2021-04-13 City Council - Full Agenda-28411.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
APRIL 13, 2021, 7:00 PM
DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING
PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN
ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART
PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE
ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE
AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND.
WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED
LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
JOINT MEETING
1. Joint Meeting with the Planning Board (40 min)
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 13, 2021
Page 1
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Proposed Amendments to New Tree Regulations (60 min)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 13, 2021
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/13/2021
Joint Meeting with the Planning Board
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council periodically meets with the Planning Board.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss topics of joint interest and provide the Board with guidance or feedback, as needed.
Narrative
This is a joint meeting with current members of the Planning Board. The Board has an extended agenda
(attached) indicating upcoming topics and meetings, as well as priorities for the coming year. The Board
would appreciate any feedback the Council would like to provide. The Board offers the following as a
summary of its activities and topics for potential discussion:
Brief review of activities undertaken since Last Joint meeting (7/20/20)
1) Public Hearings
a) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - New Chapter
b) Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for 21 Properties on 9th Ave. N
c) Proposal to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation From "Neighborhood
Commercial" to "Multi -Family - Medium Density for Two Vacant Parcels in Perrinville
d) Proposed 2021 - 2026 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plan
e) Tree Code
f) Code Amendment to Broaden Applicability of the Unit Lot Subdivision Process
g) Outdoor Dining interim zoning ordinance
2) Briefings
a) Regional Code Collaboration - EV Ready Codes Research Summary
b) Update on development activities in the city
c) Climate Goals Planning and status update
d) Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Updates
3) Joint Meetings
a) Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
III. Validate priorities
1) Code updates implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), including additional
work on the Tree Code(s)
2) Code updates reflecting Climate Plan Goals, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure
Packet Pg. 3
4.1
3) Housing - as directed by the Council
4) Low impact subdivision code updates
5) Code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development
6) Low impact / stormwater code review and update
7) Sustainable development codes review and updates
8) Parks and PROS Plan support
9) Further Highway 99 Implementation
10) Neighborhood Center Plans
11) Comprehensive Plan update prep
Continued areas of interest:
1) More public engagement
2) Increased youth involvement
III. Council feedback? How can we better serve you?
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 4
oV
1014, Items and Dates are subject to change
PLANNNS BOARD
Extended Agenda
April 13, 2021
Meeting Item
March, 2021
March Planning Board Retreat
10
March 1. Public Hearing on a code amendment to allow unit lot subdivisions
24 in the Downtown Business (BD) zones (File No. AMD2020-0003)
2. Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 17.75 ECDC, entitled
"Outdoor Dining," and a related section in Chapter 17.70 ECDC
2021
April Joint meeting with the City Council (potential)
13
April (No meeting due to Joint Meeting with City Council on April 13)
14
April 1. Tree programs and regulations: status and upcoming issues
28 (including developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark
Trees)
2.
May, 2021
May 1. Parks and PROS Plan updates
12 2
May 1. Development Activity Report
26 2. Tree programs and regulations: issues and code review (including
developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark Trees)
4.1.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
tune, cvci
June 1. Climate Action Plan and Outreach update
9 2. Possible Bicycle Storage standards for multifamily development
June 1. State legislative update
23 2. Tree programs and regulations: issues and code review (including
developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark Trees), with
potential public hearing schedule
July, 2021
July 1. Housing issues and code development overview / update
14 2. Tree programs and regulations: hearing preparation on issues and
code review (including developed properties, Heritage Trees and
Landmark Trees)
July 1. Tree programs and regulations: hearing preparation on issues and
28 code review (including developed properties, Heritage Trees and
Landmark Trees)
2.
August, LUL1
August 1. Climate Action Plan and Outreach update
11 2. Possible topics:
Bicycle Storage standards for multifamily development
EV Charging standards options for residential development
August 1. State legislative update
25 2. Tree programs and regulations: issues and code review (including
developed properties, Heritage Trees and Landmark Trees), with
public hearing schedule
Q
Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
2021 2. Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
3. Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs)
4. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
5. Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
6. Subdivision code updates
7. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
8. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
9. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
10. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Reports & Updates
3. Joint meeting with City Council — April?
4. Development Activity Report
5.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 7
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/13/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2021
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
03-23-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 8
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
March 23, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATION
1. INTELLECTUAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming the month of March as Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds, Washington, and asking its residents to recognize and include
in all activities our community members with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Chris Brandt, AtWork!, thanked the City for recognizing that people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities have much to contribute to Edmonds by proclaiming March Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness Month. AtWork! has supported over 300 people in getting good jobs that matched
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 9
7.1.a
their strengths and abilities. In the last couple of years, AtWork! has expanded to provide services in
Snohomish County and are working hard to support people with disabilities who live here to be fully
included as equal citizens and are looking forward to doing more work in Edmonds. They get people jobs
and support them to utilize their talents to be top notch employees and help businesses get their essential
work done.
Ms. Brandt explained during the pandemic, job coaches supported people with disabilities, many of whom
are essential workers in grocery stores, restaurants and other small businesses, to keep their jobs, to learn
how to use PPE and to learn new techniques for pandemic safety and protocols. Now that the state is phase
3, AtWork! is supporting more people returning to work every day and working with local businesses to
identify their needs and match them with the interests, strengths and dreams of persons with disabilities
who really want to work hard to make a difference in addition to helping communities build inclusive
workforces. As Edmonds proclaims, being included, making a contribution, and having a full and
meaningful life are important to everyone. AtWork! supports people with disabilities to find their place
within the community where they can be part of things, a club, a senior center, a volunteer group, an
employer, a business, and they are excited to continue to find those places in Edmonds and to bring the
robust richness of opportunity, relationships, inspiration and hope that true inclusivity promises.
Shayne Nagel, Director, ARC Snohomish County, was honored and thankful for this opportunity by
Mayor Nelson and Edmonds City Council. ARC is the resource of first choice for individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families regardless of their disability and at all stages of life. There are
10 ARCs in Washington State and 650 around the country. In Washington State, ARCS fiscal investment
ranks 41 st in the country, so the support that individuals receive is not great. Many people do receive support,
but there are also 1200 people waiting for help. The proclamation is a great step towards Edmonds looking
at the importance of people with developmental disabilities and providing support to them. ARC provides
many resources and support to families desperate to receive support services. The support ARC provides is
important for every member of the family including siblings, mom, dad, etc. which is why the proclamation
is so important. She raised her daughter who has severe autism in Edmonds and while it felt there would
never be a chance for her to be independent, they finally got there and she is doing well. Her daughter was
why she got involved with ARC and to ensure in Edmonds and across the county and country that
opportunities are being provided to the most vulnerable.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her son Dominic, now 29 years old, continues to lives at home
because placement is currently not an option because there is there isn't a placement option for someone
with his skills. She appreciated the City recognizing Intellectual Disabilities Month, and that the City plans
to look for opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to work for the City. Her son is currently
cleaning COVID; he is good at it and it works well for him. She appreciated the City and the community
looking at creating more jobs for people with intellectual disabilities. She noted the Cheesemonger was
always good at hiring people with intellectual disabilities, but the owners, Maria Montalvo and Strom
Peterson, are closing their shop. She had high hopes that other businesses in Edmonds would be interested
in having people with intellectual disabilities work for them. She thanked Mayor Nelson for the
proclamation, commenting it shines a light on the people with disabilities in the City. She commented her
son pays attention to the issues and votes.
Ms. Nagel commented independence is important but it is also important to feel included in your
community. She suggested when you see a family or a parent, ask if they need a hand. Ms. Brandt suggested
saying hi, how are you doing today?
5. JOINT MEETING
1. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 10
7.1.a
Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire, said he appreciated the Council having the proclamation on the
agenda, recognizing this important issue affects many in the local communities; he and two other chiefs
have children with lifelong developmental disabilities. He introduced Assistant Chiefs Jason Isotalo and
Mike Fitzgerald; Deputy Chiefs John Chalfant, Bob Eastman, and David Wells; IT Manager Mike
Vermeulen; HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck; and South County Fire Board of Commissioners Greg Urban
(Chair), Chris Teofilak (Vice Chair), Drew Burnett, David Chan, Jim Kenny and Bob Meador.
(Commissioner Mark Laurance was not present.).
Chief Hovis explained tonight's presentation will provide answers the Council asked during the
presentation of the 2020 annual report and the 2020 City of Edmonds annual compliance report last month
as well as a brief update on COVID-19 vaccination efforts in Edmonds. He reviewed:
• Vaccination Update
o Adult family homes: All 23 adult family homes that SCF was assigned in Edmonds are fully
vaccinated with first and second doses.
o Homebound individuals: South County Fire, in partnership with the City of Edmonds Human
Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services divisions identified homebound
individuals. More than 30 homebound residents have been vaccinated and more to follow in
the coming weeks.
o Today we assisted the National Guard to vaccinate more than 60 residents at Ballinger Court
senior living.
o Up next: We will conduct pop-up clinics, in partnership with Homage, at Plaza 44 and other
older adult communities in the City of Edmonds.
SCF staff responded to questions asked at the February 23, 2021 presentation:
How many female firefighters are employed by South County Fire? How does that compare with the
national average?
SCF HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck reviewed:
Diversity Overview
o Progress since the formation of the RFA.
■ Increase in female firefighters
■ Increase in firefighters of color
■ Increase in overall diversity: sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disabilities,
etc.
o Low turnover rates among uniformed staff*
■ 92% of departures have been for retirement or medical
■ 1 female and no non -white employees have departed for reasons other than medical.
o Firefighters Hires
FD1: 2014-2017
(prior to formation of RFA
South County Fire
since formation of SCF
-5% female
-12% female
-10% non -white
-21% non -white
■ FD1 - 2014-2017
- White, male - 95%
- Non -white, female - 5%
■ SCF - Since 2017
- White, male -70%
- Non -white, female - 30%
o South County Fire vs. National Average
SCF Firefighters National Avg
Career Firefighters
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 11
7.1.a
7% female 4% female
10% non -white 18% non -white
o Captains/MSOs
■ Female compared to non -white
- 2017
• 1.5% female
• 0% non -white
• 6% female
• 4.5% non -white
o Continuous Efforts
■ Continue analysis
■ Source b Candidate Pool *Interviews *Hired
■ Track new hire level of success
■ Analyze, modify, test again
o Leadership and promotions
Chief Hovis recognized the elected Board of Commissioners for their support of the diversity initiative and
the work done by Ms. Hollenbeck and her team.
When does Edmonds assist with response to help other stations outside the citv? Please show the number
of exchanges of services between cities.
• Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF)
2018
2019
2020
Mountlake Terrace
133%
130%
157%
Lynnwood
202%
210%
252%
RFA
148%
162%
197%
o Neighboring fire units respond into Edmonds more than Edmonds units respond into
neighboring jurisdictions
■ Mountlake Terrace units: 57% more into Edmonds
■ Lynnwood units: 152% more into Edmonds
■ RFA units: 97% more into Edmonds
Deputy Chief Bob Eastman explained in the updated agreement signed in 2017, a matrix was added that
calculates the total time in seconds that a unit is on responses within the City of Edmonds and takes the
units within the City, Stations 16, 17 and 20, and calculates the total time those units were on task within,
for example, the geopolitical boundaries of Mountlake Terrace to develop a ratio. The same is done for
Lynnwood and since the RFA was added, the difference between the City of Edmonds units coming into
the RFA and the RFA units going into the City of Edmonds. Part of the renegotiated contract with Edmonds
was a reduction of two responders on duty and a dedicated medic unit. His understanding, although he was
not part of the negotiations, was Lynnwood was an independent fire department at the time, and there was
an effort made to ensure decisions made did not negatively impact the City of Lynnwood and there needed
to be a way to measure that. It is not at the incident level, but the time units spend on task. The RFA units
were added because one station can predominately be a unit that comes in to support an Edmonds station
just due to proximity. Dispatch sends the closest appropriate unit based on GPS and Automatic Vehicle
Location (AVL) regardless of jurisdiction or station service area to best serve citizens.
Deputy Chief Eastman acknowledged the Lynnwood number in the above comparison is very high but in
SCF's opinion, that does not tell the whole story which is why the RFA number was added. When looking
at the number of units Edmonds has and the number of units the RFA has, some of that is to be expected
when there is an incident that requires a lot of equipment. Edmonds has three units and three staffed stations;
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 12
commercial structure fires, residential fires, rescues, and the most critical ALS patients are staff intensive.
Commercial and residential fires require 15 and 18 people on scene and the most critical ALS patients need
11 people on scene. He summarized NUUF can be confusing, other things have to be considered in
conjunction with it as it is just one piece of a bigger puzzle.
How does Edmonds compare to other cities and RFA stations on response times?
Deputy Chief Eastman reviewed:
• Station Response Times
o Percentage of all calls within 8 minutes or less 2018, 2019, 2020
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2018
69.13
78.14
71.15
73.84
83.45
82.44
78.31
82.08
69.68
68.26
70.64
76.17
71.53
69.69
2019
69.23
77.29
67.48
74.13
80.73
82.71
72
79.73
72.58
66.80
69.5
71.5
72.3
6598
2020
56.42
66.19
54.37
62.18
68.1
75.13
56.4
63.32
58.56
54.41
52.17
59.19
60.37
57.4
o Response time percentages dipped in 2020 due to change in dispatch criteria. SCF has returned
to the rapid method of dispatch.
o Numbers are expected to return to 2018 and 2019 levels in 2021.
• Response time on 90 percent of calls in this category
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2018
9:55
9:15
9:45
9:35
8:39
8:55
9:10
8:53
9:54
10:09
9:56
9:29
9:47
10:05
2019
9:59
9:25
9:49
9:13
8:58
9:02
9:36
9:16
9:47
10:22
9:51
9:45
10:03
10:49
2020
10:37
10:907
10:39
10:20
9:55
9:24
10:33
10:17
10:31
10:54
11:02
10:38
10:31
11:16
o Response times are somewhat related to where stations are located
o Some stations have better response time
■ For example Lynnwood Station 15 is in the center of Lynwood in a high density area and a lot
of calls are within close proximity to the station
o Some stations have slightly longer response times
■ For example Station 23 has slightly longer response times because it is located in a more
residential area.
• Response times
o Percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less in 2020
Brier
Edmonds
Lynn
MLT
County
51.97%
56.19%
73.05%
55.67%
60.31%
■ Numbers in 2020 are approximately 10-15% lower due to COVID A
■ Anticipate higher percentage within 8 minutes in 2021
o espouse times on 90 percent of calls in this category in 2020
Brier
Edmonds
Lynn
MLT
County
11:02
10:40
9:40
10:43
10:32
■ Numbers in 2020 are 30-60 seconds longer due to COVID
■ Anticipate reduction in times in 2021
Standards in the contract are not being met. Is there a plan to address this?
Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in Edmonds with staffing prior to January 2017: daily station
staffing of 11
• 3 fire stations within Edmonds
o Station 16 (196t1i)
■ Houses an engine, battalion chief and aid unit
■ 4 personnel on duty including 3 firefighter jump crew/cross staffed
o Station 20 (Esperance)
■ Houses ladder truck cross -staffed with aid unit
■ Backup engine
o Station 17 (downtown)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 13
■ 5 personnel on duty
- 2 person dedicated medic unit
- 3 person jump/cross staffed crew that staffed engine or aid car depending on which
was dispatched
o Marine Unit at Port
• Daily staffing in Edmonds decreased under the current contract, dropping from 11 to 9
o With change in contract in 2017, paramedics in paramedic unit redeployed to all three fire
stations, 16, 17 and 20
Under the current ILA and the contract revised in 2017, the initial term between Edmonds and SCF is 20
years so the contract extends to 2030. To change it would require conferring to address those issues. Fire
station locations cannot be moved; personnel could be added to stations.
Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in the RFA, explaining a lot of changes have been made within
the RFA in areas that are not under contract. FD1 used Citygate and Associates in the past to do a staffing
analysis. Since the formation of RFA, staffing has been raised in Lynnwood and unincorporated areas. He
identified "big houses" in the RFA, stations that house a lot of firefighters. Some stations have 5, 6, 7 or 8
personnel but those are not in Edmonds. When units are dispatched via the countywide dispatch agency,
they are dispatched based on AVL which sends the closest unit to the emergency, they generally come from
the bigger stations. Two more personnel have been added at Station 14, 10 and 11 so the daytime staffing
is 62 and nighttime is 56.
As someone who grew up in 20700 block of 86t1i Place West, Chief Hovis pointed out there is no Woodway
fire department, they contract with Shoreline and there is no fire station in Woodway and there is no fire
service coming from the west. To address staffing issues, have more personnel available when calls come
in, and decrease overall response times equates to personnel, availability and apparatus. With the Sound
Transit Link extension and development occurring in Mountlake Terrace, and Station 19 getting very busy,
Mountlake Terrace has had some initial conversations with SCF about what increased staffing would look
like in Mountlake Terrace.
Chief Hovis explained SCF has formed an Intergovernmental Committee composed of SCF staff, three fire
commissioners and the local union president. The committee was formed due to the RFA's interest in the
contract cities, Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace, formally joining the RFA just as the City of
Lynnwood did in 2017 when the RFA was formed. He and one commissioner from the intergovernmental
committee have had an initial meeting with the executive of each contract city to relay the RFA's great
interest in the city joining the RFA. That meeting was to get a better understanding of each city's current
or future interest in joining the RFA rather than contracting for service like Brier and Mountlake Terrace
have done since 2005 and like Edmonds has done since 2010. The RFA will be having discussions later in
2021 and in 2022 with the cities of Brier and Mountlake Terrace because their initial 20-year contracts end
in 2024. The RFA's desire is for both cities to formally join the RFA by 2024 or earlier. Although the City
of Edmonds' initial 20-year contract term ends in 2030, the RFA looks forward to having these same
discussions with the City of Edmonds well before 2030 if the City is interested in doing so.
Chief Hovis recognized the valued partnership between the two organizations for the past 11 years. He
thanked Edmonds for virtually hosting SCF tonight. As someone who has spent the majority of his life in
Edmonds and grew up here, he appreciates the leadership at the Council and Mayor levels and what they
are to the City.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for all SCF was doing with regard to vaccinations in
the City and all the other programs as well as for their thorough and comprehensive presentations. He
thanked Ms. Hollenbeck for her presentation and the data based on questions asked at SCF's previous
presentation. He asked if the percentages were based on the 283 uniformed firefighters. Ms. Hollenbeck
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 14
7.1.a
said overall hiring is based on the candidate pool and the MSO/captains is the percentage of captains and
MSOs but overall it is based on the 283 firefighters.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the commissioners for attending and Chief Hovis for the presentation.
She referred Chief Hovis' response to her email and her discussions with him and City Attorney Jeff
Taraday today. She recalled in 2009, before she was on the Council, standards for the contract were
developed by former Fire Chief Tomberg, former Councilmember Plunkett and others. She recalled when
personnel was changed based the 2017 Fitch report, the intent was to reanalyze the standards in a year or
so based on new data and the new contract but that was not done. It may be advantageous to develop a
committee to look at the standards to determine if they are still relevant or need to be changed. She asked
Chief Hovis his thoughts on that. Chief Hovis agreed continuously analyzing the needs of the community,
especially 11 years after the initial agreement, there was no better time than the present. He will leave what
that looks like to the Council and Mayor and it could be discussed internally with SCF and commissioners.
Councilmember Olson thanked SCF for their presentation and for answering questions in advance. With
regard to the cost reduction of 9.13% for the Town of Woodway, she said it made sense that there was an
offset and Woodway was paying that at one time, but now that Woodway is not being serviced by SCF,
why should Edmonds absorb the price Woodway used to pay when there is no service provided to
Woodway. Deputy Chief Eastman reiterated he was not part of the negotiations when the agreement was
renegotiated in 2017, but his understanding was that in those conversations, the 9.13% was attributed to
Woodway during the initial agreement, the reduction in the three station cost went away and the only
reduction now in the contract is Esperance, the unincorporated area protected by Station 20 and the 9.13%
is no longer a reduction in the three station cost. The flip side was the City of Edmonds wanted the ability
to subcontract to the Town of Woodway in the future and if that was successful, there would be an exchange
of dollars. The City would collect those funds, not the RFA (or FD 1 at the time) and it would not be
considered a change in service delivery responsibility, SCF would automatically do it as part of the
agreement. He was unaware of the conversations that drove that.
Chief Hovis said Mr. Taraday was part of those negotiations and could be a resource for the Council.
Councilmember Olson summarized even if it hadn't been a good deal, the deal was already negotiated and
therefore a moot point. Chief Hovis agreed since the Town of Woodway has elected to get their fire service
from King County Fire District 4, known as Shoreline Fire Department.
Council President Paine thanked SCF for the level of detail in their presentation. She observed the labor
contract was resolved at the end of last year and asked when the next labor agreement was coming up and
how would that impact the contract. Chief Hovis advised the impacts once those contracts are negotiated
are listed in the current ILA. Negotiations will begin with IFF Local 1828 later this month and into April
for a successor agreement. The prior agreement was through December 31, 2020. Council President Paine
asked him to keep the City posted. Chief Hovis assured he would.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked all the fire commissioners and fire staff who took the time to attend
the virtual meeting, noting she appreciated the cooperation between the agencies. Chief Hovis commented
he and Commissioner Chan enjoy serving with Councilmember K. Johnson on the Sno9l l Board.
Chief Hovis introduced Karl Fitterer, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Melissa Blankenship, Executive Assistant
to the Board of Commissioners, and thanked them for their efforts.
Commissioner Chan commented the violence in last two weeks makes him sick to his stomach. The top
priority of government service is to protect and keep citizens safe. When he was sworn in as a fire
commissioner, he promised to do his best to protect the safety of all his constituents in South County Fire
including the residents of contract cities like Edmonds. The recent harassments and attacks on Asian
Americans have been extremely dangerous and upsetting. Public servants and elected officials can no longer
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 15
7.1.a
be silent and tolerate hate crimes. He asked everyone to join him in denouncing these acts of violence, to
give support and comfort to Asian Americans within the community who are now living in fear. Standing
up to racists and bullies is not political, it is just human decency and our obligation. He asked attendees to
raise their hands and promise to speak out against all violence.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Denise & Mark [no last name given] said it has been a disappointing week for the City. The citizens of
Edmonds lost a dedicated professional in Chief Lawless. As Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and
Distelhorst run campaigns to retain their seats on Council, she said many people will question their
leadership and decision -making on behalf of the citizens. Elected officials are supposed to represent citizens
and many spoke out loud and clear about who they wanted for their chief but their ears were closed. She
wished them good luck with their campaigns.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, a former Citizens Housing Commissioner, thanked the City for the opportunity
to serve on the CHC and said he learned a lot. He thanked his fellow commissioners; a diverse membership
that served the City well. However, he was disappointed in the process used to reach the CHC's
recommendations. The CHC used a legislative process to solve problem, a process that was foreign to him
and that he did not think served the commission very well. It was a tool in the City's toolbox that is used
all the time but if there is only a hammer in the toolbox, everything looks like nail. He felt the CHC was
using a hammer to solve something that was not a nail and didn't really know what problem they were
trying to solve. Personally, he would have created a vision statement for the City, developed a set of guiding
principles or values as a starting point and then the process would be subservient to that vision. The CHC
ended up with non-integrated ideas and no clear goal of what they were trying to achieve. The legislative
process was misused, the CHC was siloed into committees that prevented cross -collaboration in public
meetings. A true legislative process documents majority and minority opinions that are sent forward out of
the commission. That was not done so the Council is left with a set of recommendations without any of the
background data or information available to the CHC. He invited the Council to reach out to him, he has
plenty of recommendations as the process moves forward.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 8.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER.
3. REPORT ON BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2021
OVERLAY PROGRAM
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 16
7.1.a
Councilmember K. Johnson noted for record the committee report states as the bid was lower than the
engineer's estimate from the overlay program, there may be opportunity for supplemental contract for
additional work. She requested staff consider adding 92nd Place West, a 1000' strip of pavement north of
Bowdoin Way where a drainage project 5 years ago laid a zipper but it was never paved over. She has
mentioned this in the past and was uncertain an overlay would save the road.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ITEM 8.3. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENTS AND PAYROLL CHECKS
9. NEW BUSINESS
UPDATE ON TRENDS AND DATA FROM ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Chris Collier, Program Manager, Alliance for
Housing Affordability. She explained the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) is a countywide
organization that includes the City of Edmonds which has been a member for several years. The basic
purpose of AHA is to provide assistance to cities and the county related to housing such as research,
assistance, information about tools and examples, etc.
Mr. Collier reviewed:
Background
o AHA comprised of local jurisdiction in Snohomish County
o AHA's role to provide data & analytics, technical expertise & outreach to member jurisdictions
o Assist cities in understanding housing affordability shortage
o Council encouraged to reach out to him via Ms. Hope and/or Councilmember Distelhorst,
Council liaison to AHA Board, and ask questions
Regional Context
o Graph of 2000-2020 comparison of new households established in Snohomish County and new
housing units built in that year (rental or ownership units)
■ There has never been a deficit in the housing stock in Snohomish County until 2017
- Lack of housing causes prices to increase
o Graph of 2000-2020 Median Sale Price, Median Income, Required Income, Average Rent in
Snohomish County
Year
Median Sale Price
Median Income
Required Income
I Average Rent
2000
$306,290
$86,613
$306,290
1$1,145
2020
$525,000
$92,781
$121,909
1 $1,550
• Who Can Buy Where
o Map with average housing prices
Housing Type
Edm
Lynn
I MLT
Mill C
Muk
Evrt
LS
Sno
SFR
$750k
$560k
$519k
$751k
$729k
$458k
$445k
$550k
TH/Cndo
$439k
$290k
I $597k*
$545k
$459k
$280k
$396k
$360k
o Incomes:
Occupation: 25"` Pct - 50te Pct
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 17
7.1.a
Administrative Law Judge
$110k-$132k
Physicist
$104k-$130k
Emergency Mgmt. Dir.
$95k-$115k
Audiologists
$77k-92k
■ And so on.
■ 1.5M occupations pay <$85k/year median in the Puget Sound region
Who Can Rent Where
o Map with average rents
Housing Type
Edm
Lynn
MLT
Mill C
Muk
Evrt
County Avg
1B Rent
$1,358
$1,451
$1,484
$1,504
$1,502
$1,313
$1,436
2B Rent
$1,646
$1,752
$1,722
N/D
$1,723
$1,497
$1,681
Incomes:
Occupation:
25" Pct - 50" Pct
Chemist
$58k-79k
$1,458-$1,963
Plumber
$56k-72k
$1,401-$1,976
Graphic Designer
$57k-72k
$1,444-$1,790
Marriage & Family Therapist
$43k-$51k
$1,088-$1,276
And so on...
In the Puget Sound Region:
- 199,520 (85.8%) of Office & Admin Support roles cannot affordably pay $1450/mo
rent
- 45,600 (46.7%) of Educational Instruction occupations cannot affordably pay
$1450/mo rent
- 53,130 (54.3%) of Educational Instruction occupations cannot affordably pay
$1680/mo for rent
• For the Record: Rental Data
0 9 properties, 961 units reported for Edmonds
0 2 properties built 2010-2019, remainder <1989
■ Helps explain comparatively lower prices
o Why so few properties?
■ Surveying private landlords is difficult
■ Prices change fast
o Spot checking current listings in Edmonds shows:
■ Studio: $1,265-$1,464
■ 1B: $1,495-$4,514 (?!)
■ 213: $1,805 and up
Let's Combine Incomes
o Cohabitation has become more common among 25 to 34 year -olds
o Living Arrangements of young adults ages 25 to 34
o Graph 1968-2018 comparing percentage living with spouse to living with partner
Year
Liv ng with Spouse
iving with Partner
1968
81.5
.2
2018
40.3
14.8
o Incomes Earned:
Title
Median
Income
Title
Median
Income
Title
Median
Income
Police/Sheriff
$87,220
Travel Agent
$54,490
1 Sheet Metal Worker
$64,970
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 18
7.1.a
Firefighter
$85,850
EMT/Paramedic
$42,770
Industrial Machinery
Mechanic
$64,510
Architect
$78,480
Security Guard
$32,720
Heavy Equipment Mechanic
$64,680
Accountant
$77,080
Receptionist
$36,300
Inspector/Tester/Weigher
$61,630
Curator
$66,390
Floral Designer
$34,090
Machinist
$54,040
Middle School Teacher
$70,360
Waiter/Waitress
$33,320
Welder
$55,680
Carpenter
$63,460
Cashier
$29,840
Automotive Mechanic
$50,330
Marriage Therapist
$51,060
Barista
$28,280
General Maint./Re air
$45,970
o Income required:
City
Income Req. for
Loan
City
Income Req. for
Loan
City
Income Req. for
Loan
Arlington
$99,915
Lake Stevens
$104,743
MLT
$124,140
Edmonds
$158,711
Lynnwood
$121,256
Mukilteo
$162,314
Everett
$104,172
Marysville
$100,227
Snohomish
$120,602
Granite Falls
$90,177
Mill Creek
$168,206
Stanwood
$102,369
o Conclusion: Even though a lot of households have dual income, many cannot afford to purchase a
home in Snohomish County.
• What's Getting Built?
Edmonds
Uninc. Snohomish County
Regional Totals
Snohomish, Ving & Pierce
SF
MF1-49
MF50+
SF
MF1-49
MF50+
SF
MFl-49
MF50+
2006
51
111
0
3,136
252
0
13,824
5,075
3,728
2007
26
65
0
2,326
391
88
10,940
5,639
8,010
2008
2
67
69
1,194
357
0
5,586
3,225
7,871
2009
-1
7
0
1,076
112
0
4,528
1,159
2,104
2010
13
25
0
1,059
247
0
5,680
1,933
2,926
2011
8
35
60
1,167
325
88
5,465
2,043
4,913
2012
17
0
0
1,300
700
480
7,031
2,666
9,126
2013
14
0
0
1,239
655
691
7,619
3,287
8,924
2014
27
58
0
1,338
472
51
6,866
4,912
8,896
2015
40
4
0
1,521
516
70
7,241
4,962
13,468
2016
32
32
128
1,485
675
0
7,864
5,916
10,221
2017
42
41
91
1,499
682
0
7,928
6,505
10,643
2018
49
11
0
972
1387
0
6,840
6,666
12,982
Count
320
456
348
19,312
6,771
1,468
97,412
53,988
103,812
% of
total
285%
40.6%
31.0%
70.1%
24.6%
5.3%
38.2%
21.2%
40.7%
• What does this tell us?
o Protection from change only ensures unaffordability for our children
o Seniors struggle to downsize
o Homeowners & renters are both overleveraged & vulnerable
• Snohomish County & Lynnwood "Forced Sale" Records
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
SnoCo
1,970
2,845
3,091
1,588
746
487
456
39
7
25
42
1,587
Edmonds
49
103
91
60
29
15
20
1
0
4
2
79
Alternative(s)?
o Create homeownership options for incomes >$90k - requires $0 subsidy
o Create market rate housing options for $50k/y incomes
o Create? You mean the city builds housing?
o Let's say allow, instead of create.
o ALLOW. Current zoning must explicitly allow, otherwise it isn't
o Supply takes a while, meanwhile... other tools available.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 19
Q
7.1.a
Councilmember Distelhorst said he forwarded Councilmembers the presentation Mr. Collier made in
Lynnwood. He recalled seeing the regional context slide at Snohomish County Tomorrow in February 2020
in Everett and how different the current housing crisis is and how outpaced the market has become versus
what is available, what people earn and what they can afford. He thanked Mr. Collier for provided all this
data.
Council President Paine said she also saw the Lynnwood presentation and agreed it was great, data -driven
information. She asked what tools have been the most successful for cities to ensure layers of affordability.
She also asked whether he thought the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) had been productive or useful.
With regard to successes, Mr. Collier said the bad news is no municipality nationwide has figure that out;
there is no one true solution, but there are plenty of tools, the best of which is to give people choices. What
is allowed in the zoning code determines what current homeowners or prospective buys can do with their
property. As an example, he explained common wall condominiums sell for $48/square foot more than new
build single family detached homes. That is not to say a single family detached home sells for less; it
actually sells for more, but on a square footage basis, a builder makes more money per square foot building
a condo than building new single family detached. If common wall condominiums are allowed, he would
expect that builders would build something that yields more per square foot. Condominiums sell for about
$440,000, but a single family detached new built home sells for $650,000. Therefore condominiums create
affordability for lower income people which takes the pressure off existing subsidy and support structure
that allows it to operate without being completely overwhelmed.
With regard to the MFTE program, Mr. Collier said it was a worthwhile program and worth thinking about.
Mountlake Terrace considered it and opted to not pursue it. The City of Everett pursued it and continues to
do so today. He recommended Edmonds reach out their municipal neighbors regarding how that program
works for them or why opted not to pursue it.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the information contained in Mr. Collier's
presentation and complimented him for making complex data more understandable. An important point to
her was by not addressing it, it only ensures housing unaffordability for our children. Councilmember L.
Johnson recalled him saying Snohomish County's housing deficit began in 2017 and asked when Seattle or
King County's deficit begin. She was hopeful the answer would mean if Edmonds acted now, it could avoid
the extremes that are happening to the south. Mr. Collier did not recall King County's circumstances in that
bar chart but he could investigate that and get back to her. He explained he wanted to hold Seattle up as a
where it started, the epicenter of the lack of affordability in the region because it is the economic driver for
the entire Puget Sound region. Seattle also remains predominantly single family detached zoned, by the
analysis of the Seattle Planning Commission, it is over 75% exclusively single family detached zoned.
Mr. Collier explained Seattle is an example of a city that has exclusively tried to throw money at the problem
without changing the market forces of supply and demand that make housing more expense. You can neither
subsidize nor build your way out of the issue completely, you need to do both and Seattle is a great example
of trying to do just one of them. Edmonds can only do so much and cannot feel like it has to take on the
world and the entire issue. Edmonds has to do so in a collaborative fashion with its neighbors in Snohomish
County and King County. This is as regional issue that started in Seattle and it is critical to think of it as
every city has a part to play and everyone has to do the public support option and the building option in
equal measure in a way that's appropriate for their city.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in taking a deeper dive into the numbers. Many of the people
who talk with her are very interested in this topic. She asked if he said Snohomish County had 1.5M people.
Mr. Collier answered there were 1.5M in the entire region of Snohomish, King and Pierce. Councilmember
Buckshnis observed Snohomish County has approximately 850,000 people. She asked whether there could
be a differentiation among districts, noting there was a property in the bowl that sold in a private sale for
$2.2M which would skew the numbers. Mr. Collier said he uses median home sale price to get away from
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 20
7.1.a
the very expensive mansion driving the numbers up or a bargain driving the numbers down. A spot check
of homes sold in the RS-8 zone in 2020 in east Edmonds found the median price was over $800,000. He
also found on Zillow a 696 square foot home off 220' selling for $450,000 ($640/square foot). He was
aware Edmonds was a view city and that those homes sell for a lot but there is also a lot of Edmonds that
doesn't have a view and still sells for outrageous amounts of money such as that 696 square foot home. A
shocking change can be seen across the board in the sales price of Edmonds homes that does not leave any
structure untouched.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, noting she has friends who are realtors and knew of people selling their
house and moving north because of the prices. Mr. Collier termed that riding the wave. He offered to
provide a list with addresses of houses sold in Edmonds, public data available from the county assessor,
noting is a bit more work to identify whether they were view homes or the neighborhood they were located
in. Councilmember Buckshnis said she can get that data from her realtor friends.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Collier reviewed the following:
• Appendix: Housing Deep(er) Dive
2000
2020
2018
2019
Home Type
Median
Sale
# Sold
Med. Yr
Blt
Median
Sale
# Sold
Med. Yr
Blt
Sales
Sales
SP<$600k
$354,217
649
1977
$450,000
188
1980
255
279
BR 1-3 <1750 sf
$294,446
346
1981
$480,000
223
1981
255
272
RS-12 Zone
$597,118
117
1983
$930,000
69
1975
102
71
RS-8 Zone
$358,188
304
1962
$650,000
179
1960
219
259
BD1-5 Zone
$357,366
18
1988
$707,500
12
1999
12
11
Grade <=44
$316,694
101
1956
$570,000
69
1955
74
99
Grade >=46
$559,201
277
1991
$892,500
185
1991
242
191
Grade = 45
$345,440
395
1976
$610,000
246
1969
307
313
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are a lot of older bungalow type homes and older apartments
being rented in the bowl. Mr. Collier encouraged Councilmembers to reach out to him through
Councilmember Distelhorst or Ms. Hope with any questions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not as concerned about people purchasing $600,000-
$900,000 houses; she was concerned with how to accommodate low income veteran, senior, and disabled
housing when the city cannot even accommodate affordable housing. Mr. Collier answered it is not easy;
the reason he gives this presentation is to provide an outlet for the overwhelming pressure that the entire
housing market feels that pushes out the ability serve disabled veterans, seniors, senior disabled households,
etc. Their needs are not met because the pressure is so outrageously intense. The programs that exist that
would otherwise serve them are overloaded. The waitlist for senior disabled vouchers is over five years at
HASCO because there is nowhere else for a household with that description to go because that one avenue
that exists and works well is overloaded because needs are not being met elsewhere. It is a very complicated
issue; failure to address the broad question means that any niche solution such as VA supportive housing
vouchers, Section 8 vouchers, etc. will never get better because the pressure is too great and the number of
people needing services is too great. So no matter what is done, if only that is done, it does not fix the
structural problem that creates it. His wish was to take the pressure off because those systems and programs
can work but right now there is a true emergency.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the regional context for housing stock and asked if that took into
account the number of units coming on. Mr. Collier answered it was not reflected in the data; the figures
prior to 2018 come largely from PSRC. Cities have to submit an annual report to Commerce describing the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 21
7.1.a
units that have been permitted and PSRC obtains them, applies their own methodology for analyzing the
figures and publishes the net gain or loss of units in certain density categories. PSRC is current up to 2018;
he rounded out the data set with Office of Financial Management housing stock figures. The data does not
describe what is being permitted and not yet been built in Edmonds. Development Services Director Shane
Hope explained the data Mr. Collier is talking about is primarily past data, what has happened over time,
the trends indicate less housing has been built in recent years and it is believed there is some housing on
the horizon. The question is whether it is enough to meet today's needs. A magic bullet is unlikely;
continuing to look at supply is important, and help is needed such as federal, state, local, and nonprofit
programs that can help address the issue but by themselves, any one of them is not enough.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the number of apartments being built along the light rail line which
she hoped would change the regional context. Mr. Collier said all the units coming online are necessary to
meet future demand. PSRC estimates 1.25M more people in the Puget Sound region by 2050. Whether the
need will continue to outpace demand is yet to be determined.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented she entered housing market by buying a house that was 100 years
old and needed some updating. She put in sweat equity, learning how to restore plaster and lath, window
sashes, etc. She purchased a subscription to this "This Old House Journal" with Bob Vila and followed it
religiously. After six years they doubled their investment and able to move on. That is called flipping in
today's economy; there are still opportunities in Edmonds for people to enter the market if they are young
and interested or old and capable. She was troubled by the trend of much of the older housing stock,
comprised of smaller houses that housed sawmill workers when Edmonds was first developed, being torn
down because the land is more valuable than the house. Often a single family house is torn down and a new
million dollar house is built. Those smaller houses were some of the most affordable housing in Edmonds,
but they become an economic opportunity for someone interested in developing it.
Mr. Collier agreed, commenting that was what he meant by what is allowed. What is currently allowed is
a single family house detached home. On a tour of Mountlake Terrace with Mayor Matsumoto Wright, she
pointed out numerous homes that used to be single story cinder block from the 1960s and earlier that are
now monoliths, still with a single family, because that is all the zoning allows. Would it be more
economically to have that be a divided structure or another configuration? Maybe, but it is not allowed.
Would the building community have built that? Quite likely if it were allowed. Common wall
condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and other configurations of housing are not allowed so what happens is
that 696 square foot house off 220' is demolished as soon as it is purchased and something considerably
larger is constructed. That home will exist for 30-50 years, effectively freezing that parcel in time because
that's all that is allowed. That is the opportunity that is missed every day to provide different kinds of
housing so smaller, more affordable places are maintained because they are economic to maintain with
sweat equity or they are allowed to evolve into something that is still effectively two small homes but
cojoined.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the City Council has been working for a while on
amendments to the newly adopted tree regulations that relate primary to what needs to be done to protect
trees related to development, establish a tree fund, etc. The next stage will look at other programs and other
tree regulations that might cover more properties and options. The Council has been working through a list
of potential amendments submitted by the Council and will continue that process tonight. She was hopeful
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 22
7.1.a
the Council could reach a preliminary agreement on the amendments tonight so staff can bring back an
ordinance with all the amendments at the next meeting.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained using the table developed by Council Assistant
Maureen Judge including the amendments Councilmember K. Johnson, he placed the amendments in the
code text, highlighting each one and identifying the Councilmember that proposed it.
Mr. Lien introduced an amendment proposed by Councilmember K. Johnson:
23.10.040.D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of
the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department provided that signifcant trees be
retained and that non -significant trees be replaced if they are native trees.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she could think of examples where the Parks Department has cut down a
tree to make room for a piece of equipment and it seemed like an independent action. She wanted to add
the safeguard that a smaller tree be replaced with a native tree.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
AMEND 23.10.040.D TO READ, "REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES WITHIN CITY
OF EDMONDS' PARKS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARKS, RECREATIONAND CULTURAL
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PROVIDED THAT SIGNIFICANT TREES BE RETAINED AND
THAT NON -SIGNIFICANT TREES BE REPLACED IF THEYARE NATIVE TREES.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the last part of the sentence should be if they are not native trees.
Councilmember K. Johnson answered no. Mr. Lien explained a significant tree does not have to be native;
a significant tree is based solely on the size of the tree, 6" DBH. A non -significant native tree would be a
smaller native tree that is not 6" DBH.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to "significant trees be retained" and asked if the intent was that the
Parks Department would not permitted to remove significant trees under any circumstance. Without some
other elaboration, if he was presented with this sentence and asked what it meant, that would be his
understanding. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if he could suggest a qualifier that would allow some
flexibility such as significant trees be retained if at all possible. Mr. Taraday suggested significant trees be
processed through the normal code like a private developer would be processed. Councilmember K.
Johnson said the problem is the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will act independently
on the removal of trees and there needs to be some safeguards because just as private developers need to
follow the rules, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department should follow the same rules. Mr.
Taraday suggested "provided significant trees shall not be exempt." This is within context of an exemption.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed to reword the amendment as follows:
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Resources Department provided that significant trees will not be exempt and
that non -significant trees be replaced if thev are native trees.
Councilmember Olson said Section D meant the City had trust in the Parks that they were committed to the
idea of no net loss and if they removed a tree, they would replace it and would only remove a tree if there
was good cause. What she liked about Councilmember K. Johnson's proposed language was someone
reading the code would have no idea why the Parks Department was exempt. If the Council does not support
the change, she suggested language to explain the exemption and the trust in the Parks Department would
be appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her trust was eroded when saw the Parks Department cutting down some
significant evergreen trees. Because of that, this is needed as a safeguard and then the trust will be restored.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 23
7.1.a
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced an amendment proposed by Councilmember K. Johnson:
23.10.050.0 Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted
demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the
director. Tree replacement may shall be required for removed trees.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND 23.10.050.0 TO READ, "DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES: TREE REMOVAL
SHALL BE PROHIBITED AS PART OF A PERMITTED DEMOLITION EXCEPT AS REQUIRED
TO REASONABLY CONDUCT DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE
DIRECTOR. TREE REPLACEMENT MA V SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR REMOVED TREES."
Councilmember K. Johnson asked why "may" was originally used instead of "shall." Mr. Lien answered
shall makes sense; he did not have a good reason why may was used instead of shall.
Council President Paine asked if trees that were permitted as part of demolition were included in the
development permit that would be necessary to remove the trees. Mr. Lien answered potentially; he referred
to 23.10.060, the types of development the statement applies to. It might come up in short subdivisions but
most often with replacement of a single family with a new single family where often the demo is done
before the building permit. For subdivisions and other similar developments, the demolition permit does
not come in until well after the subdivision has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien explained the Council left off with this amendment last week. It was proposed by Councilmember
Buckshnis but not voted on. There was already language in the code related to tree replacement, but the
amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis was related to replacement trees offsite. He reviewed
an amendment was tweaked Councilmember Buckshnis' previous proposal, the existing code and
addressing when replacement trees are proposed offsite.
23.10.060.B.2.b.vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC
23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where
replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the proiect site, a
description of the alternative site and written approval from the property owner must be provided.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO AMEND
23.10.060.B.2.B.VII. TO READ, "PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF ANY REQUIRED
REPLACEMENT TREES AS OUTLINED IN ECDC 23.10.080 AND TREES REQUIRED TO BE
PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE
PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE PROJECT SITE, A
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE
PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE PROVIDED."
Councilmember Olson agreed with the proposed rewording.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the location would always be known ahead of time. Mr. Lien no, there
is another section of code that addresses phasing the tree plan, where trees will be planted, particularly
subdivisions. Often in a subdivision the location of the houses is not known, subdivision review only
includes the property boundaries. There are instances where it can phased which is addressed elsewhere in
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 24
7.1.a
the code. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this amendment would be in opposition to that or would they
work together. Mr. Lien answered they would work together.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are sites available such as tree farms in other areas.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was the other property owner would provide a conservation easement for
these replacement trees or was it permission to have them planted there. Mr. Lien answered if a tree is
required to be replaced with development, it is considered a protected tree which is defined. Sites with
protected trees are required to record a protected tree covenant. If the required replacement trees are planted
offsite, that property owner would need to sign the protected tree covenant.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it was understood that all of these trees would be replanted within the
city limits of Edmonds. Mr. Lien recalled a lot of discussion about that by the Planning Board and the Tree
Board. Replacement trees associated with development for the most part would be planted within the City
of Edmonds. If a developer could not plant all the replacement trees onsite, they pay into the Tree Fund.
There have been discussions about whether that money could be used to buy into a tree bank in another
location. The intent would be that the replacement trees for the most part trees would be planted within the
City of Edmonds; to meet the no net loss of urban canopy, a lot of it will have to be in the City of Edmonds.
With the fee -in -lieu, there could be a significant amount of money paid into the Tree Fund for tree planting
and there may not be enough room in the City of Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees per the
replacement ratios. The flexibility to buy into a tree bank or contribute to something like the Mountain to
Sound Greenway would make sense.
Tree Fund aside, Councilmember L. Johnson asked if a property owner or developer could choose to replace
a tree on a property not within the city limits of Edmonds. Mr. Lien answered he did not think this code
prohibited that.
Councilmember Olson recalled the Tree Board having this conversation when she was on the board. In
terms of the environmental impact, obviously everyone loves the trees in the City but to her recollection,
the Tree Board was satisfied that trees would be replanted in the general vicinity. Based on Mr. Lien's point
about the fee -in -lieu possibly being quite substantial, she suggested allowing property to be purchased to
preserve existing trees and/or as open space where trees could be planted with money from the fee -in -lieu.
With that in mind, the City likely would not end up with too much money due to how expensive property
is.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented trees could be planted in Yost Park as well as other areas where
trees need to be regenerated such as the marsh. There is also a tree farm in Redmond, a farm that was turned
into a tree bank.
Council President Paine offered a friendly amendment, after "alternate site," add "within the city limits of
Edmonds whenever possible." Councilmember Buckshnis accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked who would determine whenever possible. Ms. Hope answered that would
be a challenge because what one person thinks is possible, another may not. Councilmember L. Johnson
preferred the language without "whenever possible." Ms. Hope said another potential would be "within the
city limits of Edmonds preferred" as that would leave the option of planting elsewhere. She reminded this
is not a code just for this year but for years to come. If the Council had any preference about where the
replacement trees were planted, Mr. Taraday recommended stating a specific geographic area where they
need to be planted such as City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds or a neighboring city, etc. The Council could
say Snohomish County but then they could be planted in the mountains and he was unsure that was what
the Council intended. He urged the Council to be prescriptive with regard to the geographic area.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 25
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested "preferred within the city limits or Snohomish County." Mr. Taraday
said "preferred" is not enforceable. Ms. Hope said it probably gives the City some leverage but does not
force it. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to say "preferred" rather than mandate a location. Another
option is to just say Snohomish County.
Councilmember Olson understood the enforceability point Mr. Taraday was making but she like "preferred"
to show to staff and the person reading the code what the Council hoped to have happen. Ultimately all the
urban areas, depending on what happens with density, there will be less yard if a detached ADU is
constructed and Edmonds is a small city. She was okay with stating a preference but demanding all the
replacement trees be planted in the city limits was not something the city could live with.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Edmonds is not necessarily a small city, it is the third biggest city in
Snohomish County. She preferred to have the replacement trees planted in Edmonds and not in Snohomish
County or in neighboring cities. If the issue is Edmonds has too much tree canopy, then the number of
replacement trees needs to be reduced. She did not want people who live in other cities or in Snohomish
County to benefit from Edmonds' ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds benefits from a Snohomish County Park which is
included in the UFMP; one of the biggest tree canopies in Edmonds is Southwest County Park. It may be
possible to plant replacement trees there.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern with unforeseen and potentially beneficial loopholes.
Although the City was not yet identified no net loss because a starting point has not been established,
ultimately that is the goal. This potential loophole, a potential loss of trees in Edmonds, defeats the ultimate
purpose. While this is a long term plan, in the long term, the City want to keep trees. She summarized she
was concerned about loopholes and would not support the change.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this begs the question about places within the City where replacement
trees can be planted; maybe that needs to be defined as public properties or parks. She suggested discussing
with Parks having receiver areas within parks where trees can be planted. For example, if 100 trees are cut
down in Edmonds, where will they be planted in Edmonds? That needs to be coordinated with the Parks
and Public Works as they responsible for public lands in the City.
Council President Paine agreed with the sentiment expressed by Councilmembers, that it needs to be within
the city limits and a specific area as Mr. Taraday recommended.
Mr. Lien said if the Council wants all replacement trees to be planted within the City of Edmonds, he
suggested that language be in 23.10.080 Tree Replacement rather than having it buried within the tree
protection plan.
Councilmember Olson asked if the maker of the motion and the seconder wanted to make the amendment
as suggested by Mr. Lien.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Lien was suggesting to move the language to 23.10.080.B. Mr.
Lien said the discussion has been where will the replacement trees be planted. If it is an alternate site and
the Council wants the alternate site to be within the City of Edmonds, rather than have that requirement
buried within the Tree Retention and Protection Plan, it makes more sense to have "preferred within the
city limits or Snohomish County" in 23.10.080 as a new A, B or C such as, All replacement trees shall be
planted within the City of Edmonds or whatever geographical boundary the Council decides.
Councilmember Buckshnis said her issue is the loss of tree canopy in the City and the desire to replace big
trees that are being removed. If the Council limited it to the city limits, she was unsure there was enough
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 26
7.1.a
room in parks or on private property. She suggested "Edmonds proper" so it would include South County
park. Mr. Lien said South County Park was within the city limits.
Council President Paine suggested moving the language into 23.10.080 as a new A or B. [this was voted on
as a motion at 2:48:55 on video and failed.]
Councilmember Olson expressed support for moving that language. With regard to Edmonds being the
third largest city in Snohomish County, that was based on population, not land mass. She asked it if was
reasonable that the city could accommodate all the replacement trees within the city limits. Mr. Lien said
he did not have an answer for that. He said the UFMP identified potential planting areas within the City.
The map in an earlier draft was removed because the consultant looked at the canopy coverage in the City
and identified places without trees, the majority of which were in view areas in the bowl. Given the
replacement requirements, he said it would be difficult to find places in Edmonds parks or otherwise to put
all the replacement trees.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she got her data from the County executive's office. She asked why
the proposal was to require a certain number of replacement trees for every tree cut down if there was not
enough room to put the trees. It did not make sense to require developers provide excess trees if there is not
enough room to put the trees. She liked the potential to plant replacement trees on county property within
Edmonds' boundary because Esperance is a huge area and it could be beneficial to them. She would support
the proposal because it gets the City partway there, but in the long run if it looks like there are too many
trees, the responsible thing would be to reduce the number of replacement trees.
Mr. Taraday referred to the UFMP, emphasis on urban, and suggested another option would be to change
the geographical description to urban areas within Snohomish County. That would provide a larger area but
still ensure trees are planted in an urban area and would create a much larger receiving site. Logistically
speaking, once replacement trees are planted outside the City, the City will lose its ability to track and
determine if in fact that tree is retained. If a developer submits an application on a replacement site in the
future, it will be in another jurisdiction and the City will not even see it or find out that the replacement
tree(s) were taken out. Even if something is recorded on the property, there is no guarantee the jurisdiction
doing the review will see it.
With regard to boundaries where trees could be planted, Mr. Lien proposed another option. In talking about
environmental mitigation such as wetland banks or tree replacement ratios, what is usually looked at is an
ecological boundary rather than a political boundary. One ecological boundary is a water resource inventory
area; Edmonds is within WRIA 8. An option would be an ecological boundary versus political boundary.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, stating even if there are no
replacement tree locations, trees need to be replaced with development as the City continues lose large
trees. She suggested putting that wording in 23.10.080.D.4 which talks about the ecological boundaries of
WRIA 8. She agreed with using an ecological boundary rather than a political boundary.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO ADD
23.10.080.D.4 "REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARY
OF THE WRIA 8 JURISDICTION."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating there was already a motion on the floor.
Council President Paine referenced a motion she made [actually a suggestion at 2:35:16 on video] to add
as a new A or B to 23.10.080. "Replacement trees should be within the ecological boundary of WRIA 8
jurisdiction, preferably within the Edmonds City limits." Mr. Lien suggested adding this as 23.10.080.13.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 27
7.1.a
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to 23.10.080.E regarding tree replacement fee -in -lieu, if a replacement
location cannot be identified a tree replacement fee -in -lieu can be paid. The City could make a decision
where to plant a tree at a later date or potentially in the future the funds could be used to acquire land with
trees on it. If the ultimate goal is no net loss and possibly even net ecological gain, she questioned how that
would be accomplished by planting trees somewhere else and losing control and inventory of them within
the Edmonds tree canopy. She said if trees cannot be planted in the City, the answer is already in paragraph
E.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson; if a location cannot be found in
Edmonds, they pay into a fund. She understood the concept of planting trees regionally, but she preferred
to have trees removed in Edmonds be replanted in Edmonds.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION TO CALL THE
QUESTION CARRIED.
Mr. Taraday stated the pending motion:
ADD "REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARY OF
WRIA 8 JURISDICTION, PREFERABLY WITHIN THE EDMONDS CITY LIMITS" AS
23.10.080.B.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, asking what motion the Council was on
now. Mr. Taraday advised there was no pending motion; Mr. Lien was reviewing the amendments proposed
by Council.
Mr. Lien clarified the initial motion was the language regarding alternate site and that had been amended.
The original amendment was to revised so that 23.10.060.B.2.b.vii. read, "Proposed locations of any
required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance
with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than
the proiect site, a description of the alternative site and written approval from the property owner must be
provided. "
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REVISE
23.10.060.B.2.B.VII. TO READ, "PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF ANY REQUIRED
REPLACEMENT TREES AS OUTLINED IN ECDC 23.10.080 AND TREES REQUIRED TO BE
PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE
PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE PROJECT SITE, A
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE
PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE PROVIDED."
AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
SECONDED TO REVISE 23.10.060.B.2.B.VII, ADD "WITHIN EDMONDS OTHER" FOLLOWING
"LOCATION."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her intent was the trees could be planted in Edmonds in
unincorporated Snohomish County.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if within the City of Edmonds also be included in 23.10.080.13.2. Mr.
Lien said if there is a requirement that replacement trees be planted within the Edmonds city limits, he
preferred it be in 23.10.080. Councilmember L. Johnson offered that as a friendly amendment to move it to
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 28
7.1.a
23.10.080. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed to the friendly amendment. Mr. Lien asked if the
Council preferred to have it as a separate letter or incorporated into D.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to have it in D Replacement Specifications.
Mr. Lien suggested the following:
23.10.080.D.4 "Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND THE
MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1).
Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Taraday to weigh in from a legal standpoint whether that included
unincorporated properties within the City of Edmonds. Mr. Taraday said it would include the park which
is within the city limits but would not include Esperance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her motion was intended to include Esperance. Mr. Lien suggested
adding "or its Urban Growth Area."
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
Add as 23.10.080.D.4. "Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds or its Urban
Growth Area."
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1).
Mr. Lien introduce an amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Replace Section 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv with "Description of any hazardous trees including location and basis
for hazardous determination."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REPLACE
SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.C.IV WITH "DESCRIPTION OF ANY HAZARDOUS TREES INCLUDING
LOCATION AND BASIS FOR HAZARDOUS DETERMINATION."
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was a very confusing code. There was already a description of
hazardous tree and this was intended to keep it simple.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented there is often confusion between hazardous trees and nuisance
trees. She suggested revisiting what a nuisance tree is.
Mr. Lien said there is also a definition of a viable tree. This section is addressing the possibility that when
a site is developed, a tree that was once viable is no longer viable for a number of reasons which are listed
in paragraph iv. It may not be a hazardous tree but it may no longer be a viable tree which requires
documentation.
Councilmember Olson preferred the original description proposed by staff.
Councilmember Buckshnis read the definition of hazard tree, A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged,
structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes is subject to a high
probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. She felt section iv was repeating that
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 29
7.1.a
definition. Many people have expressed to her that the tree code is very complex and confusing and she
was trying to simplify it.
UPON ROLL CALL (MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
23.10.060.C.1 change requirement to 50% retention of significant trees (regardless of development type).
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred 50% over 30%. There has been a tremendous loss of large conifers.
There are few pocket forests left and it is important to increase the tree canopy.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED IN 23.10.060.C.1 CHANGE REQUIREMENT TO 50%
RETENTION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES (REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT TYPE). MOTION
FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Revise 23.10.060.C.4 to read, "In addition to the tree retention requirements noted above, every significant
tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC
23.10.080."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REVISE
23.10.060.C.4 TO READ, "IN ADDITION TO THE TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS NOTED
ABOVE, EVERY SIGNIFICANT TREE THAT IS REMOVED UNDER THIS CHAPTER MUST BE
REPLACED CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 23.10.080."
Mr. Lien said "noted above" is not good code language; he preferred to reference the code. He suggested
revising 23.10.060.C.4 to read, "In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection C.1 oLthis
section above, every significant tree that is removed..." Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Lien's
suggestion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Revise 23.10.060.D to replace the list of Priority of Tree Retention Requirements with "Groupings of
significant trees that form a tree canopy and wildlife corridor must be retained to the maximum extent
possible."
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the code is confusing to many. She preferred to make it simpler and
just state the City is trying to keep significant trees that are pocket forests or tree canopy.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSON TO REVISE 23.10.060.D TO
REPLACE THE LIST OF PRIORITY OF TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS WITH
"GROUPINGS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT FORM A TREE CANOPY AND WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR MUST BE RETAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE."
Councilmember Olson asked about the term "maximum extent possible." Mr. Taraday said it puts the
burden on the developer to establish impossibility. The language he was concerned about before was stating
a preference. This is a regulation that require something be done a certain way unless the developer can
demonstrate that it is not possible.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 30
7.1.a
Mr. Lien said there will be some sites with trees that do not form a tree canopy and there will be isolated
sites that are not connected with a wildlife corridor. With regard to trees that should be protected, the
preference is to protect large trees, but there could be large trees on a site that are not part of the canopy or
a wildlife corridor. He did not think the proposed language describes all sites or the trees that should be
given priority.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECONDER.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Add 23.10.060.D. Lf. "Development Services may require site plan revisions in order to preserve Priority
One trees on the site plan."
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
ADD 23.10.060.D.1.F. "DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MAY REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVISIONS IN
ORDER TO PRESERVE PRIORITY ONE TREES ON THE SITE PLAN."
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was proposed by another citizen which is why it was contrary to the
previous amendment. The goal was to trying to preserve Priority 1 trees.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented the list is types of trees or situations and the proposed language
does not seem to belong in this section. Mr. Lien said it could be moved to 23.10.060.E.
Councilmember L. Johnson said it was redundant. If an applicant had not adequately or appropriately
prioritized, they would need to submit site plan revisions to prioritize them as identified in this section. Mr.
Lien advised there would be some back and forth on reviews.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECONDER.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege, there are 12 minutes left and 2 agenda
items remaining. She said it was getting late to continue this item and she preferred to move on to the next
agenda items.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
THAT WE STOP MAKING AMENDMENTS NOW AND BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK FOR
ADOPTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
DECIDED ON TONIGHT.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support stopping and moving the ordinance to Consent. She was also
concerned that the moratorium ordinances expire tomorrow and she would like to extend them. There are
more amendments that have not yet been vetted.
Councilmember K. Johnson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' concerns. She questioned why the
ordinance would be on Consent when the Council had not completed its review.
Council President Paine commented the Council has been on this topic for months. She acknowledged there
were additional amendments that Councilmembers would like to make, but there will be an opportunity
later this year. This is the fourth meeting where the Council has discussed amendments to the tree code. A
lot of good ground has been covered, but there are other things the Council needs to move onto for the good
of the City such as additional housing items. She recommended incorporating all the amendments that had
been approved tonight, put the ordinance on the Consent Agenda and move on to new topics.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 31
7.1.a
Councilmember Olson did not support the motion; the Council is in the process of reviewing amendments
and has not completed their review. If an additional meeting was required where the Council only worked
on the tree code, she was happy to support that. She summarized the Council needed to follow through and
complete the work.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the last three amendments had withdrawn. She suggested
placing the ordinance on Consent and if there are additional amendments, it can be pulled from Consent.
She urged Councilmembers to ensure their amendments were valid and not redundant as that would move
the process along more quickly.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed the Council had spent an incredible amount of time on this, not having
a meeting next week may alleviate some workload so the remaining amendments could be reviewed to
ensure they are appropriate for discussion at the next Council meeting, whether it was on Consent and
pulled or on the regular agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to make an amendment to change Section 4 of the ordinance to
extend it.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the comments were not germane to the motion.
Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in 11 years she has never had a half -finished process go to Consent.
Regardless of the fact that a couple amendments were withdrawn, that did not mean the Council was not
still going through the vetting process. A number of citizens complained that the tree code agenda item was
very late at night at the first two meetings. Even though the Council has had four meetings on the tree code,
the first two discussions were less than a half hour, the third was 45-50 minutes and this one was somewhat
lengthier. She agreed with Councilmember Olson that a meeting should have been held strictly regarding
the tree code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis' comments
were not germane to motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she disagreed with the motion.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
Bring the tree code as amended to date to the Consent Agenda at the next Council meeting.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
11. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Reports are included in the Council packet.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Minutes are included in the Council packet.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 32
7.1.a
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson referenced the tragedy that occurred in Atlanta, stating he was encouraged to see residents
and the community come out to support Asian residents on Sunday afternoon on Highway 99. He was also
encouraged by drivers waving, honking, and showing their support for Asian community members. He said
hate is not acceptable anywhere and certainly not in Edmonds.
Mayor Nelson reported the Snohomish County COVID numbers are down to 72/ 100,000 which is great but
last week the numbers were 70/100,000. Although the numbers are down they are plateauing. The State is
entering Stage 3, but to stay there, the numbers cannot go back up. He urged everyone to continue wearing
masks, watching their distance and washing their hands. There is still nowhere near enough people
vaccinated to effectively prevent the spread.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Olson promoted a rally against hate this Saturday at Esperance Park from 10 a.m. to 12
p.m. There will be an open mike for people to share their experiences. She plans to attend to the rally to
listen to that input and will be there afterward for anyone who wants to share their experiences and what
the City can do to better support them.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was troubled by recent incidents. As has been said in the rock and roll
song, love is the answer. Everyone needs to love each other. The United States is a nation of immigrants
who come from all over the world. Everyone needs to get back to basic ideals; this is the land of the free
and home of brave and people need to forget about their divisiveness and try to work together.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked everyone that continues to socially distance, wear masks and wash
their hands because they are responsible for lowering the COVID numbers.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed the sentiments about Sunday's event; it was wonderful to see so many
from the Edmonds community, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and across Snohomish County
come out in support of the community. It was especially meaningful for his household.
Councilmember Distelhorst reminded there are always free resources for people experiencing a state of
crisis or mental health. The WeCare.EdmondsWa.gov webpage is still available and contains a
comprehensive list of free resources available to residents to call, chat online or text with professionals in
Snohomish County who are available to help.
Council President Paine thanked Mayor Nelson for the recognition of Intellectual
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds, commenting it was nice to hear
from local agencies. She echoed Mayor Nelson and other Councilmembers' comments that the rallies
against hate are necessary to show support and unity against violence and hate. It has lately been gun
violence, something that needs to be addressed by families and the community. She welcomed the City's
new Acting Police Chief.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed the COVID numbers were increasing slightly in Snohomish
County. If it goes up to a certain point, Snohomish County will go back to Stage 2 and there is insistence
that that return to Stage 2 happen immediately. She encouraged everyone to wear masks, maintain social
distancing and do not gather in large groups.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 33
7.1.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed Saturday's rally was wonderful but it was followed by the murder
of ten people in Boulder, including a police officer, a day and a half later. She thanked Mayor Nelson for
everything he has done with regard to gun safety and people locking up their guns. Those in Atlanta and in
Boulder have been on her mind and in her prayers for days.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas welcomed Acting Police Chief Michelle Bennett, commenting she was
thrilled to have her join the City and looked forward to her service.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR TWO MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-2)
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson welcomed Acting Chief Bennett to Edmonds and was glad she had joined
tonight's meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was wearing orange tonight, the color worn by gun
violence prevention advocates. Gun violence is a crisis across the nation. Firearms are the tool used most
by those infected by hate fueled by racism, xenophobia, misogyny and domestic extremism and used to
terrorize and inflict the most harm and carnage. Easy access to guns gives a single hate filled individual the
means to shatter numerous lives. This was seen last Tuesday in Atlanta when an individual murdered eight
people including six Asian women in a hate crime committed by someone using a gun believed to have
been purchased the same day.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, yesterday in Boulder ten individuals were gunned down while
grocery shopping, an act committed by someone using an AR-15. Within the same week, five other mass
shootings were carried out in California, Oregon, Texas and Pennsylvania by someone using a firearm to
inflict terror. These horrific mass shootings do not even begin to account for the roles guns play in
dramatically increasing the lethalness of suicides and domestic violence. In the U.S. more than 100 people
are killed by guns every day. It seems we are slowly becoming numb to the violence. We must not let this
become our new normal. We do not have to live like this. Gun violence is preventable but only with action.
She hoped the community would join her in calling on federal and state legislators to enact meaningful,
impactful, common sense gun prevention reform. Enough is enough.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for mentioning the availability of the
WeCare.EdmondsWa.gov website. She assured there were many places for anyone who is feeling sad or
depressed to call. She urged everyone to think back about happy times. She thanked the people who
continue to contact her; she agreed there were decorum issues that were not being addressed. She
summarized let's all just be happy for a while.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 34
7.1.a
Public Comment for 3/23/21 City Council Meeting:
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:49 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil
<Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge,
Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the March 23, 2021 Council Meeting
The City's Official Street Map needs Review and Update. It is inconsistent.
I am still waiting for answers to the 11 questions I brought forth on April 23, 2019 -
see Questions below. (Questions slightly modified due to 450-word limit for public comments) I
think answers will benefit the public, elected officials, and City Staff.
In general, I think there is much confusion at City Hall about what a Right -of -Way is. Our Code
does not define "Right -of -Way". Our Code fails to discuss the dramatic differences between
Opened and Unopened Rights -of -Way. Our Code does not include the word "servient". Our
Code's definition of easement is wrong.
Our Code fails to make it clear that the rights of both dominant and servient estate owners
are not absolute and must be construed to permit a due and reasonable enjoyment of both
interests so long as that is possible.
History shows Edmonds City Government thinks it can require grants of benefits to third parties
when the City vacates its dominant estate. Third parties who have no rights to the property
whatsoever!
Questions:
1. What is a "planned right-of-way"? A search of the City Code for "planned right-of-way"
yields no results.
2. How does a "planned right-of-way" end up on the City's Official Street Map?
3. When was this "planned right-of-way" added to the City's Official Street Map?
4. The 4/24/2019 Planning Board Packet Page 23 states that "With future development of the
underlying property, the Official Street Map would require dedication of the 60-ft right-of-way
as a public street". I don't follow that. Is there an actual Code Section that requires this? If so,
please provide the Code section that requires dedication of the 60-ft right-of-way as a public
street.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 35
7.1.a
5. How does something not yet dedicated end up on the City's Official Street Map? Does a
street have to be dedicated and accepted?
6. As it appears that there has not been a dedication, how did City Water, sewer and storm
utilities get located partially within the 60-ft planned right-of-way?
7. Did the placement of City Water, sewer and storm utilities within the "planned right-of-way"
open the right-of-way or is a right-of-way only opened when it is improved so that it can be
used for ingress/egress?
8. Was this "planned right-of-way" bonded for? If so, should the bond have been used to pay
for the construction of the street?
9. Why does this process not involve a closed record meeting? Have the State's related
regulations been reformed since 1997?
10. What is the difference between a "planned right-of-way" and an unopened right-of-way?
11. If something is on the Official Street Map - why is this not being treated as a street
vacation?
From: Dmitry S
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:35 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmond unit lot subdivision amendment
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
Best wishes, Dmitry
From: Dmitry Semyonov
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:33 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmond unit lot subdivision amendment
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 36
7.1.a
--Thanks, Dmitry
From: Tam Dang
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:38 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject:
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
Thank you - Tam
From: Andy Miller
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:23 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: unit lot subdivision
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds. Both of my parents
grew up in Edmonds in the 50's and 60's and we love the town. We'd like to move our family
back to Edmonds and raise our children there but have thus far found it unaffordable and have
no interest in condo living. This amendment seems to increase non -condo affordable housing
options without increasing density - please support it.
Andy Miller
From: top shot
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:08 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds unit lot
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
From: Jeromy Amy
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:42 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 29
Packet Pg. 37
7.1.a
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds sub division
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
From: in stock
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:38 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
From: steady cooking
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:36 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Do the right thing
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
From: nike snkres
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:20 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds division
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 30
Packet Pg. 38
7.1.a
From: Doug Neou
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:04 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision should be done
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
From: doug shoemaker
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:45 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Unit Lot Subdivision
I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like
there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to
pay condo fees.
From: HOME SEARCH
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:38 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
From: Taylor Gant
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:35 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision Amendment
Hello,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 31
Packet Pg. 39
7.1.a
I am writing to voice my opinion that I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the
downtown business district. It seems like there is no difference in what can be built, and it
makes costs cheaper because I won't have to pay condo fees.
Thanks!
Taylor
From: Jeromy Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:23 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Its the right thing to do
I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for
affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos.
From: Vasily Stepin
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:33 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the unit lot subdivision amendment! From what I understand, it will
lower the cost on construction and we do not need any more condos in the city!
Highest Regards,
Vasily
From: S O
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:08 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Unit lot subdivision downtown Edmonds
I'm in support of this amendment. Seems like it will allow for more affordable housing.
Sean
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 32
Packet Pg. 40
7.1.a
a+
Q
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 33
Packet Pg. 41
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/13/2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #246831 through #246938 dated April 8, 2021 for $674,872.92.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64645 through #64650 for $666,454.85, benefit checks
#64651 through #64656 and wire payments of $631,801.57 for the pay period March 16, 2021 through
March 31, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claims 04-08-21
claim sno co 04-08-21
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 04-08-21
payroll summary 04-05-21
payroll summary 04-05-21 a
payroll benefits 04-05-21
Packet Pg. 42
7.2.a
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
246831
4/8/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
CM-2-1342
RETURN UNIFORM PANTS & SHIRT
2 BLAUER PANTS
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
1 BLAUER PANT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
G 1 CLASS A - BLAUER SHIRT
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
INV-2-9772
INV-2-9772 - EDMONDS PD - HARD'
5.11 STRYKE PDU SHIRT
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
PATCH INSTALL - 5
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
NAME TAPE
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
CUSTOM HEAT PRESS
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
INV-2-9773
INV-2-9773 - EDMONDS PD - JOHN!
BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
TRAUMA PLATE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
EXTERNAL CARRIER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
HEAT PRESS EDMONDS PD
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
2 NAME TAPES
Page: 1
aD
L
3
c
�a
.y
Amoun 0
a
aD
r
U
d
-169.9£
N
-89.9�
m
-79.9c v
m
-34.0(
c
79.9£ f°
0
L
15.0(
a
8.0( E
20.0( ,-
0
12.4, >
0
L
Q
a
880.0( Q
N
80.0( ao
0
20.0( c
E
200.0( 'M
10.0(
aD
E
10.0(
co
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 2
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246831
4/8/2021
076040 911 SUPPLY INC
(Continued)
0
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
as
16.0( -0
NAME TAPE VELCRO
U
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
m
10.0( .L
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
123.8< -!e
INV-2-9774
INV-2-9774 - EDMONDS PD - PECK
BALLISTIC VEST
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
880.0(
CONCEALABLE CARRIER
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
80.0(
TRAUMA PLATE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
20.0(
EXTERNAL CARRIER
0
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
200.0( >+
SAFARILAND ID PANEL
a
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
HEAT PRESS EDMONDS PD
ca
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( U
2 NAME TAPES
0
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0(
NAME TAPE VELCRO
0 L
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0( a
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
123.8<
Total:
2,461.11 ago
0
246832
4/8/2021
073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC
303599
DRUG TESTING - DOT
c
STREET - YARBROUGH
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
55.0( .
WWTP - BERNSTEIN
f°
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
55.0( ;
Total:
110.0(
E
246833
4/8/2021
064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
139328120
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
t
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
246833
4/8/2021
064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
139328121
FIRE INSPECTION CITY HALL
FIRE INSPECTION CITY HALL 121 5
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota I :
246834
4/8/2021
064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE
50871
WWTP: PO 523 AIR COMPRESSOR
PO 523 AIR COMPRESSOR MAINTE
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota I :
246835
4/8/2021
077610 ALBA PAINTING & COATINGS
FS20
FS 20 - PREP & PAINT EXTERIOR/ (
FS 20 - PREP & PAINT EXTERIOR/ (
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Tota I :
246836
4/8/2021
074488 ALPHA COURIER INC
21981
WWTP: 3/1,3/8,3/15, 3/22, 3/30 COL
3/1,3/8,3/15, 3/22, 3/30 COURIER
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
246837
4/8/2021
001528 AM TEST INC
120610
WWTP: SAMPLE 21-A002782
SAMPLE 21-A002782
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
120666
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002978-298',
SAMPLES 21-A002978-2982
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
120682
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002780-2781
SAMPLES 21-A002780-2781
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
120683
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A002663-266i
7.2.a
Page: 3
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
129.0E 'D
r
U
d
84.8E
213.9'
m
2,169.8- c
d
M
225.6E
2,395.4,
0
L
�a
a
34,600.0(
3,598.4(
38,198.4( c
�a
0
a
447.8(
447.8( Q
N
00
0
110.0( o
E
M
355.0( Z
c
aD
80.0( t
U
�a
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246837 4/8/2021 001528 AM TEST INC (Continued)
120703
120704
120705
246838 4/8/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 6560000020853
656000020883
246839 4/8/2021 077244 ARMOR INDUSTRIAL 2361
PO # Description/Account
SAMPLES 21-A002663-2667
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A003562-356":
SAMPLES 21-A003562-3563
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A003101-310,'
SAMPLES 21-A003101-3102
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: SAMPLES 21-A003272-327E
SAMPLES 21-A003272-3276
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
WWTP:3/31/21 UNIFORMSJOWEL
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each =
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
Total
WWTP: PO 518 BATTERY PACK
PO 518 battery pack
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
7.2.a
Page: 4
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
355.0( u
80.0(
m
80.0(
m
c
d
355.0(
15415.0( sa
0
�a
a
51.4f
0.5' u
0
5.3E �a
0
L
0.0E a
Q
29.5E N
0
0
3.01 c
90.0: ,n
E
U
678.0(
E
50.5E U
�a
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
246839
4/8/2021 077244 ARMOR INDUSTRIAL
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota I :
246840
4/8/2021 078097 ARMSTEAD CONSULTING INC
8
EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE TASI
EQUITY & SOCIAL JUSTICE TASK F
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total
246841
4/8/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
120652
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 717
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 717
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 717
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 717
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 717
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
120691
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 668
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 668
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 668
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 668
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 668
7.2.a
Page: 5
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
75.7, 'D
804.3: m
L_
13
N
2,250.0(
2,250.0(
m
c
50.1 E
c
�a
50.1( —
0
51.6E a
5.2' •�
U
164.9' c
�a
164.9' c
L
a
5.0, Q
5.0, N
00
0
46.7z N
E
46.7z f°
U
48.1 z a0i
E
153.6z
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246841 4/8/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
246842 4/8/2021 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 71022
246843 4/8/2021 063408 BARTELS & STOUT INC
PO # Description/Account
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
ROUGH BOX - BERGMAN
ROUGH BOX - BERGMAN
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
Total
Total :
SRC2156 WWTP: MAINTENANCE - LEICA DM
MAINTENANCE - LEICA DMLS - NO
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
246844 4/8/2021 002300 BEAVER EQUIPMENT SPECALITY CO 20238i
246845 4/8/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
WWTP: PO 437 ACTUATOR
PO 437 ACTUATOR
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
Total
1240720 FLEET -
AUTO PROPANE 653.50 GF
FLEET -
AUTO PROPANE 653.50 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1242329 FLEET -
AUTO PROPANE 555.20 GF
FLEET -
AUTO PROPANE 555.20 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
14484C FLEET -
AUTO PROPANE 771.10 GF
7.2.a
Page: 6
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
246845
4/8/2021
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
(Continued)
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 771.10 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
Tota I :
246846
4/8/2021
075342 BORUCHOW ITZ, ROBERT
03-2021
PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
MARCH PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICI
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total
246847
4/8/2021
077627 BOTACH INC
6340479
INV 6340479 - EDMONDS PD
3M PELTOR RADIO ADAPTER-GAGI
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
Total
246848
4/8/2021
077243 BPAS
1000774548
APRIL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
APRILADMIN FEES
001.000.39.518.61.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
111.000.68.542.61.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
APRILADMIN FEES
001.000.41.521.22.23.00
7.2.a
Page: 7
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
1,121.6E u
3,031.w
N
m
1,083.3' v
1,083.3:
m
c
d
189.1-
12.0(
�a
a
20.9,
222.0: •�
0
7a
324.0( o
a
139.5( Q
27.0( N
0
0
31.5( 9
0
27.0( E
M
58.5( U
c
31.5( E
t
U
216.0(
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 49
7.2.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
246848
4/8/2021
077243 077243 BPAS
(Continued)
Total:
0
855.0( 0
246849
4/8/2021
067947 BROWNELLS INC
19663520.01
INV 19663520.01 - ACCT 00557761 -
PISTOL CLEANING RODS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
33.7(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
3.5( a0i
RT00917775
RETURN SUPER -DUTY PATCHES
RETURN SUPER -DUTY PATCHES
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
-32.7� c
Total :
4.41
246850
4/8/2021
018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY
94972626
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
—
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
496.7'
10.1 % Sales Tax
ca
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
a
50.1
94972627
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
fd
U
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
410.8z c
10.1 % Sales Tax
�a
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
41.5( o
94979751
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
a
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
°-
Q
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
N
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
29.4z c
94979752
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE-
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
437.3" E
10.1 % Sales Tax
2
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
44.1 £
Total:
1,801.7:
246851
4/8/2021
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
26378168
DEV SVCS - COPIER CONTRACT (F
Planning Copier (SN: QNR11863)-
+a
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246851 4/8/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
246852 4/8/2021 003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA 1003
246853 4/8/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
246854 4/8/2021 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
246855 4/8/2021 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
RN03210962
RN03210963
17120
PO # Description/Account
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
Total :
GRANT AGREEMENT: LRG GRANT
GRANT AGREEMENT: LRG GRANT
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Total
YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL
YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
WWTP: 3/2021 CYLINDER RENTAL-
3/2021 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
WWTP: 2020 O&M BALANCE+CONE
2020 O&M EXPENSES BALANCE DI
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
Edmonds Share of 2020 CONSTRUC
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
Total
69152 CITY CODE WEB UPDATES
city code web updates
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Total :
7.2.a
Page: 9
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
60.6< 'D
U
m
6.3( ,L
66.9:
N
V
m
U
300.0(
300.0( c
d
c
�a
60.0( —
0
6.2z a
E
142.7E
0
14.8E 0
223.8' c
L
Q
a
Q
209,153.1 , N
00
18,050.5E 9
227,203.7( N
E
M
1,432.5(
aD
140.4( t
1,572.9(
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 10
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
246856
4/8/2021
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
8498310301175175
CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH Sl
CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S�
130.000.64.536.20.42.00
140.2,
8498310301175191
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
001.000.64.571.29.42.00
140.2,
Total:
280.5'
246857
4/8/2021
078329 COMPENSATION CONNECTIONS LLC
1568
WWTP MARKET STUDY
WWTP MARKET STUDY
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
440.0(
Tota I :
440.0(
246858
4/8/2021
075967 CRONIN, TERESA SUAREZ
53287
INTERPRETER - 9Z1166164
INTERPRETER - 9Z1166164
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
123.7z
Total :
123.7'
246859
4/8/2021
006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
3366372
EOGA INVITATION TO BID
EOGA INVITATION TO BID
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
718.1(
Total :
718.1(
246860
4/8/2021
074444 DATAQUEST LLC
14448
BACKGROUND CHECKS - MARCH
MARCH BACKGROUND CHECKS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
540.0(
Tota I :
540.0(
246861
4/8/2021
076172 DK SYSTEMS
25478
CITY HALL - BI ANNUAL MAINT.
CITY HALL - BI ANNUAL MAINT.
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
5,866.5'
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
610.1-
27828
FIRE STATION 20 - THERMOSTAT R
FIRE STATION 20 - THERMOSTAT R
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
1.067.7E
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246861 4/8/2021 076172 DK SYSTEMS
246863
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
4/8/2021 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 21-3084.2
4/8/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2188
NUM
2197
Wile
2205
PO # Description/Account
PREVAILING WAGE
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total :
E21 FB SERVICES THRU 03/21/2021
E21 FB SERVICES THRU 03/21/2021
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
Total
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE, LIGHTER
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE, LIGHTER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NYLON ROPE
PM SUPPLIES: NYLON ROPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: ADHESIVE, NUTS, E?
PM SUPPLIES: ADHESIVE, NUTS, E?
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
7.2.a
Page: 11
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
20.0( u
L
111.0z
7,675.4:
m
v
1,152.9,
1,152.9:
c
�a
34.5,
�a
a
3.6(
U
31.9£ c
�a
3.3< p
L
a
a
Q
15.74 "
N
1.6' c
0
8.7( E
0.9( U
c
a�
E
12.9£ U
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246863 4/8/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued)
2206
2208
2209
246864 4/8/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR185655
AR189168
246865 4/8/2021 074437 EMPLOYERS HEALTH COALITION WA 2021-COED-RETMEDQ2
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: MAT
PM SUPPLIES: MAT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: GUTTER GUARD, Gi
PM SUPPLIES: GUTTER GUARD, Gi
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Maintenance 02/21/21 - 03/20/21 Car
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
DEV SVCS-COPIER MONTHLY CON
Dev Svcs copier (SN: 3AP01472)-
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
Total
02 RETIREE DUES
02 RETIREE DUES
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
Total
7.2.a
Page: 12
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
1.3E 'D
v
m
L
23.9E 13
N
2.4�
v
16.9� c
a�
1.71
�a
0
6.3£ `>,
M
a
0.6E E
167.0( 'i
0
Ta
31.9E o
L
a
a
307.2( Q
N
146.8, c
0
15.2, N
501.2� .E
�a
U
c
a�
1,530.0( E
1,530.0( U
�a
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
246866
4/8/2021
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
EDH922903
PLANNING - LEGALAD
Phase 2 Stormwater Replacement-
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
EDH923018
PLANNING - LEGAL AD
PLN2021-0007 Notice of application-
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Tota I :
246867
4/8/2021
063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
BLD2021-0380
DEV SVCS REFUND
80% Refund of Permit fees-
001.000.257.620
Tota I :
246868
4/8/2021
071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL
WA70014-1-0043
INV WA70014-1-0043 - EDMONDS PI
DISPOSAL OF 1 ANIMAL
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
Total
246869
4/8/2021
012198 GFOA
2153002
MEMBERSHIP #53553002 D TURLE'
Membership for D Turley & D Sharp
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
Membership for D Turley & D Sharp
001.000.31.514.20.49.00
Total
246870
4/8/2021
012199 GRAINGER
9840064951
PM SUPPLIES: GARDEN HOSE, HAI
PM SUPPLIES: GARDEN HOSE, HAI
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9840600994
PM SUPPLIES: SHOWER HOSE
PM SUPPLIES: SHOWER HOSE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9843223042
WWTP: PO 529 EYE WASH BOTTLE
7.2.a
Page: 13
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
43.4( u
L_
60.2(
103.6(
v
m
c
104.0(
104.0(
c
�a
0
13.1£ a
13mli
E
U
152.5( c
�a
152.5( a
305.0( Q
N
00
90.2z c
0
9.3£ E
26.9z
aD
2.8( t
U
�a
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246870 4/8/2021 012199 GRAINGER (Continued)
9847810588
246871 4/8/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY 12376643
12382743
12387353
12396377
12396722
PO # Description/Account
PO 529 EYE WASH BOTTLE
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ ACCE
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ ACCE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
WWTP: PO 510 PIPET TIPS
PO 510 PIPET TIPS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
WWTP: PO 510 FILTER FOR DQ3 V1
PO 510 FILTER FOR DQ3 WATER S'
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
WWTP: PO 512 WATER BATH
PO 512 WATER BATH
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
WWTP: PO 510 PROBE LIDO MODE
PO 510 PROBE LDO MODEL
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
WWTP: PO 510 ROSOLIC ACID
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
PO 510 ROSOLIC ACID
7.2.a
Page: 14
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
35.4z u
L
3.6�
N
m
z
75.4, v
7.3� c
251.31
c
�a
0
336.3(
�a
a
34.9,
U
218.0( o
�a
22.6 , o
a
a
Q
2,809.8(
N
292.2, o
0
2,153.0( .
R
U
223.9,
c
a�
E
t
52.5- u
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246871 4/8/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued)
246872 4/8/2021 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 0071-7196
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total :
WWTP: PO 530 1/2" VALVE DIAPHR
PO 530 1/2" VALVE DIAPHRAGM
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
246873 4/8/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1024028
F.A.C. - BOILER SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - BOILER SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1024110
F.A.C. - BOILER SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - BOILER SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2055486
SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
3072455
STREET - SUPPLIES
STREET - SUPPLIES
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
5055220
SEWER - SUPPLIES
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
7.2.a
Page: 15
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
504.9( 'D
6,648.25 m
L_
N
1,281.0( y
t
U
20.0E
m
c
135.3'
1,436.41
c
�a
0
76.9' a
7.9, •�
U
0
47.3E 0
0
4.8E a
a
Q
35.8� N
00
0
3.7(
0
E
7.7E 2
U
0.8(
E
z
5.4E
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246873 4/8/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
50658
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
5625055
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
613057
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
7010623
PUBLIC SAFETY - DRINKING FOUN
PUBLIC SAFETY - DRINKING FOUN
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7010625
OLD PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
OLD PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7030278
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
8024463
SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
7.2.a
Page: 16
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
53.1 f u
L_
66.91
m
6.9(
m
c
17.2E M
c
1.7f
0
L
48.4, a
E
4.9E .i
0
75.5( >
0
L
7.71 Q
Q
53.4<
00
5.5( c
E
2
229.0( U
c
23.5E E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246873 4/8/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
8092551
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES (RETI
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES (RETI
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8254839
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES RETL
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES RETI
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8626285
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES
FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9014349
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
STREET - CONCRETE SUPPLIES
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
9014370
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES FOR C
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES FOR C
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9014427
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9520249
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
7.2.a
Page: 17
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
160.8( 'D
r
U
d
16.5,
N
169.0(
17.4-
c
aD
M
-169.0(
�a
-17.4- o
L
�a
a
129.0(
13.2� u
4-
0
7a
47.3E o
a
a
4.8E Q
N
00
45.5, c
0
4.6E
2
U
38.4,
a�
3.9E E
U
co
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246873 4/8/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
246874 4/8/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9524751
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
0551996145
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996146
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996147
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996148
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996149
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996150
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996151
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B1
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B1
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0551996152
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONEI
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
7.2.a
Page: 18
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
50.7- u
L
5.2,
N
m
z
71.91 u
7.4- c
1,384.9E
c
�a
0
644.9�
�a
a
439.6(
0
246.0( Ta
0
L
a
a
120.4E Q
N
120.4E c
0
221.6E E
U
120.4E y
E
t
1,514.1,
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246874 4/8/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET
246875
246876
246877
246878
4/8/2021 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE
4/8/2021 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
0551996153
0551996154
BID-03032021
BID- E D2021-02
4/8/2021 078328 INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES NW INC 111275
4/8/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10084538
300-10085043
PO # Description/Account
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total
BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER FEB
BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER FEB
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FEBRUAR
BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FEBRUAR
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
COMPUTER TECHNICIAN SERVICE
COMPUTER TECHNICIAN SERVICE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
UNIT 121 PARTS/ HEADLAMP
UNIT 121 PARTS/ HEADLAMP
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
PM SUPPLIES: CABLE TIES, MOTOI
PM SUPPLIES: CABLE TIES, MOTOI
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.2.a
Page: 19
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
120.4E
13
118.2E
3,666.41 U
m
c
d
2,766.6,
2,766.6,
0
�a
a
600.0(
600.0( .E
2
U
0
610.0( >
0
a
63.4z
673.4z Q
N
00
0
23.8( o
2.4£
c
63.5( E
t
6.6(
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
246878
4/8/2021
014940 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
(Continued)
Total
246879
4/8/2021
078322 JACKSON MAIN ARCHITECTURE
CRA2021-0038
PERMIT REFUND
CRA2021-0038-
001.000.257.620
Total
246880
4/8/2021
075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
6390
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
Apr-2021 Fiber Optics Internet
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Total:
246881
4/8/2021
015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
849353
WWTP: PO 179 SODIUM HYPOCHL
PO 179 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
WA Hazadous Substance Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.53
Total
246882
4/8/2021
076136 JEFF ANDERSON
BID-04012021
BID/ED! DESIGN FOR LOVE LOCAL
BID/ED! DESIGN FOR LOVE LOCAL
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total:
246883
4/8/2021
078324 KAMACHO, COLE
3/23/2021
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PESTICIDE
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
Total
246884
4/8/2021
072101 KCR MEDIA GROUP INC
11547
E7DC KOREAN WEEKLY PUBLICAT
E7DC KOREAN WEEKLY PUBLICAT
112.000.68.595.61.41.00
7.2.a
Page: 20
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
96.31
U
d
L_
110.0(
110.0(
m
590.0( m
c
61.3E -a
651.3E
0
L
�a
3,672.9( a
E
25.7-
4-
381.9E o
4,080.55
0
Q
a
Q
300.0(
300.0(
00
0
146.7( .
146.7(
c
aD
E
275.0( U
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 21
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
246884
4/8/2021
072101 072101 KCR MEDIA GROUP INC
(Continued)
Total :
275.0(
246885
4/8/2021
066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC
8180
E183PO & E184 PO - PARTS/ BUCK
E183PO & E184 PO - PARTS/ BUCK
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
374.0(
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
11.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
40.1
Total :
426.05
246886
4/8/2021
017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
03162021-02
FEBRURAT2021 CAR WASHES
FEBRURAY CAR WASHES - UNITS:
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
20.2E
Total :
20.2F
246887
4/8/2021
075474 LEACH, JENNIFER
03/29/2021
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
89.5<
Total:
89.5:
246888
4/8/2021
066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC
5886
HEARING TESTS
HEARING TESTS
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
560.0(
Tota I :
560.0(
246889
4/8/2021
074848 LONG BAY ENTERPRISES INC
2021-1024
REAL ESTATE CONSULTING SERVI
REAL ESTATE CONSULTING SERVI
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
1,887.5(
Total :
1,887.5(
246890
4/8/2021
075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
E0135007
PUBLIC SAFETY - PAINT
PUBLIC SAFETY - PAINT
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
63.9�
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.6E
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 22
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
246890
4/8/2021
075716 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
(Continued)
Total :
0
70.6' 0
246891
4/8/2021
019582 MANOR HARDWARE
113239-00
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ EPDXY
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ EPDXY
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
147.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
15.4, m
Total:
162.4'
246892
4/8/2021
078325 MARINE INDUSTRIAL TANK INC
3833852000012313055
WATER - YOST RESERVOIR CLEAN
m
WATER - YOST RESERVOIR CLEAN
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
3,867.5(
Total:
3,867.5(
246893
4/8/2021
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
345581
PM SUPPLIES: LINE, EAR PLUGS
o
PM SUPPLIES: LINE, EAR PLUGS
�a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
49.3,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
5.1 <
345583
PM SUPPLIES: CORDLESS PRUNEI
PM SUPPLIES: CORDLESS PRUNEI
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
189.9E >
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.7E Q
345708
PM: CHAINSAW
--
PM: CHAINSAW
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
569.9E 00
10.4% Sales Tax
9
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
59.2,
Total:
893.4: E
246894
4/8/2021
070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
10342151
MARCH GOCOMMUTER FEES
2
MARCH GO COMMUTER FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
25.0(
10342152
MARCH FSA FEES
E
MARCH FSA FEES
U
�a
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246894 4/8/2021 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS (Continued)
246895 4/8/2021 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 4531
246896 4/8/2021 025690 NOYES, KARIN
246897 4/8/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
PO # Description/Account
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total :
PM: CEDAR PLAY CHIPS
PM: CEDAR PLAY CHIPS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
000 00 795
PLANNING - PROF SVCS
Planning Board Minutes-
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Total
160273471001
INV 160273471001- ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - NAPKINS, SOAP
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
161160177001
INV 161160177001- ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ PENS
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
IMPORT SURCHARGE
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
161195820001
INV 161195820001- ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - CALC INK RIBBO
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
161195821001
INV 161195821001- ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - FILE FOLDERS &
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
7.2.a
Page: 23
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
157.7( -0
182.7( u
m
L_
N
486.0(
t
U
50.5z
536.5z c
c
�a
247.0( —
247.0(
�a
a
E
63.5(
4-
0
6.6"
0
a
458.4' Q
0.2' N
0
47.6E 9
0
E
2.7z 'M
0.2f
aD
E
t
42.0'
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246897 4/8/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
246898 4/8/2021 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER March, 2021
246899 4/8/2021 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
Total :
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI`
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.237.120
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.237.330
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.237.260
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.237.290
Multi -Model Transportation
001.000.237.300
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
001.000.237.170
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340
Vehicle License Fraud Acct
001.000.237.390
Total
HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION
HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION
7.2.a
Page: 24
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
4.31 U
625.8° •`—
N
m
1,073.1(
17,329.9E
a�
435.0(
�a
85.8; o
L
5,262.8E a
E
2,148.5< 'ij
U
45 1,023.9� 0
Ta
99.9� o
a
a
99.9� Q
409.2( N
00
0
7.8E c
487.3< •E
215.4E
28,679.2i E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246899 4/8/2021 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT (Continued)
0060860
246900 4/8/2021 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
246901 4/8/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
246902 4/8/2021 078326 PALMER, DEBORAH
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/
HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Total
44798 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3685-122950 UNIT 14 - OIL FILTER
UNIT 14 - OIL FILTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-123945 UNIT 47 - OIL FILTER
UNIT 47 - OIL FILTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-124972 UNIT 103 - OIL FILTER
UNIT 103 - OIL FILTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
Total :
OTF PALMER OTF PALMER CONTRACT FOR ART
OTF PALMER CONTRACT FOR ART
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Total
7.2.a
Page: 25
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
21.9E 'D
r
U
d
126.2E 13
148.2:
m
1,236.2' c
d
128.5 ,
1,364.8(
0
L
�a
a
35.2' E
3.6E U
0
�a
33.8, o
L
a
3.5, Q
N
5.2E c
0.5E N
82.05 E
c
500.0(
500.0( t
U
�a
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246903 4/8/2021 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
1I-VIO !
246905
246906
4/8/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
4/8/2021 078261 R ALEXANDER ASSOCIATES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
123013
1JO5608
1,184980
1,185003
1 L14618
1L14628
6307
4/8/2021 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 23494
PO # Description/Account
INV 123013 - CS 21-8361 - EDMONE
TOW BLUE CHRYSLER - CS 21-836
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Total
WWTP: NO TAX CHGD ON FRT; CR
NO TAX CHGD ON FRT; CREDIT MI
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: NO TAX ON FRT CHG; CRE
NO TAX ON FRT CHG; CREDIT MEN
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: ISSUED FOR INV 1J05608
CREDIT FOR INV 1 J05608 AS NO T/
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: ISSUED FOR INV. 1,184980
.ISSUED FOR INV. 1J84980 AS NO
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: PO 319 FRT CHG FOR SOL
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
WWTP:3/2021 SERVICES
3/2021 SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
CITY HALL - SERVICE CALL
CITY HALL - SERVICE CALL
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
7.2.a
Page: 26
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
o_
m
184.0( u
L
19.3,
203.3,
m
v
284.4,
a�
284.4,
0
-284.4, a
E
-284.0 U
4-
0
�a
284.4, o
L
a
a
29.5E Q
314.0(
N
00
0
1,920.0( N
1,920.0( E
U
c
357.0( E
t
U
37.1
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 68
7.2.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246906 4/8/2021 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA
(Continued)
0
23499
CITY HALL - SERVICE STAIRWELL,
CITY HALL - SERVICE STAIRWELL,
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
m
3,106.11
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
323.0z Y
Total:
3,823.31
246907 4/8/2021 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
3-0197-0800478
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
c
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
238.81 (D
3-0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
39.0< o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
148.3< a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
148.3' 'E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
148.3 0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
148.3' o
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
a
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
148.3, Q
3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
258.0E o
3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
c
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
71.6E .
Total:
1,349.2E
246908 4/8/2021 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE
62537
E20CE SERVICES THRU 01/30/2021
c
E20CE SERVICES THRU 01/30/2021
0
E
112.000.68.595.33.41.00 44,336.6,
E20CE SERVICES THRU 01/30/2021 +°
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 28
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
246908
4/8/2021
076328 SCJ ALLIANCE
(Continued)
0
112.000.68.595.20.61.00
as
659.0,1
62840
E20CE SERVICES THRU 02/27/2021
E20CE SERVICES THRU 02/27/2021
L
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
50,842.4(
E20CE SERVICES THRU 02/27/2021
112.000.68.595.20.61.00
780.2�
Total:
96,618.41 U
246909
4/8/2021
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
S3-6205967
UNIT 121 - PARTS
c
UNIT 121 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
42.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.3E o
Total:
46.4E ">,
M
246910
4/8/2021
074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC
54480
REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT
a
Remote computer support - 12/15/20
E
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
210.0( a
54658
REMOTE & ONSITE COMPUTER Sl
o
Remote computer support - 12/11/20,
—a
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
4,042.5( o
54731
REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT
a
Remote computer support - 1/11/21 8
°-
Q
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
525.0E "
55251
REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT
N
Remote computer support - 3/2/21,
c
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
1,680.0(
55285
REMOTE & ONSITE COMPUTER SL
Remote computer support - 3/25/21 8
E
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
682.5( 2
Total:
7,140.0(
c
246911
4/8/2021
078295 SHINN, KATHLEEN
OTF SHINN
OTF SHINN CONTRACT FOR ARTIS
0
OTF SHINN CONTRACT FOR ARTIS
t
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
500.0(
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246911 4/8/2021 078295 078295 SHINN, KATHLEEN
246912 4/8/2021 072214 SIGMA-ALDRICH INC
246913
246914
246916
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
553170560
4/8/2021 066748 SNO CO DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 1000550115
4/8/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3340
4/8/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200124873
200386456
200422418
200493146
200748606
PO #
Description/Account
WWTP: PH WATER NO PO
PH WATER NO PO
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
Total :
2021 FIBER NETWORK HOSTING S
2021 Fiber Network Hosting Services
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Total
PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT - MA
MARCH PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTR/
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
7.2.a
Page: 29
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
500.0(
U
d
L_
31.9(
N
3.0E
t
U
3.6z +'
38.6(
c
�a
630.0( —
630.0( L,
�a
a
E
31,764.5E
31,764.5E o
�a
0
CL
33.3 -
Q
76.5< ab
0
0
816.6E
M
17.11
aD
E
t
18.8� um
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246916 4/8/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
200943348
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201192226
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201265980
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201374964
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201557303
CEMETERY BUILDING
CEMETERY BUILDING
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
201563434
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201582152
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201594488
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201610276
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
201611951
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201656907
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN
7.2.a
Page: 30
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
64.7<
N
45.0z
18.7f
d
135.3<
0
L
19.8" a
E
151.6E u
4-
0
�a
30.1 E o
a
a
Q
34.7�
N
00
0
16.8( c
E
8.8; u
c
0
26.7< E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246916 4/8/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201703758
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10(
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10(
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201711785
STREET LIGHTING 1 LIGHTS @ 15(
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201751476
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201762101
415 5TH AVE S
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201782646
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST /
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201907862
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202087870
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
202161535
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
202289120
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
202421582
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
202529186
STREET LIGHTING (406 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (406 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202529202
STREET LIGHTING 7 LIGHTS @ 40(
7.2.a
Page: 31
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
222.8 -, 'D
U
m
30.7<
N
m
8.61
m
c
51.3 M'
c
�a
21.1E o
L
�a
a
16.6(
U
45 31.9( 0
0
L
161.1, a
Q
83.9- N
0
0
4
0
61.1,
E
2
U
31.5(
c
aD
E
3,955.0- U
Q
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246916 4/8/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
STREET LIGHTING (7 LIGHTS @ 40
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202576153
STREET LIGHTING (2097 LIGHTS C
STREET LIGHTING (2097 LIGHTS C
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202579488
STREET LIGHTING (33 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (33 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202579520
WWTP: 3-1 - 3-31-21 ENERGY MGM
3-1 - 3-31-21 ENERGY MANAGEMI
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
202620415
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
204292213
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
204467435
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
204714893
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
204714927
STREET LIGHTING (19 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (19 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
204714935
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
204714943
STREET LIGHTING (4 LIGHTS @ 10
STREET LIGHTING (4 LIGHTS @ 10
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
204714950
STREET LIGHTING (12 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (12 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
7.2.a
Page: 32
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
110.5E u
13, 548.61
m
378.8'
m
c
a�
9.71
�a
0
17.1, `5%
M
a
E
133.0£
0
23.9'
0
L
Q
a
6.1' Q
N
158.7( o
0
86.5E .
�a
U
18.8, y
E
t
U
134.9E Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246916 4/8/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
246917
246918
246919
246920
4/8/2021 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1
4/8/2021 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
220547582
222704264
CONNECT# 50156956
3448
4/8/2021 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER March 2021
4/8/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
103583
103584
PO # Description/Account
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
WWTP:2/27-3/30/21 FLOWMETER
2/27-3/30/21 FLOW METER 23219
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
Total
PUD ASSISTING THE CITY AT 2372(
PUD ASSISTING THE CITY AT 2372(
111.000.68.542.90.49.00
Total
APR-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA
APR-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA
001.000.39.528.00.41.50
APR-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA
421.000.74.534.80.41.50
APR-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPA
423.000.75.535.80.41.50
Total
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140
Total
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
WWTP:3/2031 RECYCLING
3/2021 Recycling + taxes
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
7.2.a
Page: 33
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
46.4(
N
18.3,
20,883.1 F U
m
c
2,416.0(
2,416.0(
0
�a
a
70,384.0£
1,852.2-
0
1,852.2- 0
74,088.5( p
L
Q
a
Q
366.7- N
366.71 00
0
0
626.0(
c
38.7E E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
246920 4/8/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued)
103586
103587
M131..I1
104757
246921 4/8/2021 076114 SOUND SALMON SOLUTIONS 1397
246922
246923
246924
4/8/2021 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18304347
4/8/2021 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
4/8/2021 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION
94058
US53022
PO # Description/Account
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE & RECYC
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
WWTP: 3/2021 ROLLOFF ASH DISF
Rolloff Ash disposal & taxes
423.000.76.535.80.47.65
Total
EDMONDS FOREST STEWARDS St
EDMONDS FOREST STEWARDS St
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
Total
FLEET - STEEL PLOW BOLT
FLEET - STEEL PLOW BOLT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
FLEET - EMBROIDERY ON CARHAF
FLEET - EMBROIDERY ON CARHAF
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
Total
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI
7.2.a
Page: 34
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
671.9< 'D
U
m
L
605.1 £
N
m
1,040.2' v
m
c
459.8£ M'
c
�a
1,759.6, p
5,201.51 `>,
M
a
E
1,250.0( U
1,250.0( 0
�a
0
a
22.1 £ Q
2.3" N
24A4 0
0
E
245.8f 'M
25.5
271A E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246924 4/8/2021 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION
246925
246926
246927
4/8/2021 070774 ULINE INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
US53323
131286266
132074982
4/8/2021 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 127957
4/8/2021 064423 USA BLUE BOOK
491709/ 525876
PO # Description/Account
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HP
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HP
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total
INV 131286266 - CUST 2634605 - El
PATROL CAR TRASH BAGS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
WWTP: PO 537 SOAP DISPENSER
PO 537 SOAP DISPENSER PUMP, C
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
STORM - DUMP FEES
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
WATER - PARTS
WATER - PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
7.2.a
Page: 35
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
414.9( u
L
43.1E
N
m
z
1,487.0< U
154.6E c
2,099.7E
c
�a
0
36.0(
�a
a
14.4E E
5.2E u
4-
0
�a
131.0( o
a
a
10.7- Q
14.7z N
212.1E o
0
E
826.7E 2
826.7E
c
a�
E
t
234.7E
Q
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 36
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
246927
4/8/2021
064423 USA BLUE BOOK
(Continued)
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
61.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
30.8(
492025/ 525877
WATER - PARTS
WATER - PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
7.9f
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
12.3<
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
2.1-
Total :
349.3'
246928
4/8/2021
078323 VAN DER MERWE, AVRIL
EAC BB
CONTRACT FOR ARTS & CULTURA
CONTRACT FOR ARTS & CULTURA
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
100.0(
Total :
100.0(
246929
4/8/2021
073472 WAPRO
Gray, Lacey
WAPRO TRAINING FOR LACEY GR,
wapro training for Iacey gray
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
60.0(
Tota I :
60.0(
246930
4/8/2021
075283 WAVE
3201-1027483-01
FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF
High Speed Internet service 04/01/21
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
816.0(
Total:
816.0(
246931
4/8/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
12190711
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
68.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.0 ,
12190712
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 37
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
246931
4/8/2021
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
970.8z
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
100.91
Tota I :
1,146.81
246932
4/8/2021
047960 WEAN, GREG
30
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
1,849.9 ,
Total :
1,849.9 ,
246933
4/8/2021
075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR
7600560
PS - BIMONTHLY SERVICE
PS - BIMONTHLY SERVICE
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
103.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.8-
Total :
114.7E
246934
4/8/2021
069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS
0000046469
E7DC-1026:TRAFFIC SOLAR FLASH
E7DC-1026:TRAFFIC SOLAR FLASH
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
35,141.7E
Freight
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
471.7�
10.4% Sales Tax
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
3,703.8-
Total :
39,317.3E
246935
4/8/2021
072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
560992
STORM - WORK WEAR H. PLOEGE
STORM - WORK WEAR H. PLOEGE
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
485.8�
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.24.00
47.6,
564058
STREET - WORK WEAR J. WARD
STREET - WORK WEAR J. WARD
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
467.8�
9.8% Sales Tax
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
04/08/2021 9:25:12AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246935 4/8/2021 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR
246936 4/8/2021 078327 WISE LOCKSMITH
246937 4/8/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
106 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
106 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
111.000.68.542.90.24.00
Total:
3
SEWER - PADLOCKS & REKEY
SEWER - PADLOCKS & REKEY
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
5
SEWER - PADLOCKS
SEWER - PADLOCKS
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total:
253-003-6887
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-776-6829
CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION A
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Total:
Bank total
Total vouchers
7.2.a
Page: 38
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
45.8,1 'D
1,047.2: m
L_
13
N
360.0(
t
U
37.4z
m
c
d
75.0(
c
�a
7.8( o
480.2' L,
�a
a
E
42.1 f
0
�a
141.1< o
183.2f a
a
673,232.9, Q
673,232.9,
00
0
E
2
U
c
0
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 80
7.2.b
vchlist
04/08/2021 10 :29 :OOAM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
246938 4/8/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page: 1
L
3
c
�a
r
O
a
as
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun -8
Release of Lien RELEASE OF LIEN (41 LIENS) FOR
L
release of lien request, 41 liens for
T3
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
820.0( vi
release of lien, 41 liens for finance
U
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 820.0( t
Total : 1,640.0( rt'
d
Bank total : 1,640.0(
Total vouchers : 1,640.0(
�a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 81
E
_M
O
21
N
00
O
O
O
v
O
C
N
_E
_M
V
C
0)
E
t
V
r
r
Q
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Protect
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Stud
s018
W8FA
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
�019
Traffic Calming
am
611sw
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
[UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
�2019
Waterline Replacement
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
erlay Program
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
020 Pedestrian Task Force
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STIR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STIR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21CA
1h STIR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21CC
LSTM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
�021
Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21CB
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
Moor
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
VE73DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OV
i052
E20CB
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improveme
V c368
E1 CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining W-
i025
E7CD
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
IFSTIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing � i040 E9D�
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
LSTM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
SWR
Citywide CI PIP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement
i026
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
1015
E6AB
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
EOMA
Revised 4/7/2021 Packet Pg. 82
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Protect
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Reh
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
LWTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
ville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
_
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
evitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
torm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements J111111111111111hL
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
,ni..i.,..+ e+ �..u,.. av (3rd 4th
i044
E9DC
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design"
c496
E7MA J
§§MLRK
PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103 E7MA
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481 ESHA
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556 E21 FA
Revised 4/7/2021 Packet Pg. 83
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
EOAA
i046 11111PFZ020
Guardrail Installations
STR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
STR
EOCC
_ i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
2020 Pedestrian Safety Progra
STR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
c546_1
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c54;K
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c536
layfield (Design)
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
c368
th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
E20CB
i052
76th Ave"veT (196th St. to OVD)
STR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvemen
STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming
2021 Guardrail Installations
STR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
56
ilization
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
559
nnual Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E21GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
Wr
E�A
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Proj
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
4Mdmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
Revised 4/7/2021 Packet Pg. 84
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
-
E5FD
c479
reaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR
E5GB
so11
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
qWP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
E6AA
d�
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
r"DA
;�
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
Stormwater Comp Plan Update AL
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
7A
=
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
E7CD
j025
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
E7FA
m10
ope Repair & Stabilizatio
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
E7MA
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
i
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i033V
ADA Curb Ramps
STR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
s018
2018 Lorian Woods
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project liv
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c523
019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
UTILITIES
E8J13
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STR
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STM
E9FA
s022r
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 4/7/2021 Packet Pg. 85
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineerinq
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
SWR
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
STM
E21 FIB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
SWR
E21GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Revised 4/7/2021 Packet Pg. 86
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STIR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
STIR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STIR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
STIR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STIR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
STIR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
STIR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
EOCC
i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STIR
E21AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STR
E21AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
WTR
E21 CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i06o
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STIR
E21 DB
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Revised 4/7/2021 Packet Pg. 87
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
s
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA ,
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA t
s
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA L
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA '!t
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA z
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
S
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD 1
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA 't
s
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD i
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
!
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
!
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA s
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
T
E6FD C,
a
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC C
s
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
t
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
s
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA e
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA i
c
!
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC '
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB s
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
!
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA i
u
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC 1
c
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
Revised 4/7/2021
Packet Pg. 88
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
031
EBCC
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
017
E6DD
STR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
055
E20CE
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
061
E21 DB
STR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i06O
E21 CC
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s0l l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
SWR
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
E21GB
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02O
EBJB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21CB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
Revised 4m2021 Packet Pg. 89
7.2.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,003 (03/16/2021 to 03/31/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
70.00
0.00
119
SICK
Donated Sick Leave -used
96.00
4,089.50
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
783.25
28,484.03
122
VACATION
VACATION
557.00
20,747.79
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
51.50
2,367.32
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
17.00
550.07
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
85.50
2,963.83
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
3.00
103.09
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
16.00
559.59
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
45.00
1,986.05
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kellv Dav Used
120.00
5,261.74
154
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK
4.00
158.59
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
177.66
9,793.65
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
133.88
5,307.98
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
86.81
3,441.78
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
9.00
494.67
170
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL BASE PAY
700.00
9,916.62
174
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY
0.00
600.00
175
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP
0.00
4,326.92
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
19,752.65
749,479.53
191
REGULAR HOURS
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
4.00
5,126.84
194
SICK
Emerciencv Sick Leave
66.00
2,185.41
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
96.00
4,671.36
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
16.50
332.47
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
11.00
446.34
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
42.00
2,470.17
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
16.00
1,664.04
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
219.25
15,525.07
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
3.75
290.57
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
243.30
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
349.01
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,169.91
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
37.50
0.00
04/08/2021
Packet Pg. 90
7.2.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,003 (03/16/2021 to 03/31/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
603
COMP HOURS
Holidav Comp 1.0
3.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
193.00
0.00
901
SICK
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE
0.01
0.00
903
MISCELLANEOUS
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
0.00
-246.75
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
67.01
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
177.41
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
96.39
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstruction ist
0.00
89.56
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
179.12
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
404.96
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
31.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI
0.00
89.56
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
122.69
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
1,028.08
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
692.13
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
552.86
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
6,385.74
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
481.56
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
251.53
less
MISCELLANEOUS
LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR
0.00
85.68
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
1,066.95
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
599.74
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,013.57
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
1,308.13
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
1,287.20
Ig15
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 7.5%
0.00
583.73
Igo
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
333.08
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,250.19
Ig6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
366.12
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
277.76
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
193.99
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
122.69
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
507.30
04/08/2021
Packet Pg. 91
7.2.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,003 (03/16/2021 to 03/31/2021)
Hour Type
Hour Class
Description
Hours
Amount
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
101.78
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,504.24
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
0.00
194.64
pto
MISCELLANEOUS
Traininq Officer
0.00
163.58
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
0.00
633.88
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
194.64
st
REGULAR HOURS
Serqeant Pav
0.00
145.98
str
MISCELLANEOUS
STREET CRIMES
0.00
521.80
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAFFIC
0.00
122.69
vab
VACATION
VACATION ADD BACK
113.00
0.00
23,529.26 $912,089.45
Total Net Pay: $616,899.30
04/08/2021
I Packet Pg. 92
7.2.e
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,037 (03/30/2021 to 03/30/2021)
Hour Type
Hour Class
Description
Hours
Amount
154
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK
4.50
168.50
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
400.00
32,215.96
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
558.03
44,943.68
962.53 $77,328.14
Total Net Pay: $49,555.55
04/08/2021
Packet Pg. 93
7.2.f
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,003 - 03/16/2021 to 03/31/2021
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit
64651
04/05/2021
bpas
BPAS
4,846.16
0.00
64652
04/05/2021
epoa
EPOA-1 POLICE
46.00
0.00
64653
04/05/2021
jhan
JOHN HANCOCK
408.56
0.00
64654
04/05/2021
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,435.94
0.00
64655
04/05/2021
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
3,918.39
0.00
64656
04/05/2021
afscme
WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO
2,305.10
0.00
14,960.15
0.00
Bank: wire -
US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
3182
04/05/2021
pens
DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
322,016.64
0.00
3184
04/05/2021
aflac
AFLAC
5,274.02
0.00
3186
04/05/2021
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
118,737.27
0.00
3187
04/05/2021
us
US BANK
136,067.77
0.00
3188
04/05/2021
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
28,495.03
0.00
3190
04/05/2021
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,486.19
0.00
3192
04/05/2021
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
764.50
0.00
0.00
616,841.42
Grand Totals:
631,801.57
0.00
4/8/2021
Packet Pg. 94
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/13/2021
Proposed Amendments to New Tree Regulations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: City Council
Preparer: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Stage 1 of updating the City's tree regulations has primarily focused on protecting trees on sites where
development is happening, along with related issues, such as a Tree Fund. On March 2, the City Council
made significant progress on Stage 1 by adopting a new ordinance to put such development regulations
into action.
At the March 2 meeting, the City Council also reviewed a table of Stage 2 tree -related activities, which
would be slated next for consideration. (See Attachment 1 for "Tree Work Upcoming".) Stage 2
includes developing tree regulations that apply to properties not covered by tree regulations for
development.
During the months prior to the adoption of regulations for trees on developing property, the Council
adopted two interim ordinances (No. 4200 and No. 4201). The interim ordinances strictly limited
options for tree removal on potential development sites. They would have expired March 10 but, at
the Council's March 2 meeting, they were extended until March 24, while the City Council continued to
consider amendments to the newly adopted tree regulations affecting development sites. At public
meetings on March 9th, 16th, and 23rd, amendment proposals from various Council members were
discussed.
During the meetings, staff kept track of each amendment proposal and whether the Council majority
approved it. After a lengthy discussion on March 23rd, the City Council voted to take the amendments
that had been approved to date and put them on the Consent calendar for adoption at the next
meeting. Three Council members indicated they still had more amendments to consider and that any
ordinance with only the amendments approved to date would be pulled off the Consent calendar.
Meanwhile, the City Council recognized that some members with additional amendments to propose
could work with staff ahead of the meeting so that necessary clarifications could be made and
redundancy avoided. (See Attachment 2 for relevant March 23 Council minutes.)
After the March 23 meeting, three Council members (Kristiana Johnson, Diane Buckshnis, and Vivian
Olson) met with key City staff and the City Attorney to reviewing the remaining amendment proposals.
During the process, several potential amendments were dropped because they related more to Stage 2
issues or had been addressed in another way. Staff compiled the list of remaining proposed
amendments from the three Council members and inserted them in red line/strikeout format into the
adopted set of tree regulations for consideration by the full Council. (See Attachment 3.)
Packet Pg. 95
8.1
In reviewing the City Council's extended agenda, the April 6 meeting was not available for further
Council discussion on tree regulations, primarily because the staff person who had been doing the bulk
of tree code work (Kernen Lien) would be gone on that date. However, April 13 would work and the
Council's agenda for that date was set to include tree regulations.
Staff Recommendation
1. Decide on amendment proposals to be included in an ordinance that would amend the new tree
regulations;
2. Vote to adopt the ordinance.
Narrative
Overview
At the City Council's March 2 meeting, the Council adopted new tree regulations that primarily focused
on protecting/retaining trees during development. (Additional activities and new tree regulations for
non -development sites will considered as part of Stage 2.)
Follow-up Council meetings on March 9, 16, and 23rd included consideration of various amendments to
the new tree regulations.
Attachment 3 Explanation
Three Council members met with staff to talk through their remaining amendment proposals. In the
conversation, a few concepts were dropped because they had already been addressed or were not
necessary at this stage. The final amendment proposals were inserted into the current tree regulations
(see Attachment 3) and shown in red line/strikeout format.
This document notes the name of the Council member proposing the amendment and whether staff
supports it. (NOTE: Amendments shown without a name or note were previously approved at a March
meeting of the Council.)
At the April 13 meeting, the Council will consider the remaining amendments. For each proposed
amendment in Attachment 3 that has not yet been considered --starting from the beginning --a Council
member may make a motion for approval of the amendment. An opportunity will be provided for staff
to explain its rationale, as needed, at that time.
All amendments approved by the Council majority will be incorporated into the final ordinance, which
may be adopted by the City Council on April 13. Basic ordinance language for this purpose is contained
in the last attachment. (See Attachment4).
Attachments:
Tree.Work.Upcoming
March 23 2021 Council Minutes Amendments to New Tree Regs
Tree Related Regulations Council 04.13.21
2021-04-12 ordinance amending tree regs.rvsd
Packet Pg. 96
8.1.a
Proposed 3/2/20
UPCOMING TREE -RELATED ITEMS & TIMING
ITEM Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Q4 2021 2022 or TBD
Inventory of downtown street trees
Inventory of other public trees
Street Tree Plan update
Tree canopy assessment
N
c
O
Heritage Tree Program
f°
Tree Canopy goal
m
m
m
L
Assessment of staffing & other resource needs
~
3
m
z
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
O
r
Exploration of other incentive programs
m
E
Open space acquisition
E
Q
Tree retention on private property (not related to development)
O
N
O
Partnerships with other organizations
M
O
L
Annual reports on City tree activities
c
Tree give-away program
p
v
View corridors
L
O
Wildlife & habitat corridors
a�
a�
L
Expanded public education & information
r
c
a�
Stormwater & Watershed Analysis
t
U
Other tree -related issues
Q
Packet Pg. 97
8.1.b
i ff
units that have been permitted and PSRC obtains them, applies their own methodology for analyzing the
figures and publishes the net gain or loss of units in certain density categories. PSRC is current up to 2018;
he rounded out the data set with Office of Financial Management housing stock figures. The data does not
describe what is being permitted and not yet been built in Edmonds. Development Services Director Shane
Hope explained the data Mr. Collier is talking about is primarily past data, what has happened over time,
the trends indicate less housing has been built in recent years and it is believed there is some housing on
the horizon. The question is whether it is enough to meet today's needs. A magic bullet is unlikely;
continuing to look at supply is important, and help is needed such as federal, state, local, and nonprofit
programs that can help address the issue but by themselves, any one of them is not enough.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the number of apartments being built along the light rail line which
she hoped would change the regional context. Mr. Collier said all the units coming online are necessary to
meet future demand. PSRC estimates 1.25M more people in the Puget Sound region by 2050. Whether the
need will continue to outpace demand is yet to be determined.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented she entered housing market by buying a house that was 100 years
old and needed some updating. She put in sweat equity, learning how to restore plaster and lath, window
sashes, etc. She purchased a subscription to this "This Old House Journal" with Bob Vila and followed it
religiously. After six years they doubled their investment and able to move on. That is called flipping in
today's economy; there are still opportunities in Edmonds for people to enter the market if they are young
and interested or old and capable. She was troubled by the trend of much of the older housing stock,
comprised of smaller houses that housed sawmill workers when Edmonds was first developed, being torn
down because the land is more valuable than the house. Often a single family house is torn down and a new
multi -million dollar house is built. Those smaller houses were some of the most affordable housing in
Edmonds, but they become an economic opportunity for someone interested in developing it.
Mr. Collier agreed, commenting that was what he meant by what is allowed. What is currently allowed is
a single family house detached home. On a tour of Mountlake Terrace with Mayor Matsumoto Wright, she
pointed out numerous homes that used to be single story cinder block from the 1960s and earlier that are
now monoliths, still with a single family, because that is all the zoning allows. Would it be more
economically to have that be a divided structure or another configuration? Maybe, but it is not allowed.
Would the building community have built that? Quite likely if it were allowed. Common wall
condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and other configurations of housing are not allowed so what happens is
that 696 square foot house off 220" is demolished as soon as it is purchased and something considerably
larger is constructed. That home will exist for 30-50 years, effectively freezing that parcel in time because
that's all that is allowed. That is the opportunity that is missed every day to provide different kinds of
housing so smaller, more affordable places are maintained because they are economic to maintain with
sweat equity or they are allowed to evolve into something that is still effectively two small homes but
cojoined.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the City Council has been working for a while on
amendments to the newly adopted tree regulations that relate primary to what needs to be done to protect
trees related to development, establish a tree fund, etc. The next stage will look at other programs and other
tree regulations that might cover more properties and options. The Council has been working through a list
of potential amendments submitted by the Council and will continue that process tonight. She was hopeful
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 36
Packet Pg. 98
the Council could reach a preliminary agreement on the amendments tonight so staff can bring back an
ordinance with all the amendments at the next meeting.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained using the table developed by Council Assistant
Maureen Judge including the amendments Councilmember K. Johnson, he placed the amendments in the
code text, highlighting each one and identifying the Councilmember that proposed it.
Mr. Lien introduced an amendment proposed by Councilmember K. Johnson:
23.10.040.D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of
the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department provided that significant trees be
retained and that non -significant trees be replaced icy are native trees.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she could think of examples where the Parks Department has cut down a
tree to make room for a piece of equipment and it seemed like an independent action. She wanted to add
the safeguard that a smaller tree be replaced with a native tree.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
AMEND 23.10.040.1) TO READ, "REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES WITHIN CITY
OF EDMONDS' PARKS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PROVIDED THAT SIGNIFICANT TREES BE RETAINED AND
THAT NON -SIGNIFICANT TREES BE REPLACED IF THEYARE NATIVE TREES.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the last part of the sentence should be if they are not native trees.
Councilmember K. Johnson answered no. Mr. Lien explained a significant tree does not have to be native;
a significant tree is based solely on the size of the tree, 6" DBH. A non -significant native tree would be a
smaller native tree that is not 6" DBH
City Manager Jeff Taraday referred to "significant trees be retained" and asked if the intent was that the
Parks Department would not permitted to remove significant trees under any circumstance. Without some
other elaboration, if he was presented with this sentence and asked what it meant, that would be his
understanding. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if he could suggest a qualifier that would allow some
flexibility such as significant trees be retained if at all possible. Mr. Taraday suggested significant trees be
processed through the normal code like a private developer would be processed. Councilmember K.
Johnson said the problem is the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will act independently
on the removal of trees and there needs to be some safeguards because just as private developers need to
follow the rules, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department should follow the same rules. Mr.
Taraday suggested "provided significant trees shall not be exempt." This is within context of an exemption.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed to reword the amendment as follows:
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Resources Department provided that signifccant trees will not be exempt and
that non-si,-niricant trees be replaced if they are native trees.
Councilmember Olson said Section D meant the City had trust in the Parks that they were committed to the
idea of no net loss and if they removed a tree, they would replace it and would only remove a tree if there
was good cause. What she liked about Councilmember K. Johnson's proposed language was someone
reading the code would have no idea why the Parks Department was exempt. If the Council does not support
the change, she suggested language to explain the exemption and the trust in the Parks Department would
be appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her trust was eroded when saw the Parks Department cutting down some
significant evergreen trees. Because of that, this is needed as a safeguard and then the trust will be restored.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 37
Packet Pg. 99
8.1.b
7.1.a
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced an amendment proposed by Councilmember K. Johnson:
23.10.050.0 Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted
demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the
director. Tree replacement may shall be required for removed trees.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND 23.10.050.0 TO READ, "DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES: TREE REMOVAL
SHALL BE PROHIBITED AS PART OF A PERMITTED DEMOLITION EXCEPT AS REQUIRED
TO REASONABLY CONDUCT DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE
DIRECTOR. TREE REPLACEMENT MAY -SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR REMOVED TREES."
Councilmember K. Johnson asked why "may" was originally used instead of "shall." Mr. Lien answered
shall makes sense; he did not have a good reason why may was used instead of shall.
Council President Paine asked if trees that were permitted as part of demolition were included in the
development permit that would be necessary to remove the trees. Mr. Lien answered potentially; he referred
to 23.10.060, the types of development the statement applies to. It might come up in short subdivisions but
most often with replacement of a single family with a new single family where often the demo is done
before the building permit. For subdivisions and other similar developments, the demolition permit does
not come in until well after the subdivision has been approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien explained the Council left off with this amendment last week. It was proposed by Councilmember
Buckshnis but not voted on. There was already language in the code related to tree replacement, but the
amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis was related to replacement trees offsite. He reviewed
an amendment was tweaked Councilmember Buckshnis' previous proposal, the existing code and
addressing when replacement trees are proposed offsite.
23.10.060.B.2.b.vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC
23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where
replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a
description of the alternative site and written approval from the property owner must be provided.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO AMEND
23.10.060.B.2.B.Vll. TO READ, "PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF ANY REQUIRED
REPLACEMENT TREES AS OUTLINED IN ECDC 23.10.080 AND TREES REQUIRED TO BE
PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE
PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE PROJECT SITE, A
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE
PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE PROVIDED."
Councilmember Olson agreed with the proposed rewording.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the location would always be known ahead of time. Mr. Lien no, there
is another section of code that addresses phasing the tree plan, where trees will be planted, particularly
subdivisions. Often in a subdivision the location of the houses is not known, subdivision review only
includes the property boundaries. There are instances where it can phased which is addressed elsewhere in
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 38�
Packet Pg. 100
8.1.b
i.1.a
the code. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this amendment would be in opposition to that or would they
work together. Mr. Lien answered they would work together.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are sites available such as tree farms in other areas.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was the other property owner would provide a conservation easement for
these replacement trees or was it permission to have them planted there. Mr. Lien answered if a tree is
required to be replaced with development, it is considered a protected tree which is defined. Sites with
protected trees are required to record a protected tree covenant. If the required replacement trees are planted
offsite, that property owner would need to sign the protected tree covenant.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it was understood that all of these trees would be replanted within the
city limits of Edmonds. Mr. Lien recalled a lot of discussion about that by the Planning Board and the Tree
Board. Replacement trees associated with development for the most part would be planted within the City
of Edmonds. If a developer could not plant all the replacement trees onsite, they pay into the Tree Fund.
There have been discussions about whether that money could be used to buy into a tree bank in another
location. The intent would be that the replacement trees for the most part trees would be planted within the
City of Edmonds; to meet the no net loss of urban canopy, a lot of it will have to be in the City of Edmonds.
With the fee -in -lieu, there could be a significant amount of money paid into the Tree Fund for tree planting
and there may not be enough room in the City of Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees per the
replacement ratios. The flexibility to buy into a tree bank or contribute to something like the Mountain to
Sound Greenway would make sense.
Tree Fund aside, Councilmember L. Johnson asked if a property owner or developer could choose to replace
a tree on a property not within the city limits of Edmonds. Mr. Lien answered he did not think this code
prohibited that.
Councilmember Olson recalled the Tree Board having this conversation when she was on the board. In
terms of the environmental impact, obviously everyone loves the trees in the City but to her recollection,
the Tree Board was satisfied that trees would be replanted in the general vicinity. Based on Mr. Lien's point
about the fee -in -lieu possibly being quite substantial, she suggested allowing property to be purchased to
preserve existing trees and/or as open space where trees could be planted with money from the fee -in -lieu.
With that in mind, the City likely would not end up with too much money due to how expensive property
is.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented trees could be planted in Yost Park as well as other areas where
trees need to be regenerated such as the marsh. There is also a tree farm in Redmond, a farm that was turned
into a tree bank.
Council President Paine offered a friendly amendment, after "alternate site," add "within the city limits of
Edmonds whenever possible." Councilmember Buckshnis accepted the friendly amendment.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked who would determine whenever possible. Ms. Hope answered that would
be a challenge because what one person thinks is possible, another may not. Councilmember L. Johnson
preferred the language without "whenever possible." Ms. Hope said another potential would be "within the
city limits of Edmonds preferred" as that would leave the option of planting elsewhere. She reminded this
is not a code just for this year but for years to come. If the Council had any preference about where the
replacement trees were planted, Mr. Taraday recommended stating a specific geographic area where they
need to be planted such as City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds or a neighboring city, etc. The Council could
say Snohomish County but then they could be planted in the mountains and he was unsure that was what
the Council intended. He urged the Council to be prescriptive with regard to the geographic area.
Q
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 39_
Packet Pg. 101
8.1.b
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested "preferred within the city limits or Snohomish County." Mr. Taraday
said "preferred" is not enforceable. Ms. Hope said it probably gives the City some leverage but does not
force it. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to say "preferred" rather than mandate a location. Another
option is to just say Snohomish County.
Councilmember Olson understood the enforceability point Mr. Taraday was making but she like "preferred"
to show to staff and the person reading the code what the Council hoped to have happen. Ultimately all the
urban areas, depending on what happens with density, there will be less yard if a detached ADU is
constructed and Edmonds is a small city. She was okay with stating a preference but demanding all the
replacement trees be planted in the city limits was not something the city could live with.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Edmonds is not necessarily a small city, it is the third biggest city in
Snohomish County. She preferred to have the replacement trees planted in Edmonds and not in Snohomish
County or in neighboring cities. If the issue is Edmonds has too much tree canopy, then the number of
replacement trees needs to be reduced. She did not want people who live in other cities or in Snohomish
County to benefit from Edmonds' ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds benefits from a Snohomish County Park which is
included in the UFMP; one of the biggest tree canopies in Edmonds is Southwest County Park. It may be
possible to plant replacement trees there.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern with unforeseen and potentially beneficial loopholes.
Although the City was not yet identified no net loss because a starting point has not been established,
ultimately that is the goal. This potential loophole, a potential loss of trees in Edmonds, defeats the ultimate
purpose. While this is a long term plan, in the long term, the City want to keep trees. She summarized she
was concerned about loopholes and would not support the change.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this begs the question about places within the City where replacement
trees can be planted; maybe that needs to be defined as public properties or parks. She suggested discussing
with Parks having receiver areas within parks where trees can be planted. For example, if 100 trees are cut
down in Edmonds, where will they be planted in Edmonds? That needs to be coordinated with the Parks
and Public Works as they responsible for public lands in the City.
Council President Paine agreed with the sentiment expressed by Councilmembers, that it needs to be within
the city limits and a specific area as Mr. Taraday recommended.
Mr. Lien said if the Council wants all replacement trees to be planted within the City of Edmonds, he
suggested that language be in 23.10.080 Tree Replacement rather than having it buried within the tree
protection plan.
Councilmember Olson asked if the maker of the motion and the seconder wanted to make the amendment
as suggested by Mr. Lien.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Lien was suggesting to move the language to 23.10.080.13. Mr.
Lien said the discussion has been where will the replacement trees be planted. If it is an alternate site and
the Council wants the alternate site to be within the City of Edmonds, rather than have that requirement
buried within the Tree Retention and Protection Plan, it makes more sense to have "preferred within the
city limits or Snohomish County" in 23.10.080 as a new A, B or C such as, All replacement trees shall be
planted within the City of Edmonds or whatever geographical boundary the Council decides.
Councilmember Buckshnis said her issue is the loss of tree canopy in the City and the desire to replace big
trees that are being removed. If the Council limited it to the city limits, she was unsure there was enough
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 40
Packet Pg. 102
8.1.b
7.1.a
room in parks or on private property. She suggested "Edmonds proper" so it would include South County
park. Mr. Lien said South County Park was within the city limits.
Council President Paine suggested moving the language into 23.10.080 as a new A or B. [this was voted on
as a motion at 2:48:55 on video and failed.]
Councilmember Olson expressed support for moving that language. With regard to Edmonds being the
third largest city in Snohomish County, that was based on population, not land mass. She asked it if was
reasonable that the city could accommodate all the replacement trees within the city limits. Mr. Lien said
he did not have an answer for that. He said the UFMP identified potential planting areas within the City.
The map in an earlier draft was removed because the consultant looked at the canopy coverage in the City
and identified places without trees, the majority of which were in view areas in the bowl. Given the
replacement requirements, he said it would be difficult to find places in Edmonds parks or otherwise to put
all the replacement trees.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she got her data from the County executive's office. She asked why
the proposal was to require a certain number of replacement trees for every tree cut down if there was not
enough room to put the trees. It did not make sense to require developers provide excess trees if there is not
enough room to put the trees. She liked the potential to plant replacement trees on county property within
Edmonds' boundary because Esperance is a huge area and it could be beneficial to them. She would support
the proposal because it gets the City partway there, but in the long run if it looks like there are too many
trees, the responsible thing would be to reduce the number of replacement trees.
Mr. Taraday referred to the UFMP, emphasis on urban, and suggested another option would be to change
the geographical description to urban areas within Snohomish County. That would provide a larger area but
still ensure trees are planted in an urban area and would create a much larger receiving site. Logistically
speaking, once replacement trees are planted outside the City, the City will lose its ability to track and
determine if in fact that tree is retained. If a developer submits an application on a replacement site in the
future, it will be in another jurisdiction and the City will not even see it or find out that the replacement
tree(s) were taken out. Even if something is recorded on the property, there is no guarantee the jurisdiction
doing the review will see it.
With regard to boundaries where trees could be planted, Mr. Lien proposed another option. In talking about
environmental mitigation such as wetland banks or tree replacement ratios, what is usually looked at is an
ecological boundary rather than a political boundary. One ecological boundary is a water resource inventory
area; Edmonds is within WRIA 8. An option would be an ecological boundary versus political boundary.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, stating even if there are no
replacement tree locations, trees need to be replaced with development as the City continues lose large
trees. She suggested putting that wording in 23.10.080.D.4 which talks about the ecological boundaries of
WRIA 8. She agreed with using an ecological boundary rather than a political boundary.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO ADD
23.10.080.D.4 "REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARY
OF THE WRIA 8 JURISDICTION."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating there was already a motion on the floor.
Council President Paine referenced a motion she made [actually a suggestion at 2:35:16 on video] to add
as a new A or B to 23.10.080. "Replacement trees should be within the ecological boundary of WRIA 8
jurisdiction, preferably within the Edmonds City limits." Mr. Lien suggested adding this as 23.10.080.13.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 41 J
c
0
r
R
3
a�
a�
a�
a�
3
a�
z
0
r
c
aD
E
c
aD
Q
m
0
a
0
L
a
Packet Pg. 103
8.1.b
i ff
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to 23.10.080.E regarding tree replacement fee -in -lieu, if a replacement
location cannot be identified a tree replacement fee -in -lieu can be paid. The City could make a decision
where to plant a tree at a later date or potentially in the future the funds could be used to acquire land with
trees on it. If the ultimate goal is no net loss and possibly even net ecological gain, she questioned how that
would be accomplished by planting trees somewhere else and losing control and inventory of them within
the Edmonds tree canopy. She said if trees cannot be planted in the City, the answer is already in paragraph
E.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson; if a location cannot be found in
Edmonds, they pay into a fund. She understood the concept of planting trees regionally, but she preferred
to have trees removed in Edmonds be replanted in Edmonds.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION TO CALL THE
QUESTION CARRIED.
Mr. Taraday stated the pending motion:
ADD "REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARY OF
WRIA 8 JURISDICTION, PREFERABLY WITHIN THE EDMONDS CITY LIMITS" AS
23.10.080.B.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, asking what motion the Council was on
now. Mr. Taraday advised there was no pending motion; Mr. Lien was reviewing the amendments proposed
by Council.
Mr. Lien clarified the initial motion was the language regarding alternate site and that had been amended.
The original amendment was to revised so that 23.10.060.B.2.b.vii. read, "Proposed locations of any
required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance
with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a diferent location than
the project site, a description of the alternative site and written approval from the property owner must be
provided. "
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REVISE
23.10.060.B.2.B.VII. TO READ, "PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF ANY REQUIRED
REPLACEMENT TREES AS OUTLINED IN ECDC 23.10.080 AND TREES REQUIRED TO BE
PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE
PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE PROJECT SITE, A
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE
PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE PROVIDED. "
AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
SECONDED TO REVISE 23.10.060.B.2.B.VII, ADD "WITHIN EDMONDS OTHER" FOLLOWING
"LOCATION."
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her intent was the trees could be planted in Edmonds in
unincorporated Snohomish County.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if within the City of Edmonds also be included in 23.10.080.13.2. Mr.
Lien said if there is a requirement that replacement trees be planted within the Edmonds city limits, he
preferred it be in 23.10.080. Councilmember L. Johnson offered that as a friendly amendment to move it to
c
0
r
R
3
a�
a�
tY
a�
a�
L
z
0
r
c
aD
E
c
a�
E
Q
m
0
a
0
a`
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 42
Packet Pg. 104
23.10.080. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed to the friendly amendment. Mr. Lien asked if the
Council preferred to have it as a separate letter or incorporated into D.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to have it in D Replacement Specifications.
Mr. Lien suggested the following:
23.10.080.D.4 "Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND THE
MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1).
Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Taraday to weigh in from a legal standpoint whether that included
unincorporated properties within the City of Edmonds. Mr. Taraday said it would include the park which
is within the city limits but would not include Esperance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her motion was intended to include Esperance. Mr. Lien suggested
adding "or its Urban Growth Area."
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
Add as 23.10.080.D.4. "Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds or its Urban
Growth Area."
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1).
Mr. Lien introduce an amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Replace Section 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv with "Description of hazardous trees including location and basis
for hazardous determination."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REPLACE
SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.C.IV WITH "DESCRIPTION OFANY HAZARDOUS TREES INCLUDING
LOCATIONAND BASIS FOR HAZARDOUS DETERMINATION."
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was a very confusing code. There was already a description of
hazardous tree and this was intended to keep it simple.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented there is often confusion between hazardous trees and nuisance
trees. She suggested revisiting what a nuisance tree is.
Mr. Lien said there is also a definition of a viable tree. This section is addressing the possibility that when
a site is developed, a tree that was once viable is no longer viable for a number of reasons which are listed
in paragraph iv. It may not be a hazardous tree but it may no longer be a viable tree which requires
documentation.
Councilmember Olson preferred the original description proposed by staff.
Councilmember Buckshnis read the definition of hazard tree, A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged,
structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes is subject to a high
probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. She felt section iv was repeating that
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 43 J
Packet Pg. 105
definition. Many people have expressed to her that the tree code is very complex and confusing and she
was trying to simplify it.
UPON ROLL CALL (MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
23.10.060.C.I change requirement to 50% retention of significant trees (regardless of development type)
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred 50% over 30%. There has been a tremendous loss of large conifers.
There are few pocket forests left and it is important to increase the tree canopy.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED IN 23.10.060.C.1 CHANGE REQUIREMENT TO 50%
RETENTION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES (REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT TYPE). MOTION
FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Revise 23.10.060.C.4 to read, "In addition to the tree retention requirements noted above, every significant
tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC
23.10.080."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REVISE
23.10.060.C.4 TO READ, "IN ADDITION TO THE TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS NOTED
ABOVE, EVERY SIGNIFICANT TREE THAT IS REMOVED UNDER THIS CHAPTER MUST BE
REPLACED CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 23.10.080."
Mr. Lien said "noted above" is not good code language; he preferred to reference the code. He suggested
revising 23.10.060.C.4 to read, "In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection C.1 of this
section above, every significant tree that is removed..." Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Lien's
suggestion.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Revise 23.10.060.13 to replace the list of Priority of Tree Retention Requirements with "Groupings of
significant trees that form a tree canopy and wildlife corridor must be retained to the maximum extent
possible."
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the code is confusing to many. She preferred to make it simpler and
just state the City is trying to keep significant trees that are pocket forests or tree canopy.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSON TO REVISE 23.10.060.1) TO
REPLACE THE LIST OF PRIORITY OF TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS WITH
"GROUPINGS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT FORM A TREE CANOPY AND WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR MUST BE RETAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE."
Councilmember Olson asked about the term "maximum extent possible." Mr. Taraday said it puts the
burden on the developer to establish impossibility. The language he was concerned about before was stating
a preference. This is a regulation that require something be done a certain way unless the developer can
demonstrate that it is not possible.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 44 J
c
0
r
R
a�
a�
a�
a�
LL
r
3
a�
z
0
r
c
a�
E
c
aD
E
Q
m
0
a
0
a`
Packet Pg. 106
Mr. Lien said there will be some sites with trees that do not form a tree canopy and there will be isolated
sites that are not connected with a wildlife corridor. With regard to trees that should be protected, the
preference is to protect large trees, but there could be large trees on a site that are not part of the canopy or
a wildlife corridor. He did not think the proposed language describes all sites or the trees that should be
given priority.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECONDER.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis:
Add 23.10.060.D.1.f. "Development Services may reguire site plan revisions in order to preserve Priority
One trees on the site plan."
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
ADD 23.10.060.D.1.F. "DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MAY REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVISIONS IN
ORDER TO PRESER VE PRIORITY ONE TREES ON THE SITE PLAN."
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was proposed by another citizen which is why it was contrary to the
previous amendment. The goal was to trying to preserve Priority 1 trees.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented the list is types of trees or situations and the proposed language
does not seem to belong in this section. Mr. Lien said it could be moved to 23.10.060.E.
Councilmember L. Johnson said it was redundant. If an applicant had not adequately or appropriately
prioritized, they would need to submit site plan revisions to prioritize them as identified in this section. Mr.
Lien advised there would be some back and forth on reviews.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECONDER.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege, there are 12 minutes left and 2 agenda
items remaining. She said it was getting late to continue this item and she preferred to move on to the next
agenda items.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
THAT WE STOP MAKING AMENDMENTS NOW AND BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK FOR
ADOPTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
DECIDED ON TONIGHT.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support stopping and moving the ordinance to Consent. She was also
concerned that the moratorium ordinances expire tomorrow and she would like to extend them. There are
more amendments that have not yet been vetted.
Councilmember K. Johnson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' concerns. She questioned why the
ordinance would be on Consent when the Council had not completed its review.
Council President Paine commented the Council has been on this topic for months. She acknowledged there
were additional amendments that Councilmembers would like to make, but there will be an opportunity
later this year. This is the fourth meeting where the Council has discussed amendments to the tree code. A
lot of good ground has been covered, but there are other things the Council needs to move onto for the good
of the City such as additional housing items. She recommended incorporating all the amendments that had
been approved tonight, put the ordinance on the Consent Agenda and move on to new topics.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 45
N
O
N
M
N
M
0
c
d
E
co
.r
Q
c
0
r
R
3
a�
a�
a�
a�
3
a�
z
0
r
c
aD
E
c
aD
E
Q
m
0
a
0
L-
a.
Packet Pg. 107
Councilmember Olson did not support the motion; the Council is in the process of reviewing amendments
and has not completed their review. If an additional meeting was required where the Council only worked
on the tree code, she was happy to support that. She summarized the Council needed to follow through and
complete the work.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the last three amendments had withdrawn. She suggested
placing the ordinance on Consent and if there are additional amendments, it can be pulled from Consent.
She urged Councilmembers to ensure their amendments were valid and not redundant as that would move
the process along more quickly.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed the Council had spent an incredible amount of time on this, not having
a meeting next week may alleviate some workload so the remaining amendments could be reviewed to
ensure they are appropriate for discussion at the next Council meeting, whether it was on Consent and
pulled or on the regular agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to make an amendment to change Section 4 of the ordinance to
extend it.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the comments were not germane to the motion
Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in 11 years she has never had a half -finished process go to Consent.
Regardless of the fact that a couple amendments were withdrawn, that did not mean the Council was not
still going through the vetting process. A number of citizens complained that the tree code agenda item was
very late at night at the first two meetings. Even though the Council has had four meetings on the tree code,
the first two discussions were less than a half hour, the third was 45-50 minutes and this one was somewhat
lengthier. She agreed with Councilmember Olson that a meeting should have been held strictly regarding
the tree code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis' comments
were not germane to motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she disagreed with the motion.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
Bring the tree code as amended to date to the Consent Agenda at the next Council meeting.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
11. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Reports are included in the Council packet.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Minutes are included in the Council packet.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 46
Packet Pg. 108
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
23.10.020
Definitions
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
23.10.090
Bonding
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.110
Liability
20.75.048
Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility
Chapter 3.95
Tree Fund
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation,
protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees.
This includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan;
D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the
residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and
aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of
trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 1 of 16
Packet Pg. 109
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of
development.
J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic
and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease,
danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and
K_Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
Y_.L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development proiect, policy, plan, or activity in which
the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures
taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake
site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to
exceed the loss.
23.10.010 Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.020 Definitions
A. Caliper— The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Canopy —The leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top.
C. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH.
D. Developable Site — The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
E. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
F. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
G. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective OF exposed by
as
determined by a qualified tree professional.
H. Grove — A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
I. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 2 of 16
Packet Pg. 110
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
J. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
K. Native Tree — Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being
well -suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains
a partial list of species that are considered native trees.
L. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
M. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and
protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction.
N. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
O. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban
forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
P. Significant Tree —A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
Q. Specimen Tree —A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional.:
R. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries_
S. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 3 of 16
Packet Pg. 111
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
U. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
V. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.
23.10.030 Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal
permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for:
1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:
1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths.
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1-2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management —Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 4 of 16
Packet Pg. 112
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
for these trees alone provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public
safety or tree health.
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.
23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC
23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for in ECDC 23.10.0401, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except
as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree
replacement raay-shall be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the
City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following
applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-
family house, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the
existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 5 of 16
Packet Pg. 113
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to
C
development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees.
O
B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan
ca
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention and
protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to
prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense.
N
L
2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall
~
contain the following information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
Z
O
i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
y
corresponding tags on trees);
C
N
ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter;
E
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
d
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
Q
V. Tree type or species.
d
b. A site plan depicting the following:
O
L Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
CL
O
applicable setbacks, critical areas buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly
Commented [LK1]: olson, staff has no ojectwn. d
v
identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all
proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and
N
protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
c" i
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties
where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the
subject property (surveyed locations may be required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting
out;
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080
and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where
replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project
site. a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner
must be provided
c. An arborist report containing the following:
i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021
Page 6 of 16
Packet Pg. 114
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
those in a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention and Protection Plan that
addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
ii. A new Tree Retention and Protection Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of
the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is
known subject to all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment shall be retained as follows:
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, or unit lot subdivision
site
2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area
hazard tree.
3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 7 of 16
Packet Pg. 115
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection C.1 of this section, e€very
significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.
5. For developing properties identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A that have fewer than three significant
trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three
trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area.
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
b. Significant trees which forma continuous canopy;
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and IMove to priority one.
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
Commented [LK2]: K. Johnson, staff recommends a
3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained (because of mature trees that are a fall
hazard except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. Commented [LOP K. Johnson, staff does not objec
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection oftrees l'hat may become hwar e,-is "^^^,is^ of 'n^' g &*Erthat are mature and may be a
fall hazard including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages Commented [LK4]: K. Johnson, staff does not objec
or other damage. ^ .^ • ^ ��^ ••+^ ^f' Of 1114^
buildings in close proximity If a revised building placement would result in the retention of more
and/or higher priority trees, the development plan should be adjusted to maximize the retention of
such trees. Commented [LK5]: K. Johnson, staff does not objec
23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.BI shall be protected from potentially damaging Commented [LK6]: Buckshnis, staff does not object
activities pursuant to the following standards:
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021
Page 8 of 16
T—
N
M
0
r�
a
Packet Pg. 116
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
B. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the
applicant shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum
"Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for
code enforcement to report violations.
3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the director authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. ILimit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or
similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the trees critical root zone. Commented [LK7]: K. Johnson, staff does not objec
&7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 9 of 16
Packet Pg. 117
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation.
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.080 Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 10 of 16
Packet Pg. 118
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3)
replacement trees are required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the developments
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
4. Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds or its Urban Growth Area.
3—
E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. lifter WrOVlding clear documentation to Development Services that all
tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including
arborist reports as necessary, the developer may apply for a fee -in -lieu exemption to the tree
retention/replacement reguirements.Pfter providing clear documentation to DeWpment S� \
that all tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are infeasible,
including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay,a tee-in-lieu,tor each replaL e
tree required but not replaced, A fe-i in He- of tree Felalacement may be allowed subject to �\
jeeat+e+}
1. Fee -in -lieu payments shall be deposited into the Tree Fund. The value of the payment shall be
determined as provided in subsections La and Lb below:
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021
Page 11 of 16
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering
Commented [LK8]: Olson, staff does not object
Commented [LK9]: Buckshnis. Yellow highlight
previously proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis at t
March 2nd council meeting be not voted on before the
meeting ended. The maker of this motion now prefer
green language below. Staff does not object to the gn
language
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Packet Pg. 119
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
a. $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy
C
the tree replacerne^t comply with the tree retention requirements of this fection and shall be
O
deposited inte the City; s Tree PindECDC 23.10.060.C.1.
�
3
4 b. $350 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
requirements of ECDC 23.10.080.A beyond the retention standard of ECDC 23.10.060.C.1.
N
W
Commented [LK10]: Olson staff has no objection
2_The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
y
development permit.
H
2-3-For each significant tree greater than 24" in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the
Formatted• Font color: Black
tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
Z 1
edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required.
J
r
N
r.+
C
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
N
E
The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved
tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently
d
protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a
Q
notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County
auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with
y
this provision.
O
CL
O
L
IL
23.10.090 Bonding
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements
and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following
required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to
ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The
maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in
subsection B.
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
buffers.
23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021
Page 12 of 16
Packet Pg. 120
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
C. Penalties:
1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
2. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree
Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar
growing conditions.
e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in
the absence of the violation(s).
f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified
arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and or (required tree replacement. Commented [LK11]: Olson, staff does not object
3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require
necessary corrective action within a specific time.
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 13 of 16
Packet Pg. 121
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT A
23.10.110 Liability
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 14 of 16
Packet Pg. 122
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT B
20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees
and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in
order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant
shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions.
B. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following
development standards:
1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that:
a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet;
b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet;
c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and
d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced.
2. Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling
units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and
widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements
of the zoning district in which it is located.
3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total,
coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for
the zoning district in which it is located.
4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted
when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with
the intent of city codes and standards.
C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with
design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC
23.10.085.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 15 of 16
Packet Pg. 123
8.1.c
ATTACHMENT C
3.95 Tree Fund
C
O
3.95.010 Tree Fund Established
There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund."
3
N
3.95.020 Funding Sources
y
L
Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources:
I
A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC.
Z
B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC.
O
r
C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and
W
C
D. Other monies allocated by the City Council
N
E
C
3.95.040 Funding Purposes
d
E
A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the
a
city:
3
1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds;
N
0
CL
2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional;
0
a
3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health;
4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city;
N
M
5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational
purchases;
p
6. IPurchasing and planting of trees by the City of Edmonds, including planting street trees within
v
the right-of-waV.
Commented [LK72]: Buckshnis. Staff does not obje
C1
O J
7_Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city.
V
Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullet
C 1
B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
numbering
C
' J
conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the
conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee.
C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC
23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting for acquiring and preserving wooded areas
d
and open space.
Commented [LKt 3]: Lien, based on previous Counc
O
discussions.
O
d
O
L
C.
d
E
t
t�
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 16 of 16 2
a
Packet Pg. 124
8.1.d
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY' S TREE
REGULATIONS AND TREE FUND PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been reviewing draft tree regulations since
September 2020, specifically at the September 9, October 14, October 28, November 12, and
November 18 Planning Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree regulations on
December 9, 2020 and completed its review on January 13, 2021 with a recommendation to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received an introduction to the draft tree regulations at the
January 26, 2021 Council meeting and held a public hearing on February 2, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4218 containing the above -referenced
tree regulations, with several amendments, on March 2, 2021, while still intending to make
additional tree code amendments in the weeks to follow, as there was not enough time on March
2, 2021 to consider all of the City Council's amendments; and
WHEREAS, adoption of Ordinance 4218 on March 2, 2021, even with the knowledge
that additional amendments would be forthcoming, made sense as Ordinance 4218 was still a
significant improvement over the code that it would be replacing; and
WHEREAS, since March 2, 2021, the administration has worked with members of the
City Council to review and comment on additional proposed tree code amendments; and
WHEREAS, since March 2, 2021, the City Council has considered additional proposed
tree code amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is now prepared to adopt the remaining tree code
amendments that it did not have time to consider on March 2, 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE,
Packet Pg. 125
8.1.d
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 23.10 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Tree
Related Regulations," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted
text shown in str-ikethfoug ).
Section 2. Chapter 3.95 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Tree Fund," is hereby
amended to read as set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 126
8.1.d
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 127
8.1.d
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY' S TREE
REGULATIONS AND TREE FUND PROVISIONS
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
Packet Pg. 128