condo law, responsibility is placed back on the developer after condos have been developed, and there have been significant frivolous lawsuits. Many developers do not want to develop
condominiums and changing the law will require a State amendment. Board Member Rubenkonig said she heard from a builder that this law is why they aren’t seeing as much condo development in Edmonds. She suggested this law has impacted housing affordability. If it were changed, developers would be more willing to construct new units and the availability of housing variety would increase. Mr. Ramsey agreed that more condominiums would definitely provide a greater variety of housing options in Edmonds, and the City of Edmonds, as well as other cities are already lobbying the state for changes to the law. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that “condo” refers to the type of ownership, but these developments can be townhomes, units within large buildings, etc. Mr. Ramsey commented that condos are an important part of a broader housing ecosystem that could be a good option for people who want to age in place. They are typically more affordable ownership products that are easier to maintain and fit the needs of smaller households. This type of development is encouraged in the draft Housing Strategy. Chair Monroe summarized that the current condominium law, the Growth Management Act, and rising housing prices in Seattle
have all contributed to the current housing crisis. He recalled that the Planning Board has had several discussions about how
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 12
ADUs can be a key strategy, and he is glad to see the concept reflected in the draft document. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is the beginning of the conversation, and any kind of real structural change will have to go through another process, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process where issues such as infrastructure impacts will be discussed. Chair Monroe asked if the fire and police departments have been involved in the Housing Strategy process. Mr. Shipley said the draft document is intended to provide broad-level list of housing strategies. As the City begins to select strategies for implementation, the fire and police departments will be invited to engage in the discussions and share their thoughts on potential impacts. Mr. Lien announced that there is a link to the Housing Strategy website on the City’s homepage, and the Housing Strategy website has a link for written comments. All written comments will be incorporated into the record. The Board took a short break at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE – WETLANDS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed a comprehensive review of its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in May 2016, with adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland section (ECDC 23.50) of that document was based on the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) “Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities.” However, in June of 2016, the DOE subsequently issued new guidance for wetlands in a publication titled, “Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates.” When the more recent guidance was published, the City was in the process of completing a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the City Council indicated a desire to incorporate the most current regulations within the SMP, which means that the regulations in the SMP are different than what’s in the CAO. Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) conflict with each other. The SMA rules in shoreline jurisdictions within 200 feet of shorelines, and the GMA rules outside of the shoreline jurisdictions. The CAO implements the GMA and the SMP implements the SMA. Currently, the City has two versions of wetland regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and another that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June 2019, and the overall plan is to update the CAO before
completing the periodic review of the SMP and then adopt the CAO again. Mr. Lien advised that the SMP adopted most of the CAO regulations, but there were some that were excepted out. In particular, the wetland ratings were excepted out because the new guidance came out after the CAO was adopted. The proposed amendments would update the CAO to be consistent with the most recent wetland guidance from the DOE. When the SMP is revised, the City will adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City. Mr. Lien advised that two other minor revisions to the CAO are also being proposed. He reviewed that during the last CAO update, a new provision was added that dealt with adding or developing within the footprint of existing development that required some enhancement. A proposed amendment would delete the “allowed activity” section in ECDC 23.50.020.E, to be consistent with the updated regulations. Another amendment would correct a scrivener’s error in the Wetland Buffer Averaging section. As part of the CAO update, the wetland buffer cannot be reduced by more than 25%, but language was inadvertently
left in that said a buffer could be reduced by 50%. He summarized that the main intent of the amendments is to make sure that the wetland regulations, ratings, buffers and mitigation measures, as well as a section dealing with small wetlands, are updated consistent with the most recent wetland guidance. Board Member Rosen asked if the proposed amendments would maintain, strengthen or weaken the protection of wetlands. Mr. Lien answered that because the changes are based on the DOE’s newest guidance document that is based on Best Available Science (BAS), the City’s regulations would be strengthened to provide greater protection. The first change has to do with how wetlands are categorized, and the proposed amendment would simply add more description without significantly changing the protection. He explained how wetland determinations and categorizations are done using the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and advised that the buffer requirements in the DOE’s newest guidance document are similar to those in the current CAO. However, the newest guidance requires certain mitigation measures for each wetland classification. If the mitigation measures are not met, the buffers are enlarged. To make this clear, the update includes two buffer tables, one to identify the buffers that apply if you do the required mitigation measures and a second table with wider buffers that would
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: PB180613f_Houseing Public Hearing Minutes (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Shipley, Brad
From: Rebecca Linda hl <rvlinda hl @frontier.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27,20t8 2:20 PM
To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Form Submission - New Form - edmonds housing strategy
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I read the report and had a couple comments. Im
concerned about Edmonds following other cities that are ugly and have no character in their plans to add
housing. Redmond, Federal Way and Shoreline are sited and they are unattractive big strip malls. Im also
concerned about the city moving toward higher buildings (where the community repeatedly reports to want
height limits) and less parking in a town-when surveyed on the westgate center development mostly stated they
wouldn't ride the bus. I have trouble finding parking at the QFC and have gone to the one in Richmond Beach
instead, although I like it less. Lastly, I wanted to know what areas will be slated for multifamily other than the
mentioned 99 corridor area. Where are the other targeted areas? I am of course concemed about my area-Forest
Glenn. Thank you again and please add me to your mailing list.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Lindahl
Sent from my iPhone
1
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
May 21, 2018
-COM M ENTS-
[eNam d-s
Address 1ro7 Ølra,r€ Sf
Fc!.mo /v[s ,
Email f iø
'earsft
elttq't I . (orr)
nF lt 'uu ìn a /a/K{ilûn;(
-!
Com ments
I
'l/^at
o
y{i pa
a Ua( iel p { Åe usì,,
bons 6c nt)d¿(loøeí tI (CI (-+'
e-and- ío\noøds ic Ç, Ço
ouú,a lan& l$n {"s þtI
rrc 6r {egs'[
1Ò Dur ( a( tl rqTa cf
IL a
I
a
o
/i,r. lrw" *Wt)e,60[YlP u)l,tue e[se-..
¿ a-(.rv;sor d.uel 4/e
â- Wirt- t¡,)|n -Y4 e! ( d.tL lrel p ,peoB le
N¡1 6r,
I
o IYIMuÙ
at
y1,lo
taxæ,
dae- b
?con f
i t's ìnq
idaùe,do
a//tclp"of
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
ynY , tnotefu 'p oople
/
a€6,rr!"'{t le
Lü l,î o AEer!
í
[4nt f-s'Y$oe,tlfl.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN I-IOUSE
MaY 21, 2018
-COM M ENTS-
Nåm arra f C'L L
p3ó f/:I lo*"a l-
Addre
City €A uraY 7Vo2'
ÅEmail þlnt ng q e - ÞrvSh- tfi,*(J
Commen
3,et1 ¡\'-t47
cÏ\.\o v VA z
7 Ð ¿t*t'-9 Y7,r---
t¡¿t¿,*-çS zxe.tÅ
y"-<rJa(^
L,n 7ò rÒv e__).€
y").¿- Ul nb¡,
1.,/l/¿V't¿t^u¿(--'
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
May 2L, 2018
-COM M ENTS-
Nam /4; þ
Addre cc 1n lr ) ¡z nto" ç V
City Erha no(<wA ,/90 >t
Email
comments Me no r< CB,/ Ser uro-/-îr¿
4
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
May 2t, 2OIB
-COM M ENTS-
Name
Address
c
Emai
Comments
//
L
)
/t
)
lt t¡
44
.(wz,r¿.1þ,¿þx4!/-t
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
MaY 21, 2018
-COMMENTS-
Nam faìc
Add
City
e\l @ r^o.i [. CY1^-Emai
Comments \,t¡-{
ä"
v€ V'54 0c)
0
\
,¡J
[YL^r)r¿E CoilllrL Tr t/I Vi Ðu.J-S Ailt t
ToPtc
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
May 21, 2018
-Ç OM M ENTS-
?^,,.-$.', q^^-Name
Address lù0 (-- (/h\{C.*t¿9,q^-
c f ,fuvuo.-wtlt>,Qt'to
Email ¿^,/+Lru,*k- " r*-*
Comments
oht\te/- oqkÅ
\ø^nt .l.l41 Cj h&t^^++o
s'NA ¿t\^.-(- 6\.{-*la S¿.r{"Uk
7 r¡,r,r*-1.-¿(- h¿f\ W9'W'
e-l î ¿cF b,,,'t^tl.+¿J"n^h{¡\"4rì,o
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
May 2t, 20tB
-COMMENTS-
Nam slb\
ßD
D
6 ieAdd
City ØÐ.c* "s r^r Ì\ îR¿>t
Emai e
Com ments
7¿a e{t6
Énm*tl u,ui{r /àowr l4rÐuì
-oútt^.a ¿fY\tl**a.Þn^I,.
ùu
F tq,3,.f, -
3.
ãrtr'.iL.ì it¿r*<
- C^^¡*
Or
i^ Cn ¿ eH'P
n1 ^XtJ-Y
C.r$
q'\- øEoÇ Eìh*\'ù
)\,
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
MaY 21, 2018
-COMMENTS-
gau
Nam
Address
City
Email
Com ments (
14
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
Name
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
May 2t, 20tB
-COMMENTS-
W
Address
City (*tt,r,^etr,ë[ Lr(A*
Emai ?S îl-p'^,O AI,çÕ ,(clzl
Comments
sl tøt nøuP o*+ oj tz'¿6 q ø'ulh
,":lto Aå ur.å þ L+w jtt- w'QL
a^4 ue.¿ a Êtu44l ,-ol *
lu)fu¿nø Lþ zu¡n-høaø
"ill¿k"rÅ yyu'-[rt ItS¡ þtøo-o¿ O*¿
b,U-Dl hr$'a"d- P ft<-o d
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE
MaY 2t, 2018
-COMMENTS-
A vr.ú /tu(&
Name
Add ress
City
Email
Commen
ølL\<€35 F;ds c q
€q. n\¡zo -d 4- Þv ¿ vc-
+t'lLa-6 "gtr
L.<)R re-
At f¿ 1v
tlo-r.Ð
"/"y'%
r<s4,:-L-
lL
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: HouseComments_Attached_20180613PBAgenda (Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy)
City Council Presentation
July 24, 2018
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Presentation Outline
▪Project timeline and
outreach to date
▪Housing overview:
Why are housing
costs so high?
▪Housing needs in
Edmonds
▪Edmonds Housing
Strategy
▪Next steps
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force
▪BILL ANDERSON
Compass Housing Alliance
▪REV. M. CHRISTOPHER
BOYER
Good Shepherd Baptist
Church
▪CHRIS COLLIER
Alliance for Housing
Affordability
▪MARK CRAIG
Henbart, LLC
▪ADRIENNE FRALEY-
MONILLAS
Edmonds City Council
▪JAMIE REECE
Reece Homes Real Estate
▪MARK SMITH
Housing Consortium of
Everett and Snohomish
County
▪ROB VAN TASSELL
Catholic Housing of
Western Washington
▪ANNE WERMUS
Edmonds Housing
Instability Coalition
3
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Project Timeline
4
▪2015
❑Comp Plan Adopted; Planning Board begins housing discussions
▪July 2017
❑Mayor Earling appoints Housing Strategy Task Force
▪September 2017 –May 2017
❑Evaluation of housing needs and potential actions
❑Six Housing Strategy Task Force meetings
▪May 23,2018
❑Public Open House
▪June 13, 2018
❑Draft Housing Strategy presented at Planning Board public hearing
▪July –September 2018 (estimated)
❑City Council to consider Housing Strategy for adoptions
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Priority Objectives
1.Encourage the development of market-rate
multifamily housing.
2.Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle.”
3.Support the needs of an aging population.
4.Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable
housing.
5.Participate in south Snohomish County strategies to
reduce homelessness.
6.Provide protections for low-income tenants.
5
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Why are housing costs
so high?
6
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Source: Sightline Institute, 2017
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
8
Source: Sightline Institute, 2017
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
9
Source: Sightline Institute, 2017
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
10
Source: Sightline Institute, 2017
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
11
Source: Sightline Institute, 2017
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Housing Needs In
Edmonds
12
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Household Income
▪Snohomish County HUD
Area Median Family
Income (AMI), 2017:
$96,000
▪Median family income in
Edmonds slightly higher
than county as a whole
13
$75,044
$97,866
$44,295
$70,722 $82,807
$43,100
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
All Households Family Non-Family
Median Household Income, 2011 -2015
Edmonds
Snohomish County
Source: American
Community Survey 5-
Year estimates,
2011-2015▪31% of Edmonds
households are
renters.
▪Renter and
nonfamily
households much
more likely to have
lower income.
Presentation to Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force, November 30, 2017
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Housing Needs in Edmonds
14
▪Nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds are cost-burdened.
▪Over 4,000 are low-income households.
▪There is a severe lack of income-restricted housing to meet needs.
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Mismatch Between Wages and Housing Costs
▪Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.
▪60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year.
▪This is approximately 40% of Area Median Income (AMI).
▪Average rents are unaffordable to these workers.
15
▪Income: $26,000
per year
▪Affordable rent:
$840 per month
▪Average rent for a
studio in Edmonds:
$1,000 per month
▪Small apartments
like studios are in
very short supply
in Edmonds.
Profile: Home health aide
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Edmonds’ Workforce Face Long Commutes
16
▪At least 2,400low-wage workers commute long distances to jobs in Edmonds.
▪~1,100commute more than 25 miles.
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Housing Stock is Not Aligned with Housing Needs
17
1%
10%
26%
35%
21%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
No
Bedrooms
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5+ BedroomPercent of Housing UnitsSize of Housing Stock in Edmonds
30%
40%
14%11%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 Person HH 2 Person HH 3 Person HH 4 Person HH 5+ Person HHPercent of HouseholdsSize of Households (HH) in EdmondsShortage of
smaller housing
types:
▪Over 70% of
households
have only 1 or
2 members.
▪Yet only 11%
of housing units
have 1
bedroom or
less.
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Housing Strategy
18
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Priority Objectives
1.Encourage the development of multifamily housing
2.Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle”
3.Support the needs of an aging population
4.Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable
housing
5.Participate in south Snohomish County strategies to
reduce homelessness
6.Provide protections for low-income tenants
19
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions to Support Workforce Housing
20
Encourage the development of multifamily housing
▪Focus in TOD corridors
▪Allow for more flexibility in limited locations for:
❑Building heights or density
❑Some parking requirements
❑Unit sizes
▪Simplify the permitting process
Increase the supply of income-restricted housing
▪Inventory lands suitable for affordable housing development
▪Contribute to the Alliance for Housing Affordability to support regional efforts to develop affordable housing in or near Edmonds.
▪Income: $34,000 per year
▪Affordable rent: $960 per
month
▪Average rent for a 1 bedroom
apartment in Edmonds: $1,200
per month
▪Small apartments are in very
short supply in Edmonds.
Profile: Single Parent
working as a receptionist
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions to Support Family Housing
21
▪Allow for greater diversity
of housing types
❑Townhomes
❑Duplexes
❑Clustered cottage housing
❑Small-lot single-family homes
▪Household income: $83,400
▪Affordable rent: $2,085 per
month
▪Average rent for single family
home: $2,400
▪Affordable family housing
options are in short supply
Profile: Veteran fire fighter
and part-time barista
supporting family of 4
Current
Edmonds
Housing
Inventory
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Example: Portland’s Infill Design Project
▪Goals
❑Allow for infill development in residential
neighborhoods.
❑Increase diversity of housing options.
❑Ensure the design of new development is
consistent with neighborhood character.
▪Actions
❑Convened residents and stakeholders to
develop several housing prototypes that
meet regulations and design standards.
❑Allowed for speedier permitting of projects
that used the prototypes.
22
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions to Support Senior Housing
23
▪Partnerships to support aging in place, such as:
❑Home modifications
❑Shared housing
❑Transportation
❑Recreation & socialization
❑Other services
▪Property tax or utility rate relief for low-income
▪Reduction of code barriers to senior-serving retirement homes and assisted living
▪Relax requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
Aging in Edmonds
▪20% of residents are age 65+
▪Over 7,000 more residents will
reach the age of 65+ over the
next 10 years
▪Over 1,900 senior households are
cost-burdened
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Example: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
24
Detached ADU in Seattle
Attached ADU in Mountlake
Terrace
Benefits of ADUs
▪Expand affordable housing options in
existing single family areas with minimal
impacts on community character.
▪Provide a source of income to homeowners
who are struggling to afford rising housing
costs.
▪Provide a separate living space for an aging
family member in need of support or care.
ADUs in Neighboring Communities
▪Mountlake Terrace is encouraging ADUs
❑More flexible requirements
❑Providing guidance materials for
homeowners
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Potential Actions to Address Homelessness
▪Explore partnerships with the County, south county cities, and nonproftservice providers
▪Explore opportunities to support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent supportive housing
▪Consider reducing barriers to single room occupancy housing
▪Consider reducing barriers to the development oftemporary shelters such as tiny home villages.
▪Explore partnerships to keep and expand winter shelterprograms.
25
Study of Edmonds
homeless population
Edmonds is currently
conducting a separate
assessment of the needs
of homeless residents and
options to address those
needs. This study will be
used to refine and
prioritize potential
actions.
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended and
Potential Actions by
Priority Objective
26
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions: Objective 1
1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing
▪Support transit-oriented development along current
and future transit corridors.
▪Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones
▪Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted
areas
▪Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly
permitting process
▪Provide density bonuses for projects that set aside
income restricted units
▪Explore the application of “micro-housing” style
developments.
27
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions: Objective 2
2. Expand housing diversity in the “Missing Middle”
▪Allow more flexible requirements for accessory
dwelling units and backyard cottages
▪Allow for more housing diversity in some single-family
areas
❑Townhomes
❑Duplexes
❑Clustered cottage housing
❑Small-lot single-family homes
28
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions: Objective 3
3. Support the needs of an aging population
▪Pursue partnerships to support aging in place
▪Explore property tax relife
29
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions: Objective 4
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable
housing
▪Conduct an inventory of public and nonproft land suitable
for affordable housing development
▪Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing
development targeted at 0–30 percent AMI
▪Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations
▪Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for
affordable housing development
▪Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program
▪Explore the development of an inclusionary zoning
program
▪Keep reduced development fees for low-income housing
30
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Potential Actions: Objective 5
5. Participate in south Snohomish County strategies to
reduce homelessness
▪Explore partnerships with the County, south county cities,
and nonproft service providers
▪Explore opportunities to support and reduce barriers to
the development of permanent supportive housing
▪Consider reducing barriers to single room occupancy
housing
▪Consider reducing barriers to the development of
temporary shelters such as tiny home villages
▪Explore partnerships to keep and expand winter shelter
programs
31
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Recommended Actions: Objective 6
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants
▪Create requirements to provide fair housing
information
▪Create anti-discrimination requirements for tenants
32
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Next Steps
33
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Proposed Timeline
▪City Council
❑Review draft Strategy July 24
❑Hold public hearing August 21
❑Discussion & direction on August 28
❑Optional: Finalize September 4
34
▪Implementation of
specific actions
❑Fall 2018 –2019
(with some later)
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
Questions and Comments
Welcome
Contact info:
Kevin Ramsey, PhD
BERK Consulting
kevinr@berkconsulting.com
www.BERKConsulting.com
35
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Housing Strategy Council Presentation July 24_2018 (Introduction to Draft
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
The City entered into a facility lease with the Sr. Ctr in 2008, with options to extend through 2030.
The City entered into an option to lease the grounds of the current Sr. Ctr as well, in order to allow for a
capital campaign and eventual rebuild of the center on the site. This was signed in January 2015. See
attached.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss proposed amendments and give staff direction.
Narrative
The City has entered into an Option to Lease with a proposed 40 year ground lease with the Edmonds
Senior Center. This has been in effect since January 2015. The option expires in June 2019, with some
allowance for extension. The long term land lease gives the Sr. Ctr the option to demolish the current
building and build a new one on the property.
The Senior Center has approached the City with some requested amendments to the lease. See
attached.
The City staff and attorney are in the process of negotiating this language to best suit both parties for
this partnership. We do not have a final version for Council consideration at this time.
However, the most significant and timely request is for the City to bear the full costs of construction and
ongoing maintenance of the parking lot and frontage improvements for the project.
The current lease stipulates that the parking lot will be shared 50/50 for all costs. The frontage
improvements, which include sidewalk to back of curb, utility hookups for the building, storm detention
and curb cuts for driveway and ADA options were not called out in the original lease. The frontage
improvements are required by City code for any construction of buildings. The City has maintained that
this should be a cost covered by the Sr. Ctr, because of the building construction. The Sr. Ctr has
maintained that this should be paid for by the City because it is the entrance to the park. We have thus
far split costs for design in order to submit land use permits. This is now part of a request from the Sr.
Ctr as an amendment to the lease.
9.2
Packet Pg. 333
As Council knows, the City will be doing some significant work in front of the Sr. Ctr on the waterfront.
We will be removing the creosote pier, reintroducing beach habitat, improving ADA accessibility to the
waterfront, and connecting the continuous walkway. In addition, the City has been exploring and
planning for connecting the walkway in front of the Ebbtide condominiums. The project costs for design
and construction of the Ebbtide walkway, Waterfront redevelopment, parking lot and frontage
improvements are attached. The 50% of the Sr. Ctr share, for the parking lot and frontage
improvements is $933,868. This is the estimated cost at 30% design. This number could go up or down
as we get further in design to construction documents.
Attachments:
Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease
Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018
Waterfront Redevelopment and Sr Ctr parking lot draft budget
9.2
Packet Pg. 334
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
AMENDMENT TO
OPTION TO LEASE
THIS AMENDMENT TO OPTION TO LEASE (this "Option Amendment") is
made and entered into as of this ____ day of _________, 2018, by and between the CITY OF
EDMONDS, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington,
(the "City"), and the EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "Optionee").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2015, Optionee and the City entered into an Option To
Lease certain real property from the City for development and operation of a Senior Center and
related uses (the “Original Option To Lease”), which had lease terms and conditions specified
for a ground lease between the parties (the "Proposed Ground Lease"); and
WHEREAS, Optionee and the City currently have a lease for the Property whereby the
Optionee leases the Property and an existing building for a remaining term until 2020 together
with two five-year extension periods (the "Current Lease").
WHEREAS, the Current Lease would have been superseded by the Proposed Ground
Lease which iswas the subject of the Option entered into by the parties.
WHEREAS, Tthrough this Option Amendment and appended Ground Lease, Optionee
and the City desire to modify certain terms and conditions of the Original Option To Lease and
the Proposed Ground Lease as well as the area of real property that will be the subject of the
Ground Lease and that would be exercised through the Option.
WHEREAS, the revised legal description of the property that will be the subject of the
Ground Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Property”) and the Ground Lease which
specifies the modified terms and conditions and is to be entered into when the Option is exercised
is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance and observance of the terms,
covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. GRANT OF OPTION: Subject to the conditions set forth in this Option Amendment,
the City hereby grants to Optionee an Option To Lease the Property ("Option") for the Term (as
defined in Section 2 below) and in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth in the
Ground Lease.
2. OPTION TERM: Unless otherwise extended by written agreement of the parties,
the term ("Term") of this Option shall commence on __________, 2018 ("Commencement
Date") and shall expire at 5:00p.m. on __________, 20__; provided, however, Optionee, in
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
its sole and absolute discretion, may extend the dates for completion of the conditions in
Section 5 below and elsewhere herein and the Term of this Agreement by up to Eighteen
(18) Months, if Optionee has reached the fundraising thresholds specified in Section 5 below.
Optionee may exercise its right to extend this Option following (i) written request from Optionee
to the City requesting such extension(s); and (ii) Optionee documenting in writing that it has
reached the fundraising threshold necessary for extension. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Option, Optionee's right to exercise the Option and execute the Lease will terminate
and be of no further force and effect if the conditions set forth in this Option are not timely
satisfied, and the Option is not exercised, before the expiration of the Term.
3. OPTIONEE'S PROJECT: Optionee's development is a non-profit community
resource center serving the needs of the local senior citizen population, including, without
limitation, operation of a thrift store and cafe along with programs serving poor, infirm
and otherwise vulnerable seniors. Optionee also understands that this facility is to be used
as a Community Center benefitting the whole community. Optionee and the City will define
terms for City use in the Ground Lease Agreement. The Optionee may, from time to time,
utilize portions of the property for revenue generating events, including, but not limited to,
weddings, dances, class reunions, holiday activities and similar types of festivities.
4. OPTION AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION: Optionee shall pay to the City the sum
of Ten Dollars ($10.00) as consideration for this Amendment To Option To Lease (the "Option
consideration"). The Option consideration shall be paid to the City at the time Optionee executes
and delivers the Option To Lease.
5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: Optionee will have no right to exercise the Option until
it has commitments, through private donations, grants and other sources (not including city
funds), for $12,000,000.007,462,500 which is 75% of the projected cost of the new center and
parking lot.
6. EXERCISE OF OPTION: If, at any time before the expiration of the Term or earlier
termination of this Option, all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the Option set forth
in this Option Amendment have been satisfied by the dates specified herein, the City shall
prepare the Ground Lease negotiated and approved under the terms of this Option Amendment
for execution, which preparation shall include, but is not limited to, inserting the
Commencement Date, Termination Date, among other final details. Optionee may exercise the
Option by delivering to the City written notice of its election to do so, accompanied by properly
executed copies of the Proposed Ground Lease in duplicate, including the Lease Guaranty.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Option
as of the date and the year first above written.
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:___________________________________
Printed Name: David O. Earling
EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a
non-profit corporation
By:__________________________
Printed Name: Farrell B. Fleming
Printed Title: Executive Director
Approved as to form:
CITY ATTORNEY
By:_____________________________
Printed Name: Jeff Taraday
Attest:
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CLERK
By:__________________________
Printed Name: Scott Passey
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
EXHIBIT A
Property Description
Parcel Number 27032300104200 Property Address: 220 Railroad Ave., Edmonds, WA 98020-4133
Property Description SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT
LOT 2
TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 OOW 95.67FT M.L TO
MEA LN TH S51*23 OOW ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51
*23 OOE ALG MEA LN
288.33FT THN47*32 OOW 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH
S45*00 OOW ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 OOE
287.94FT TPB TGW FDT
- COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2
TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD
R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY
ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER
WD 683-545 2/23/73
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
Exhibit B
GROUND LEASE THE
CITY OF EDMONDS AND
THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS.....................................................................................................................ii
GROUND LEASE......................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY .......................................................... 3
SECTION 2. TERM..................................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 3. RENT ..................................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS. ............................................... 5
SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS...................................................... 7
SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE ............................................................................... 9
SECTION 7. DEFAULT. ........................................................................................................... 12
SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS ....................................................................................... 13
SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS................................................................................. 14
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
LIST OF EXIDBITS
EXHIBIT A Property Description
EXHIBIT B Easement For Parking
EXHIBIT C Easement For Access and Utilities
EXHIBIT D Easement For Construction
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
10
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
GROUND LEASE
CITY OF EDMONDS/EDMONDS SENIOR
CENTER
THIS GROUND LEASE (this "Lease"), effective the ____day of _________, 201_
("Effective Date") is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington (the "City") and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under
the laws of the State of Washington (the "Senior Center").
WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1,
2008 (the “2008 Lease”), the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by
one or both of the two five-year extensions in that Lease (the 2008 Lease).
WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses the same a portion of the real property as of
this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease.
The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this
Lease, agree as follows:
SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE
PROPERTY
1.1 Agreement to Lease and Description of Property. The City hereby leases to the
Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and
shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be
located thereon (the "Property"). The Property is the area upon which the Senior Center is to
construct its Edmonds Waterfront Center Building and consistings of 2.63____ sq.ft. As used in this
Lease, the term "Improvements" shall mean all buildings, driveways, sidewalks, infrastructure
improvements, utilities, paved or unpaved parking areas (collectively "Parking Lot"), landscaping
and any other enhancements located on the Property or to be located on the Property during the term
of this Lease and made to the Property by the Senior Center.
1.1.1 Easement For Parking. Senior Center shall have an easement over and across
the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit B (the
“Parking Lot Easement”) for ingress, egress and parking.
1.1.2 Easement For Access and Utilities. Senior Center shall have an easement
over, under and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C (the “Access and Utility Easement”) to allow access for people, vehicles and
utilities to and from the Property.
1.1.3 Easement For Construction. Senior Center shall have a temporary easement
over, under and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
11
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
forth in Exhibit D (the “Construction Easement”) to allow for construction activities to occur during
the building of the Edmonds Waterfront Center Building and ancillary facilities.
1.2 Use of the Property.
1.2.1 Allowed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as
otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of building
and operating a non- profit community resource center (to be known as the “Edmonds Waterfront
Center”) serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise
vulnerable seniors and other members of the community.
1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to
time utilize portions of the Property for revenue-generating activities including, but not limited to,
rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated
therefrom are utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1,
above.
1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds shall
be given access to the Edmonds Waterfront Center bBuilding so it may offer recreational and other
programs to the public. The City will be allowed use Monday through Thursday, 4:00pm - close, and
other times as mutually agreed upon with the Lessee. The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a
regular on-going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine
whether there is any unprogrammed (surplus) time after accounting for each party's program needs
during that party's first-priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining
unprogrammed first-priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center
acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the building are a public park and shall remain open to the
public subject to the City's reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc.
SECTION 2. TERM
2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease ("Lease Term") shall extend for a period of
Forty (40) years commencing on ______, 201_, and terminating on ________, 20_, subject to the
right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein.
2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an
additional period of Fifteen (15) years
2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the
Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease
Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one
hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term.
2.2.2 Process for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days
and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior
Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
12
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of
the Lease Term to confirm the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a
Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining
to the Extension Term.
SECTION 3. RENT
3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the
Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such
sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten
(10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease.
The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center's operation of the Senior
Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as
to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the
Senior Center's mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the
City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the
poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or
loaning of public funds.
SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS
4.1 Construction of Improvements.
4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no
demolition, construction, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior
written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City to withhold or deny. In
applying its discretion, the City shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City
Council, the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2 as well as the Property's
functionality as a park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart
from the City's regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this
subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City's regulatory discretion is limited. Any
deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. Improvements
constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior
Center's property until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term,
together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become
the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its
option. The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its
footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider, and
may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action.
The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process
until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved by
the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings
of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the
construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the design development
phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that
are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
13
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
proposed changes to the facility's footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council
approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred
until the approval of the next phase. In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning
decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute
resolution provisions in Section 9.18.
4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above,
no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary
governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy
permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's
occupancy of the Property.
4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the
earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section
4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun
within one (1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will
grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as
Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance
of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an
event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure
by the City to allow Senior Center's construction to commence in a timely manner in which
case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of
construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be
done in a good workman-like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building,
land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If
requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center
shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as-built drawings of the completed Work,
in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington.
All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington.
4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior
Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the SeniorEdmonds Waterfront Center Improvements
located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and
appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of
this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough
inspection of the SeniorEdmonds Waterfront Center Improvements on the Property and City shall
inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain
the quality of any SeniorEdmonds Waterfront Center Improvements to the Property, reasonable
wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable
dispatch. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be
required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the
Improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences.
4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services,
materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the
Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
14
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in
an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the
lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an
Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the
obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall
immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center
shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval
of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it
has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the
city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the
construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and
suppliers will be paid.
4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and
shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely
responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may
need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible
for the cost of extending any existing utility lines into the Property; the Property, as made
available to Senior Center by the City, shall include utility access for water, sewer, electrical
power and telephone to the edge (back of curb) of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely
responsible for meeting and securing all permits and for meeting all requirements necessary to
achieve all of the above.
4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign
ordinances. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this
Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all
or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term
and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code
requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements.
SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS
5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the
Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to
occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all
provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration
Date of this Lease.
5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's
obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of
condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise
not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if
approval is granted this quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to senior center's sub lessees.
5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding
the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for
Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
15
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own
feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed
and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center's commencement of construction,
whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking
possession.
5.4 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Design, Construction and Repair
Obligations.
5.4.1 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Design. The City and Senior
Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements that meets the
requirements for the Senior Center's Building as well as the City's Regional Park facilities. The
parties anticipate that the Parking Lot will have one hundred (I 00) parking spaces but the final
number shall be determined by a parking study undertaken, if needed, by the City and Senior Center,
jointly. The parking study shall specifically consider the needs of the Senior Center and the City's
Regional Park designation for the Property. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into
the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking
demands for the Senior Center Property and the City's Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot
and the Frontage Improvements design shall incorporate all aspects necessary for construction
including, without limitation, storm drainage, and shall be developed and permitted in coordination
with the Senior Center/Community Center facility, including but not limited to the schematic
design and design development approval process set forth in Section 4.1, above. The costs of
planning and design of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements shall be paid by the City.
5.4.2 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Construction. The City shall design,
permit, solicit and engage a general contractor andand Senior Center shall share equally inpay the
cost of construction of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements onadjacent to and which serves
the Property according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above.
The Senior Center's contractor shall build the Parking Lot as part of Senior Center's construction
of its Building and related improvements, with the City shall pay its share. The Parking Lot and
Frontage Improvements must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center's Building so that
it is complete before the Building and related improvements are occupied. Except as specified
herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of the Property or for
construction of any roadways, utilities or any other improvements on or off of the Property. Should
the City of its own accord undertake any repair or maintenance work on the Property itself, the
City shall take reasonable steps to do so in a manner that does not interfere with Senior Center's
use of the Property or create a constructive eviction or other eviction of the Senior Center. Any
repair on the Property outside of that described in Section 5.4.3, below, shall be the Senior Center's
responsibility and shall be made at the Senior Center's sole expense.
5.4.3 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Maintenance and Repair. The
City and the Senior Center shall have full share equal responsibility for repair, maintenance and
any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements after its initial
construction. The City and Senior Center shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot
and Frontage Improvements consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and
appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot and Frontage
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
16
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
Improvements in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking
Lot and/or Frontage Improvements to good condition during the Lease Term, the City and Senior
Center shall undertake such capital improvements.
5.4.4 Beach Restoration and Walkway. The City has other areas of its Regional
Park that are located adjacent to the Property. Two of these other areas are the City Beach and the
City Walkway. The City is undertaking a beach restoration project for its City Beach area and it
shall complete that restoration project and pay the cost thereof. The City shall also complete the
design, permitting, construction of and payment for the City Walkway project in and around the
Edmonds Waterfront Center Building, its grounds and any ancillary facilities.
5.4.5 Senior Center's Location within Regional Park Grounds and Park
Maintenance Responsibility. The Property is owned by the City and has been designated a
regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds
surrounding the Senior Center, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not
inclusive of the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility). This park area will be within the
limited control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds
surrounding the facility may constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that
there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity
to occur on the site. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior
Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The
Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds unless it has obtained the
applicable event permit from the City. The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance
of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City's allowed use of the Building, the City
may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building (i.e.
utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.).
SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE
6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior
Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and
hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or
liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages,
expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and
escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or
claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in
any way connected with Senior Center's use of the PremisesProperty, or from the conduct of
Senior Center's business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by
Senior Center in or about the PremisesProperty, except only such injury or damage as shall
have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or
negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation,
management or control of the Property by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about
the Property by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident,
injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property after the Effective Date; any breach,
violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior
Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub
lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property. The Senior Center's obligations and
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
17
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the
Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees
on the Property. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to
include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents
and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees
and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City.
6.2 Insurance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the
duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property
which may arise from or in connection with the Senior Center's operation and use of the leased
PremisesProperty. LesseeSenior Center's maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall
not be construed to limit the liability of the LesseeSenior Center to the coverage provided by such
insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The
amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to
accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance
required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements:
6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement
Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory
endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement,
evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must
receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Center shall
provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business
days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or
allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City.
Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and
any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also
be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request.
6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in
each required policy using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG
20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to
the Property, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be
invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way
be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's
insurance premiums.
6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies are to contain or be endorsed to
contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance,
or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
6.2.4 Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by
companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30)
days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
18
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.VI
drops below such rating.
6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide
and maintain the following types of coverage:
6.3.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an
occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form
contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the
City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal
injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring
on or in any way related to the Property or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior
Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional
Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing
equivalent coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less
than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability
insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and
shall cover premises and contractual liability.
6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect
during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment,
and all other Improvements located on the Property. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One
Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions.
Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its full interest
in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with
Section 6.4.
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
11
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.V1
6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of
Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations
conducted on the Property an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center
and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property,
including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading
of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non-owned vehicles on and around the Property.
Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of
not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence.
6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force
Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the
Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property, including coverage for
Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance
program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers'
Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the
self-insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the
Property since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property. In
that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides
workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property and Senior Center shall fully
defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim.
6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect
during construction of Senior Center's facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance
covering interests of the Senior Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub-
subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall
insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including
flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris
removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the
Property; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work
being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than
Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher
deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by
the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the
City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be
maintained until final acceptance of the work.
6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge
each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by
property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall
apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance.
6.5 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits
and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms
should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days' notice of
such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance
requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
12
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements
for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City
with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within
thirty (30) days.
6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to
maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the
City may, after giving five business days' notice to the Senior Center to correct the breach,
terminate the Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all
premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand.
SECTION7. DEFAULT
7.1 Senior Center Default.
7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a
material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center:
7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandonment of the
Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days.
7.1.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any
payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease,
as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written
notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center.
7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any
purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property
shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for
default.
7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or
perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the
Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center's utilization of the
Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure
shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the
Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center's default is such that more than
thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed
to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period
and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion.
7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior
Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may:
7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center's right to
possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days;
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
13
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center's right to
possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall
have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all
Landlord's right and remedies under this Lease; and/or
7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter
available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves
the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages
caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center's default or breach.
7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action
(including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy,
receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this
Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this
Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein,
receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to
perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in no
event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided,
that if the nature of the City's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for
performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such
thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice
shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the
Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further
agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed.
SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS
8.1 Representations of Senior Center.
8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation
under the laws of the State of Washington.
8.1.2 Senior Center's execution, delivery and performance of all of the
terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on
the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center's legal, valid and binding
obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects
of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor's rights and
to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior
Center's Articles of lncorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents.
8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or,
to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal
determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center's authority or right to enter into
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
14
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease.
8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other
intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in
connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease.
8.2 Representations of the City.
8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in
good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own
and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant
to this Lease.
8.2.2 The City's execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been
duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law.
8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the
actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial
determination or injunction that calls into question the City's authority or right to enter into this
Lease.
SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS
9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a
partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes
no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The
provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining
the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City.
9.2 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the
laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be
in Snohomish County.
9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to
this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease
gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third
parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship
with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of
any third parties as a result of this Lease.
9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in
writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement
in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City
at:
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
15
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
The City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: City Clerk
And to Senior Center at:
Edmonds Senior Center
P.O. Box 717
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Executive Director
Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the
addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be
conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The
addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change
in accordance with this notice provision.
9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence
to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease.
9.6 Non-waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any
provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's
right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision.
9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to,
indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not
specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant
or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination
of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter.
9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected
thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent
permitted by law.
9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day
which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday
observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude
Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1.
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
16
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience
in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease.
9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.
9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the
parties hereto.
9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another
that if a broker's commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any
commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such
claim.
9.14 Right of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies
provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the
terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and
"Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall
apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto.
9.15 Execution of Multiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument.
9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text
of this Lease.
9.17 No Limit on City's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the
power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers
of eminent domain.
9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this
Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as
required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any
arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The
mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non-
binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good
faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party
requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to
agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of
the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator
shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a
settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation.
9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease.
The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety.
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
17
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
Parties.
9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the
9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City
and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed
by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any
representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease,
except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall
be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of,
any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all
oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been
extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting
issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party.
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
18
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of
the day, month and year first written above.
LESSEE: LESSOR:
EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER. THE CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
By: David Earling
As Its Mayor
Its: _______________________
APPROVED BY CITY
COUNCIL ON:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Counsel for the City of Edmonds
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
City Clerk
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me,
and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was
authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to
be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED:
PRINTED NAME:
NOTARY PUBLIC
___
In and for the State of Washington.
My commission expires:
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
19
BNC\1 6830\0002\00764457.VI
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
I certify that I have evidence that is the person who appeared
before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he
was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds
Senior Center, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned
in the instrument.
DATED:
PRINTED NAME:
NOTARY
PUBLIC
In and for the State of Washington.
My commission expires:
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
20
BNC\16830\0002\00764457.Vl
--------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT A
Property Description
Property
Descriptio
n
SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2
TH NELYON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 OOW 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN
TH S51*23 OOW ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51*23 OOE ALG
MEA LN
288.33FT THN47*32 OOW 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00
OOW ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 OOE 287.94FT TPB
TGW FDT
-COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY
ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH
NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP
-------AT R/ A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73
---------
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Red line Lease and Option(00972494) Revisions 06 08 2018 [Revision 1] (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal)
Waterfront Redevelopment/Sr Ctr parking lot/Frontage improvements
Expenditures
2017 2018 2019 Total 2020
Design - Waterfront $248,987.00 $674,668.00 $275,000.00 $293,537.00 $106,131.00
Design Parking Lot $116,040.00
Design/Frontage $106,131.00
Design Ebb Tide $203,510.00
Environmental Permitting $75,000.00 $75,000.00
Construction - Ebb tide $1,371,033.00 $1,371,033.00
TCE Ebb Tide TBD TBD
Construction -Parking Lot $1,354,013.00 $1,354,013.00
Construction - Waterfront $2,129,118.00 $2,129,118.00
Construction -frontage $291,554.00 $291,554.00
Engineering Staff $180,000.00 $50,000.00 $80,000.00 $50,000.00
Building Permit costs $70,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00
Total $6,145,386.00 $350,000.00 $343,537.00 $4,010,816.00 $4,704,353.00 $1,441,033.00
Revenue
Fund 125 $525,000.00 $125,000.00 $455,887.00 $291,033.00
Fund 126 $125,000.00 $150,000.00 $164,598.00 $250,000.00
Park Impact Fees $500,000.00 $250,000.00 $350,000.00 $150,000.00
WWRP $500,000.00 $750,000.00
ALEA $500,000.00
Snohomish County $125,000.00
Sr Ctr: 50% design for Parking lot and frontage $111,085.00
Sr. Ctr: 50% construction for parking lot, frontage $822,783.00
Total $1,150,000.00 $636,085.00 $2,918,268.00 $4,704,353.00 $1,441,033.00
Ttl cost for Parking lot and Frontage: $1,867,736 Ttl for Sr. Ctr.$933,868.00
9.2.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Waterfront Redevelopment and Sr Ctr parking lot draft budget [Revision 1] (Senior Center
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/24/2018
Critical Area Ordinance Update
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff verifying Council's intent to have the most recent Department of Ecology
wetland guidance incorporated within the city's wetland regulations.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds completed a comprehensive review of its critical area ordinance (CAO) as required
by the Growth Management Act in May 2016 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland
section of the CAO (ECDC 23.50) was developed from Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002 Wetlands &
CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. In June 2016, Ecology issued new guidance for wetlands under
Publication No. 16-06-001 Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. At the time, the City was also in the
process of a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council desired to
have the most current wetland regulations apply within shoreline jurisdiction, so certain wetland
sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP (which means they do not apply in shoreline
jurisdiction). Within the SMP, wetland regulations consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001 were
provided to replace the excepted sections. As a result the City of Edmonds has two versions of wetland
regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline
jurisdiction.
The City of Edmonds is required to complete a periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program by June
2019. In order to provide consistent regulations throughout the City, as part of the work program
adopted by the City Council for the SMP periodic review, the City identified updating the COA wetland
provisions excepted from the SMP to be consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001. The intent being
that when the SMP is revised, the City will adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland
regulations will apply to the entire City.
History almost repeated itself. The Planning Board held a public on the updated wetland regulations
consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001 on July 11, 2018 and forwarded a recommendation to City
Council. On July 12, 2018, I received the email included in Exhibit 1 notifying local governments about
updated guidance from the Department of Ecology with regard to the wetland buffer sections in the
2016 guidance. The email and FAQ (Exhibit 2) from Ecology’s wetland regulations web page note that,
“If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use these
9.3
Packet Pg. 386
modified wetland buffer tables in your update.”
Given that the work schedule for the SMP Periodic Review specifically referenced updating the wetland
regulations consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001, staff wishes to verify that the City Council would
like the most current wetland guidance from the Department of Ecology to be incorporated into the
critical area regulations and ultimately the SMP. The City Council's final decision on the critical area
regulations update will take place later.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - July 12, 2018 Email "News for local governments about Ecology’s CAO guidance"
Exhibit 2 - 2018 Department of Ecology Wetland Guidance FAQ
Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001
9.3
Packet Pg. 387
From:ECY RE Wetlands Information (SEA)
To:WETLANDS-INFORMATION@LISTSERV.ECOLOGY.WA.GOV
Subject:News for local governments about Ecology’s CAO guidance
Date:Thursday, July 12, 2018 4:50:18 PM
News for local governments about Ecology’s CAO guidanceIf you are a local government planner or consultant working on updating a local jurisdiction’s CriticalAreas Ordinance (CAO), the following information is likely important to your work.
The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) modified the habitat ranges in our wetland buffertables. We also made minor text changes to ensure consistency.
· Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Western Washington Version. See July 2018 modified
sections XX.040 and XX.050 - Western Washington.
· Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates: Eastern Washington Version. See July 2018 modified
sections XX.040 and XX.050 - Eastern Washington.
· Wetlands in Washington State – Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing
Wetlands.
o See July 2018 Appendix 8-C with modified habitat score ranges.
o See July 2018 Appendix 8-D with modified habitat score ranges.
The changes are also posted on our local wetland regulations web page. Why were the changes made?We made the change based on public feedback and our review of the reference wetland data usedto calibrate the rating system. Our preference is to maintain similar distributions between the 2004and 2014 versions of the Washington State Wetland Rating System. In our previous wetland buffer tables, low habitat function was represented by a score of 3 or 4points and moderate habitat function by a score of 5 to 7 points. However, after we conducted a detailed analysis of habitat scores for the 211 reference wetlandsused to calibrate the rating system, we found that wetlands scoring 3, 4, or 5 points for habitat aremore similarly distributed to those scoring ≤ 19 points in the 2004 version. This information prompted us to adjust the habitat score break points in the current wetland buffertables. The modified tables now group habitat scores of 3 to 5 into low habitat function and scoresof 6 and 7 into moderate habitat function. In most cases, revising an existing CAO is not neededIf you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use thesemodified wetland buffer tables in your update. If you have recently completed your CAO update, the wetland buffer tables do not need to berevised at this time. Both the previous and modified buffer tables recommended by Ecology are consistent with bestavailable science and with Ecology’s moderate risk approach to wetland protection. Depending on your jurisdiction’s specific circumstances, you could consider requiring the use of themodified tables through an administrative decision. You could also wait until your next update toadopt the tables. Applying for a local permitIf you are applying for a local permit, check with the local jurisdiction to see which wetland buffertables are in effect.
9.3.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - July 12, 2018 Email "News for local governments about Ecology’s CAO guidance" (Critical Area Ordinance Update -
More informationIf you have questions about these wetland buffer table modifications, please contact Donna Buntenat donna.bunten@ecy.wa.gov or 360-407-7172. Our wetland guidance for local governments may also be useful. Please share this email with others you think may be interested.________________________________________________________________You received this message because you subscribe to the WashingtonState Department of Ecology’s Wetlands-Information listserv. To unsubscribe from Wetlands-Information, go tohttp://listserv.ecology.wa.gov/scripts/wa-ECOLOGY.exe?A0≤WETLANDS-INFORMATION(you can also subscribe here). For more information on wetlands, go to Ecology's Wetlands home page: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands.
Ecology logo
Visit us on the web and follow our news and social media.
Subscribe or Unsubscribe
9.3.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - July 12, 2018 Email "News for local governments about Ecology’s CAO guidance" (Critical Area Ordinance Update -
9.3.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - 2018 Department of Ecology Wetland Guidance FAQ [Revision 1] (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland
9.3.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - 2018 Department of Ecology Wetland Guidance FAQ [Revision 1] (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland
Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates
Western Washington Version
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Publication and Contact Information
This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1606001.html
For more information contact:
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-6600
Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov
o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000
o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000
o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300
o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490
o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400
To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call
the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with
hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability
can call 877-833-6341.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
By
Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
This page is purposely left blank
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Table of Contents
Summary .......................................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................... 2
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ............................. 3
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA ................................ 4
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ................................ 4
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 4
DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4
IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS .................................................... 5
REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 7
EXEMPTIONS .................................................................................................................... 7
FOREST PRACTICES .......................................................................................................... 9
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................. 9
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts .......................... 10
WETLANDS INVENTORY ................................................................................................. 10
ABCS ............................................................................................................................. 10
BUFFERS ......................................................................................................................... 11
BUFFER AVERAGING ...................................................................................................... 13
MITIGATION ................................................................................................................... 13
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 14
Mitigation Banking ............................................................................................... 15
In-Lieu Fee (ILF) .................................................................................................. 15
Off-Site Mitigation ................................................................................................ 16
Advance Mitigation ............................................................................................... 16
Conclusion ..................................................................................... 16
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
This page is purposely left blank
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 1
Summary
This publication replaces Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Western
Washington Version), Publication No. 10-06-002, January 2010. It also replaces the 1st
revision dated July 2011 and the 2nd revision dated October 2012.
This new publication, for the most part, contains the same guidance as the “small cities guidance” referenced above. Over the last few years, it became obvious that the
information in that document could apply to all cities and counties, not just small cities.
However, the wetland buffer table may be too restrictive for county use because it
assumes that adjacent land use intensity is high. Counties and larger cities generally have more staff and resources that allow more sophisticated approaches to assigning wetland buffers.
In addition, these jurisdictions may be able to provide additional protection for habitat
function by requiring protected wildlife corridors between the wetland and other priority habitats in exchange for buffer reduction—something that is often impossible in small, urban jurisdictions.
Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your
particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
Specific changes to this new publication include:
• Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating
system
• Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used
• Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in
exchange for buffer reduction
• Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities
• Revisions to exemptions for small wetlands
• Recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP
jurisdictions
• Addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance
• Corrected links to resource documents and web pages
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 2
Introduction
This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland
protection program for jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their critical areas
ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements.
Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA.
We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources
necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate
and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the
GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands.
The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in
the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection
based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates
these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please
note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction’s naming and numbering system. There are several generic “XX” references throughout the text.)
Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations.
This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in
regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of
Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development) in November 2003 http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pdf. This document revises the
wetland-specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook.
The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate
for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county’s rate of growth,
the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the
ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find
Ecology’s wetland specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 3
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection
Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a
comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington
Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a
two-volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands:
● Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, Olympia,
WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over
17,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer-reviewed works relevant
to the management of Washington’s wetlands.
● Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia,
WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local
government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory language that is based on BAS. We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its
appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please
note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.)
In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers. The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the
conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis.
• Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013.
Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance
document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in Washington State:
● Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and
Guidance (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
#06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies’ permitting
decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies’ policies of wetland mitigation,
particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use
to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate.
● Wetland Mitigation in Washington State–Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans
(Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011b,
Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing
plans for compensatory mitigation.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 4
Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for western Washington. The rating
system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for
protection.
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29,
Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Links to all of these documents can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/index.html.
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA
You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the
CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology
does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The
SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring
Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the “no net loss of ecological functions” requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)).
You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter
the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the
CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP.
For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the
shoreline planner for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html.
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter
Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below
we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our
recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science.
Purpose
The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria, which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and
rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this
chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to
implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands.
Definitions
Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 5
definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state
law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms
will make ordinance implementation easier.
Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands
The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them.
In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use
the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(21): “Wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-
wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage
ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland
areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
Wetlands are subject to a local government’s regulatory authority if they meet the criteria in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated
wetlands. These wetlands can provide critical functions and habitat and should be
regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of
wetlands.
Irrigation practices, such as the Irrigation District ditches in Sequim, can result in human-
created wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural
sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were
intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in
the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local
changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation
influences. Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/irrigation.html for more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation-influenced wetlands.
Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands
as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use.
These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 6
(such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to minimize the loss of
wetland area and function.
Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are
over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it
cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above
definition of “wetland.” Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is
important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other
maps be identified in the future.
State laws require that wetlands protected under the GMA and the SMA be delineated
using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (RCW 36.70A.175; RCW 90.58.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in
1997 (WAC 173-22-080) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual
and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters.
During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state
and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state
delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that
delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and
regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011.
The GMA states that “wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted
pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the
department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380.” RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of
Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html.
Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them. However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate
level of protection to particular types of wetlands and avoid the “one-size-fits-all”
approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the
criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3).
The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Effective January 2015), (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, October 2014) is a useful
tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised
rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better
understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. It provides a quick “snapshot” characterization of a particular wetland. In many
cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 7
adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of
a separate wetland functional assessment.
While local governments are not required to use Ecology’s revised rating system, we strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most
qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and
federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by
eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you
choose not to use the state’s wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3).
We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands.
This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to
Appendix A, Section XX.020.B.1-4 for the specific category descriptions.
Regulated Uses and Activities
Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or
dredging of material of any kind; draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water
level, or water table; the construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any
structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance. Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place
before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO
adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn’t, you should adopt a separate
clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community, Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Clearing-and-Grading-Technical-Guidance-Final-2005.pdf.
Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09 are exempted from the provisions of a wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other
use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate.
Exemptions
Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are
regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that
will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and
buffers, the responsible party should be required to obtain after-the-fact permits and to
rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general
exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions
may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific exemptions in the wetlands section.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 8
Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a
wetland’s structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those that
are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider
the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation.
The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full
range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions
should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an
exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language
should clearly state whether a given activity is exempt from applicable standards in the
code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code.
Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly.
For more information on this topic, please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington
State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication #05-06-008,
Olympia, WA, April 2005:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0506008.html).
The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that
meet the GMA-required definition of “wetland” (see the definition of “wetland” in the
previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by
your CAO. Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for
more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands.
The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size.
While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are
to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone
what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is
present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT
exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts.
If an in-lieu fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (see page
15), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent a net loss of wetland function from impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction.
Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property.
For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf .
You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 9
use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you
decide to incorporate your CAO into your SMP when the latter document is
updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency.
Forest Practices
Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act.
Agricultural Activities
In 2011 the Washington Legislature created the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as
an alternative for meeting GMA requirements related to protecting critical areas and
agricultural lands. In 2015 the state provided funding for participating counties to begin the
VSP planning process. For more information on this program, see
http://www.scc.wa.gov/voluntary-stewardship/.
For the GMA update cycle beginning 2015, some counties will begin addressing critical
area issues related to agriculture through a VSP work plan.
If your jurisdiction is not in a participating county or not in a participating watershed, then you must review and revise your development regulations for protecting wetlands as they
apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 36.70A.710).
If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA
responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will be achieved through the VSP work plan.
However, it is important to keep in mind that federal and state regulations, such as the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Pollution Control Act are still applicable in all jurisdictions
regardless of participation or non-participation in the VSP. The VSP does not alter the responsibility of property owners to meet water quality standards, protect wetlands, and
comply with state and federal environmental regulations.
Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions:
“Existing and ongoing agricultural activities” are often exempted from the provisions of a
CAO. These activities should be clearly defined and should not include removing trees,
diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading,
or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands
that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the
same regulations that govern new development.
Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation plans, and incentive-based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near
wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 10
minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and
wildlife habitat.
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts
Wetlands Inventory
You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your
planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-
06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014) and the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at:
• http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/ratingsystems/index.html (rating
systems)
• http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html (delineation manual and supplements)
While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such
information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition.
This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape-
analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for
critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.B in the sample ordinance.)
ABCs
The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized
as the A-B-C Approach, or Avoid-Buffer-Compensate. This means that a CAO should
contain language to ensure that:
1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable.
2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land-use impacts.
3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced.
Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to
wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided,
minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 11
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and/or
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Buffers
Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for
establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may
seem.
The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to
evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are:
1. The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment, nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or resting habitat for wetland-dependent species; etc.).
2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts.
3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation).
The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For
example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a
low-quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and nesting habitat for common wetland-dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or
amphibians in a high-quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a
buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the
necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions (based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental characteristics of the existing buffer.
Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions.
Ecology’s complete buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 12
in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). We recommend using the tables
shown in the sample ordinance.
Tables XX.1 and XX.3 are derived from the more-detailed tables in Volume 2. They are easy to use and are based on BAS. This approach provides the important balance of
predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying
the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland
category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those
wetlands that do not have much wildlife use.
Table XX.1 requires the use of the minimizing measures in Table XX.2. These measures
are intended to reduce the impacts of the adjacent land use on the wetland. If impacts are
reduced, the size of the buffer required to protect the wetland’s functions can be reduced.
The buffer widths in Table XX.1 represent a 25% reduction in our recommended buffers in Volume 2.
Table XX.1 also requires the protection of a wildlife corridor between wetlands that score
5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly
applicable in large or rural jurisdictions where species need to have access to other habitats to meet their life needs. A buffer is the usual means of providing this necessary
habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will
have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas,
the best solution is a landscape-based approach that takes into account actual species use
and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach, jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter.
If your jurisdiction is small and urban, providing a wildlife corridor may not be an option.
You should consult with Ecology wetland staff to determine whether using Tables XX.1
and XX.2 alone will provide adequate protection for your wetland functions.
Table XX.3 shows the buffer widths required if the minimizing measures in Table XX.2
are not implemented and if a wildlife corridor is not protected. These buffers are wider
than those in Table XX.1, because the impacts to the wetland functions are potentially
greater.
The buffer tables XX.1 and XX.3 do not consider land-use intensity in the buffer
calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate
intensity. However, if your jurisdiction has an activity that can be considered low
intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should
be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a “low-intensity” buffer is not
appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Of course, if your jurisdiction
includes rural land uses, you should consider using the buffer tables in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014).
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 13
Some wetland types listed in the buffer tables may not be present in your jurisdiction
(e.g., coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these
wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future
annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer tables.
You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on
wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most-sensitive
wetlands from the most-damaging land-use impacts. Please refer to Table 8C-1 of
Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014) for this example.
Ecology’s buffer recommendations are based on a moderate-risk approach to protecting
wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be
impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high-risk approach, and you need to be prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of
protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk.
Ecology’s buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the
buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased.
Buffer Averaging
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width
of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel.
We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report
should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the
wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer.
If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further
reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Mitigation
Applicants are required by state and federal permitting agencies to show that they have followed mitigation sequencing and have first avoided and minimized impacts to
wetlands wherever practicable. Your CAO should include the definition of mitigation
sequencing and require applicants to demonstrate that they have applied avoidance and
minimization. For more information and sample checklists, see
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/avoidance.html.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 14
Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your
CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the
mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and
reporting requirements for mitigation plans.
Ecology’s recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland
category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area for mitigation
than the wetland area that will be impacted helps offset both the risk that compensatory
mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more-detailed
tables in Part 1 of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State, Parts 1 and 2 (Ecology Publications #06-06-011a & b, March 2006).
As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has developed a credit-debit tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project
adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool
is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of
the mitigation process:
1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered (debits), and
2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation
(credits).
The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit-debit
method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland
mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and
worksheets can be downloaded at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/creditdebit/index.html.
In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The
rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of
compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in-lieu fee programs. For more
information on the federal rule, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm.
By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you
will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal
permits.
Mitigation Alternatives
Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on-site concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project
site (off-site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using
third-party mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in-lieu-fee programs.
Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 15
for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this
time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be
effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions.
Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological
principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language
in your CAO that enables your government to allow such out-of-jurisdiction mitigation
opportunities.
In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of
development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of
Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more
information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: Commerce
Regional Assistance Teams.
Mitigation Banking
A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, and/or other aquatic resource areas
have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the
purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A
mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to
compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a
check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the
mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps,
Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits.
Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The
purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation, and
monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the
rule, see Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/index.html.
In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting
project-specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to
compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best
interest of the environment.
An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions lost or degraded as a result of the permittee’s project. Fees are typically held in trust until
sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit
organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency
with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF
program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 16
permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology’s website at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/mitigation/ilf.html.
Off-Site Mitigation
This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that generates impacts to wetlands. Off-site mitigation is generally allowed when on-site mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable.
The 2008 federal rule on compensatory mitigation requires that some type of watershed
approach be used in siting mitigation. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have developed guidance to help applicants select potential off-site mitigation sites. To download a copy of this guidance, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed
Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-032, December 2009),
please see https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0906032.html.
Advance Mitigation
When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future
known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as “advance mitigation.” Advance
mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in
distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance
mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios.
Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways.
Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee’s
specific project (or projects) with pre-identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific “service” area. The
advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be
sold unless it is changed to a wetland bank. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps have
developed guidance to help applicants develop advance mitigation proposals. To
download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206015.html
Conclusion
We hope you find this information helpful. If you have questions about this document or
need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance update, please call Donna Bunten at (360) 407-7172 or donna.bunten@ecy.wa.gov.
You may also contact one of Ecology’s regional wetland specialists. They are available
to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations
to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 17
mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland
specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact the Department of Commerce at (360) 725-3000.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 18
This page is purposely left blank
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 19
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter
(Western Washington)
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 20
This page is purposely left blank
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 21
Subchapter XX.XX
Wetlands Sections: XX.010 Purpose
XX.020 Identification and Rating
XX.030 Regulated Activities XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
XX.060 Critical Area Reports
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
XX.010 Purpose
The purposes of this Chapter are to:
A. Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands,
which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing
habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing
storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality
through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments,
nutrients, and toxicants.
B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction).
C. Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to
wetlands.
1. Compliance with the provisions of the Chapter does not constitute
compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, HPA permits, Army Corps of Engineers Section
404 permits, NPDES permits). The applicant is responsible for
complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in
this Chapter.
XX.020 Identification and Rating
A. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of
their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. All areas within
the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Wetland delineations are
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 22
valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or
additional assessment is necessary.
B. Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of
Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for
determining whether the criteria below are met.
1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine
wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old-growth forested wetlands
larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands
that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands
that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more
sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed
and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a
human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions.
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal
wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3)
wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20
and 22 points).
3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be
adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project; and (3)
interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16
and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often
less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions
(scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are
wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve.
However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions,
and should be protected to some degree.
C. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal
modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant’s knowledge.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 23
XX.030 Regulated Activities
A. For any regulated activity, a critical areas report (see Chapter XX.060 of this
Chapter) may be required to support the requested activity.
B. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or
its buffer:
1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel,
minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind.
2. The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material.
3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table.
4. Pile driving.
5. The placing of obstructions.
6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure.
7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing,
harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of a regulated wetland.
8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992
Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222-
12-030, or as thereafter amended.
9. Activities that result in:
a. A significant change of water temperature.
b. A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the
sources of water to the wetland.
c. A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water
entering the wetland.
d. The introduction of pollutants.
C. Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands
and associated buffers are subject to the following:
1. Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 24
2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be
subdivided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new
lot is:
a. Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and
b. Meets the minimum lot size requirements of Chapter XX.XX.
XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
A. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (Chapter XX.070.A.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in Chapter XX.070.A.2 through 6. If available, impacts
should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program or
mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In
order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be submitted.
1. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated
buffers
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014
update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology)
e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Area1 for a Priority
Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or
species of local importance identified in Chapter XX.XX.
2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not
contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the
buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
1See page 6 of “Priority Habitat and Species List,” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia,
Washington. 177 pp.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 25
B. Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in
wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except
where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland
buffer. These activities include:
1. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, provided that they implement
applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the latest
editions of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG); or develop a farm conservation plan in coordination with the local conservation district. BMPs and/or
farm plans should address potential impacts to wetlands from livestock,
nutrient and farm chemicals, soil erosion and sediment control and
agricultural drainage infrastructure. BMPs and/or farm plans should
ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat.
2. Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State
Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030,
where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those developments requiring local approval for Class 4 – General Forest
Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222-
12.
3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or
functions of the existing wetland.
4. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
5. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer, provided that the
drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or
percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific
studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground
water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column will be disturbed.
6. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of non-native invasive
plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to
hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All
removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 26
disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of
according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re-
vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.
7. Educational and scientific research activities.
8. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint of the facility or right-
of-way.
9. Stormwater management facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID, Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP if ALL of the following criteria
are met:
a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III
wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and
b. There will be “no net loss” of functions and values of the
wetland, and
c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species, and
d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as
outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of
Chart 5 in the “Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach,” (available here:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is
part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals
identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or
regional watershed plan, and
e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the
discharge follows the natural routing, and
f. All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland
and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and
g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils
will require permits. Existing functions and values that are lost would have to be compensated/replaced.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 27
Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment
projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However,
these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site-
specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is feasible at the project site.
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland
and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.
1. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in
Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide
is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as
defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are available on the WDFW web site at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm )
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the
wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection
such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a
qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is
available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in
Table XX.2 alone.2
• The measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
2. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in Table
XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1
3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table
XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then
Table XX.3 must be used.
2 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 28
4. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 and XX.3 assume that the buffer is
vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If
the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with
invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer
should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are
provided.
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category I:
Based on total score 75 105 165 225
Category I: Bogs and Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
190 225
Category I:
Coastal Lagoons 150 165 225
Category I:
Interdunal 225
Category I:
Forested 75 105 165 225
Category I:
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
Based on score 75 105 165 225
Category II:
Interdunal Wetlands 110 165 225
Category II:
Estuarine
110
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 60 105 165 225
Category IV (all) 40
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 29
Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
(Measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal)
Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights • Direct lights away from wetland
Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation
plantings adjacent to noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining,
establish an additional 10’ heavily vegetated buffer strip
immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while
ensuring wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland
• Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing
adjacent development
• Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more
information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water
regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate
for the ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a
conservation easement
Dust • Use best management practices to control dust
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 30
Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category I:
Based on total score 100 140 220 300
Category I:
Bogs and Wetlands of High Conservation Value
250 300
Category I: Coastal Lagoons 200 220 300
Category I: Interdunal 300
Category I: Forested 100 140 220 300
Category I: Estuarine 200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
Based on score 100 140 220 300
Category II:
Interdunal Wetlands 150 220 300
Category II:
Estuarine
150
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all) 80 140 220 300
Category IV (all) 50
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 31
5. Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased
on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Administrator when a larger
buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This
determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the
wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the
following criteria:
a. The wetland is used by a state or federally listed plant or animal species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has
unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor
nesting trees; or
b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion-control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
c. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than
30 percent.
6. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when
all of the following conditions are met:
a. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its
habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a “dual-rated” wetland
with a Category I area adjacent to a lower-rated area.
b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of
habitat or more-sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower-functioning or less-sensitive portion as
demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland
professional.
c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either ¾ of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category
III, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
7. Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all
of the following are met:
a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 32
b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a
qualified wetland professional.
c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required
without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either ¾ of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
B. To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the
Administrator may identify and pre-assess wetlands using the rating system and establish
appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The Administrator will prepare maps of wetlands that have been pre-assessed in this manner.
C. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured
perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a
wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or
enhanced wetland. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area
calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be
considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations.
D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have
buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on
the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site.
E. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced
condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive non-native
weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond (Section XX.070.J.2.a.x).
F. Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers are outlined in Section XX.070 of this Chapter.
G. Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical
areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies.
H. Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland
buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Chapter, provided they are not
prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to
minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
1. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water,
vegetation, or wildlife.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 33
2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved
critical area report, including:
a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways are limited to
minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They
should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located
only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area,
and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non-treated pilings
may be acceptable.
b. Wildlife-viewing structures.
3. Educational and scientific research activities.
4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or
private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility
or right-of-way.
5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
6. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit
portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary,
provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to
the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column.
Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water
down through the soil column would be disturbed.
7. Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of non-native
invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be
restricted to hand removal. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on
the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds
must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan
appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species
at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 34
8. Repair and maintenance of non-conforming uses or structures, where
legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the
degree of nonconformity.
I. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers:
1. Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the
clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field with temporary “clearing limits” fencing in such a way
as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is
subject to inspection by the Administrator prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained
throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if
required, are in place.
2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued
pursuant to this Chapter, the Administrator may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and
attached to a metal post or another non-treated material of equal
durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty
(50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The
signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved
by the Administrator:
Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact [Local Jurisdiction]
Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship
b. The provisions of Subsection (a) may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Fencing
a. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the
wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site.
b. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this
Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species
migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner
that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 35
XX.060 Critical Area Report for Wetlands
A. If the Administrator determines that the site of a proposed development includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report
shall be borne by the applicant.
B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum:
1. The written report shall include at a minimum:
a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal;
identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland-related
permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project.
b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon.
c. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field
data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc.
d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland
delineations, wetland ratings, or impact analyses, including references.
e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the
proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate
conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best
available information. f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project
boundary, provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and
score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.B) of
this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion or estimate entire wetland
area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation
communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site
assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the
wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g.,
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 36
algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates,
classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not
only the portion present on the proposed project site.
g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of
acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field
delineation and survey and an analysis of site development
alternatives, including a no-development alternative.
h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and
buffers resulting from the proposed development.
i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation
sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.070.A) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas.
j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any
wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land-use activity.
k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that
addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland
functions.
l. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include
references for the method used and data sheets.
2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the written report and must include, at a minimum:
a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and
required buffers on site, including buffers for off-site critical areas that
extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; and areas of proposed impacts to
wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates).
b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and
outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall
contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s)
associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 37
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation.
A. Mitigation Sequencing. Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an
applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken. Actions are listed in the order of preference:
1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative
steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations. 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments.
6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective measures when necessary.
B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation:
1. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent
or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be
consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State–Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans—Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-
011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Subsection H of this Chapter.
3. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool
described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation
in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication
#10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with
subsection H of this Chapter.
C. Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall
address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve
functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 38
compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when
either:
1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through
a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or
2. Out-of-kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet
watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.
D. Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished
wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the approaches listed below.
1. Wetland mitigation banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a
wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed
if:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate
compensation for the proposed impacts; and
b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank.
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the certified mitigation bank instrument.
d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits is consistent with
replacement ratios specified in the certified mitigation bank instrument.
2. In-Lieu Fee Mitigation: Credits from an approved in-lieu-fee program
may be used when all of the following apply:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts.
b. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the approved in-lieu-fee program instrument.
c. Projects using in-lieu-fee credits shall have debits associated with the
proposed impacts calculated by the applicant’s qualified wetland
professional using the credit assessment method specified in the
approved instrument for the in-lieu-fee program.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 39
d. The impacts are located within the service area specified in the
approved in-lieu-fee instrument.
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation. In this situation, the permittee performs the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for
implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible
mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site
location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation
shall be used only if the applicant’s qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the approval authority’s satisfaction that the proposed
approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank or ILF program,
consistent with the criteria in this section.
E. Types of Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on a type listed below in order of preference. A lower-
preference form of mitigation shall be used only if the applicant’s qualified wetland
professional demonstrates to the approval authority’s satisfaction that all higher-ranked
types of mitigation are not viable, consistent with the criteria in this section.
1. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic
functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net
gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into:
a. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or
historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a
gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include
removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles.
b. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or
historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a
gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland.
2. Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site to develop a wetland on an upland or
deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation
of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod,
create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
a. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 40
authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the
applicant’s qualified wetland professional that:
i. The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that
creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic
problems elsewhere;
ii. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the
presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff,
noise, light, or other impacts); and
iii. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self-sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance.
3. Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific
function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water
quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat.
Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead
to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in
wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the
proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination
of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or
associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will
increase the wetland’s/buffer’s functions, how this increase in function will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland
functions at the mitigation site will be protected.
4. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation). Removing a threat to, or
preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, or repairing
water control structures or fences. This term also includes activities
commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not
result in a gain of wetland acres. Permanent protection of a Category I or
II wetland and associated buffer at risk of degradation can be used only if:
a. The approval authority determines that the proposed preservation is the
best mitigation option;
b. The proposed preservation site is under threat of undesirable ecological change due to permitted, planned, or likely actions that will not be
adequately mitigated under existing regulations;
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 41
c. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the
health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the
following features may be indicative of high-quality sites:
i. Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for
western Washington)
ii. Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (for example, bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands) or aquatic habitat that is rare
or a limited resource in the area;
iii. The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife
species; or also list has provides biological and/or hydrological connectivity;
iv. Provides biololgical and/or hydrological connectivity;
v. Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan.
d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided
through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural
land resource manager, such as a land trust.
e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative
mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are
adequate to protect the site.
f. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case-by-case
basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the
quality of the wetlands being preserved. Ratios for preservation as the
sole means of mitigation generally start at 20:1.
F. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall generally be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin and on the site of the
alteration except when the applicant can demonstrate that off-site mitigation is
ecologically preferable. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining
whether the proposal is ecologically preferable. When considering off-site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an
in-lieu-fee program, or advance mitigation.
1. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage
basin (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning
upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the
capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 42
include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer
conditions and required widths, available water to maintain anticipated
hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood
storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity);
2. On-site mitigation would require elimination of high-quality upland
habitat.
3. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved
wetland functions than the altered wetland.
4. Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless:
a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or
conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site;
or
b. Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank are used as
compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the certified bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu-fee program to compensate for the
impacts.
5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be
appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore,
compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or
enhancement of an atypical wetland. G. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory
mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will impact wetlands. At the
least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and
prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation
projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
1. The Administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in
completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation
when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified
wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that
could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction
difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing
plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater
survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 43
delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written
justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude
implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the City.
H. Wetland Mitigation Ratios3:
Category and Type of Wetland Creation or Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement
Category I:
Bog, Natural
Heritage site
Not considered
possible Case by case Case by case
Category I:
Mature Forested 6:1 12:1 24:1
Category I:
Based on functions 4:1 8:1 16:1
Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1
Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1
Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1
I. Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an
alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Parts I and II (Ecology Publication #06-06-011a-b, Olympia, WA,
March 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the “credit/debit” method developed by the Department of Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for
Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report, (Ecology
Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised).
3 Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through
creation or re-establishment. See Table 1a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance –Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as
revised). See also Paragraph D.4 for more information on using preservation as compensation.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 44
J. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or
buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall
be required, meeting the following minimum standards:
1. Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must
accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include
the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland
Reports (Section XX.060.B) of this Chapter.
2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report
and plan sheets that contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full
guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State– Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06-
011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised).
a. The written report must contain, at a minimum:
i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s)
of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation
concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal
wetland-related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity
map for the project.
ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands.
iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to
be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime,
vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and
functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of
this Chapter.
iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including
location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and
uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils,
landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions.
Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation
actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?).
v. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an
analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for
enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 45
Include illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic
conditions were used to determine the estimates of future
hydrologic conditions
vi. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall
goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the
targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
categories of wetlands.
vii. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities.
viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for years post-
installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring
schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by
year.
ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
wetlands after the development project has been implemented,
including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for
remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands).
x. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant
materials, construction materials, installation oversight,
maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual
monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for
a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring.
xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and
buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation
areas.
b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain,
at a minimum:
i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed
areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed
wetland and/or buffer compensation actions.
ii. Existing topography, ground-proofed, at two-foot contour
intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area(s). Also
include existing cross-sections (estimated one-foot intervals) of
wetland areas on the development site that are proposed to be
altered and for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer
compensation.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 46
iii. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including
future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by
dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water
regimes.
iv. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed
compensation areas. Also identify any zones where buffers are
proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards
identified in this Chapter.
v. A planting plan for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of
plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering
patterns, total number of each species by community type, and
timing of installation.
K. Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from
development.
L. Protection of the Mitigation Site. The mitigation area and any associated
buffer shall be located in a critical area tract or a conservation easement consistent with
Chapter XX.XX.
M. Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to
establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five
years. If a scrub-shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be
required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring
elements that ensure certainty of success for the project’s natural resource values and functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the
applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions
until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
N. Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre-identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented
according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality
regulations consistent with Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, Olympia, WA, December
2012).
O. Alternative Mitigation Plans. The Administrator may approve alternative
wetland mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority
restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative
mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of wetland functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter.
The Administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative
mitigation proposal:
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 47
1. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Ecology Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open
space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas.
3. Mitigation according to Section E is not feasible due to site constraints such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards.
4. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the
proposed mitigation site.
5. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving
compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan
shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in Section J.
6. The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the proposed use.
7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or
functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or
eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental alternative.
8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in
Section J.2.a.viii.
9. Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare
the plan.
10. The City may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over
the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately
safeguard critical areas.
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
A. When a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Chapter, all
ongoing development work shall stop, and the critical area shall be restored. The City
shall have the authority to issue a “stop-work” order to cease all ongoing development
work and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this
Chapter.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 48
B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain
stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall
be prepared by a qualified professional using the currently accepted scientific principles
and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in Subsection C below. The Administrator shall, at the applicant or other responsible
party’s expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate
plans shall be returned to the applicant or other responsible party for revision and re-
submittal.
C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. The following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if the
applicant or other responsible party can demonstrate that greater functions and habitat
values can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall
be restored, including water quality and habitat functions.
2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent
practicable.
3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types,
sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated
at the location of the alteration.
4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of this Chapter shall be submitted to the Administrator.
D. Site Investigations. The Administrator is authorized to make site inspections
and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator shall
present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property.
E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted
of violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
1. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Chapter is
committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any
development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall
constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the
statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. The civil penalty shall
be assessed at a maximum rate of $XX dollars per day per violation.
2. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 49
restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which
the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation
or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the
effectiveness of the restoration action.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 50
This page is purposely left blank
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 51
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions
(Western Washington)
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version
Page 52
This page is purposely left blank
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 53
Appendix B – Wetland Definitions
Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing – Those activities conducted on lands
defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops
and livestock, including but not limited to operation, maintenance and conservation
measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes
between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into
agricultural use are not part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing
when the area in which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural
use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered
in a federal or state soils conversation program. Alteration – Any human-induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its
buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing,
dredging, clearing of vegetation, construction, compaction, excavation, or any other
activity that changes the character of the critical area.
Best Available Science – Current scientific information used in the process to designate,
protect, or restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined
by WAC 365-195-900 through 925.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that:
(a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high
concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, or sediment;
(b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and
circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands;
(c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and
following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the
site for re-vegetation of disturbed areas; and
(d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas.
Bog – A low-nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as
described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA,
October 2014).
Buffer or Buffer Zone – The area contiguous with a critical area that maintains the
functions and/or structural stability of the critical area.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 54
Coastal Lagoon – A shallow body of water partly or completely separated from the sea
by a barrier beach that receives periodic influxes of salt water, as described in
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Critical Areas – Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: critical
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically
hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and this Chapter.
Creation – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to
develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously
exist. Creation results in a gain in wetland acreage and function. A typical action is the
excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
Cumulative Impacts or Effects – The combined, incremental effects of human activity
on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the
effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular
place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact
analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions.
Development – A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of
structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent
nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall
within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code.
Enhancement – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a wetland to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for
specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife
habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline
in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Examples are
planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site elevations to alter hydroperiods.
Estuarine Wetland – A vegetated wetland with a water regime that is predominately
tidal, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Functions and Values – The services provided by critical areas to society, including, but
not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife
habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 55
flows, wave attenuation, historical or archaeological importance, educational
opportunities, and recreation.
Growth Management Act – RCW 36.70A and 36.70B, as amended.
Hazardous Substances – Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the
physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-
100.
Impervious Surface – A surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water
into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non-vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an
increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre-development or pre-developed
conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops,
walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving,
gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
In-Kind Compensation – To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose
characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a
regulated activity.
In-Lieu-Fee Program – An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit
organization. Under an in-lieu-fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from
an individual or a number of individuals who are required to conduct compensatory
mitigation required under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor may use the funds
pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of the agreement to satisfy the permittees’ required mitigation.
Infiltration – The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil.
Interdunal Wetland – A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are
geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology.
Isolated Wetland – A wetland that is hydrologically isolated from other aquatic
resources, as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Isolated wetlands may perform important functions and are protected by state law (RCW 90.48) whether or not they are protected by federal law.
Mature and Old-Growth Forested Wetland – A wetland having at least 1 contiguous
acre of either old-growth forest or mature forest, as described in Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 56
Mitigation – Avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts.
Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
(c) Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and
habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation
of the project;
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
(e) Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
(f) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial
action when necessary.
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.
Monitoring – Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological,
hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of
required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various
methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data.
Native Vegetation – Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or
environment and were present before European colonization.
Off-Site Compensation – To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical
area has been impacted.
On-Site Compensation – To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a
critical areas has been impacted.
Ordinary High Water Mark – That mark which is found by examining the bed and
banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 57
Preservation – The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland
conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or
conservation easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural
protection. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres but may result in a gain in functions over the long term.
Project Area – All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be
disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed
structures. When the action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the
entire parcel, at a minimum.
Prior Converted Croplands – Prior converted croplands (PCCs) are defined in federal
law as wetlands that were drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated,
including the removal of woody vegetation, before December 23, 1985, to enable production of an agricultural commodity, and that: 1) have had an agricultural
commodity planted or produced at least once prior to December 23, 1985; 2) do not have
standing water for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season, and 3) have
not since been abandoned.
Qualified Professional – A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional
wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands
professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements,
preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and
implementing mitigation plans.
Re-establishment – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in
wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, plugging ditches, or
breaking drain tiles.
Rehabilitation – The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a
degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result
in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influence to a wetland.
Repair or Maintenance – An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design
of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged
condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not
included in this definition.
Restoration – Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including:
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 58
(a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat,
or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an
unauthorized alteration; and
(b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management
activities, or catastrophic events.
SEPA – Washington State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C RCW.
Service Area – The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific
mitigation bank or an in-lieu-fee program, as designated in its instrument.
Soil Survey – The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Species – Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as
commonly accepted by the scientific community.
Species of Local Importance – Those species of local concern designated by the City in Chapter XX.XX due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation.
Species, Listed -- Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state
endangered, threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 232-12-297 or page 6 of
“Priority Habitat and Species List,” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008,
Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.)
Stream – An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not
including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other
entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are used by salmonids or are used to convey a
watercourse naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain
water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of normal rainfall.
Unavoidable Impacts – Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.
Washington Administration Code (WAC) – Administrative rules implementing state
laws.
Wetlands – Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands
created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 59
of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Wetland of High Conservation Value – A wetland that has been identified by scientists
from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNHP) as an important ecosystem for maintaining plant diversity in Washington State. See http://www.dnr.wa.gov/data-
information-natural-heritage-features .
Wetland Mitigation Bank – A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources that typically are unknown at the time of certification to compensate for future,
permitted impacts to similar resources.
Wetland Mosaic – An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet
from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50% of the total
area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water.
9.3.c
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 (Critical Area Ordinance Update - Wetland Regulations)