2023-07-18 Regular MeetingEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
July 18, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Neil Tibbott, Council President
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director
Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir.
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original
inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who
since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments.
Peter Moon, Edmonds, said progress is being made to reduce speeding on Olympic View Drive; speeding
is a public safety hazard that needs attention. He met with the City's transportation engineer and public
works director via Zoom meeting last Thursday. The meeting was recorded and the link was provided to a
few councilmembers and is available for anyone else who is interested. The police traffic division has been
paying closer attention and have been in the area on multiple locations issuing citations for speeding on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 1
Olympic View Drive. He has met a number of neighbors north of the 200-foot straightaway that is his
primary concern; two are here tonight and one plans to speak. They are considering forming a neighborhood
association to deal with speeding and other issues of concern to the neighborhood along Olympic View
Drive. He has heard there will be changes to the state law regarding traffic cameras in locations other than
intersections or school zones. He plans to research that and report to the council. During his meeting with
City staff he recommended upgrading the technology to monitor the amount, type and speeds of traffic to
improve the safety of those collecting the data and to provide better data. He thanked the councilmembers
who are supportive of his efforts and have communicated with him via email.
Marlin Phelps, Marysville, relay as reported in the Everett Hearld, Yelena Stock of Zachor, Stock &
Krepps said she committed her full cooperation to the transfer of prosecution services in Edmonds. Yet last
Tuesday when observed the court proceedings via video, he heard Ms. Wells, the new city prosecutor, say
she was flying by the seat of her pants because although her office and Zachor's office use the same
software, the files did not transfer. He anticipated that was Zachor, Stock and Krepps giving the City of
Edmonds one final finger. He referred to terrible things Zachor, Stock and Krepps did to the innocent. After
103 summoned hearings and two acquittals following a short jury deliberation and beatings from the cops,
what he remembered most was during his resistance he saw James Zachor Junior and it occurred to him
that he looked just his wife; he believed that James Zachor was his secret brother-in-law. He deserves an
answer regarding why they still have a relationship when the prosecution was fumbled and he was acquitted
twice. When he was in court in Snohomish County in front of Judge Wilson who was outside his
jurisdiction, the judge asked if he was his brother-in-law and he said no, they were just friends. Two weeks
ago the secretary at the law firm said same thing, they are just friends. He concluded he was set up, he
deserves the DNA and the truth.
Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of the Cemetery Board, commented Betty Gaeng, Edmonds
historian, genealogist and wonderful friend passed away earlier this year. It was Ms. Gaeng's idea to
recognize the artists who are buried in the cemetery at this year's Walk Back in Time and she wrote a piece
on each artist. Ms. Longstaff plans to tell Ann Rutter's story at the Walk Back in Time this Thursday, July
20 at 1:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Cemetery. Bunny Hammersla who had a gallery in the 524 historic house
that owns featured Ann Rutter's work. She was delighted to be able to tell Ann's story along with the story
of her husband, retired Judge John Rutter. She encouraged people to bring pictures of Ann. The Cemetery
Board also plans to recognize Betty Gaeng at the Walk Back in Time.
Thatcher Boddendeitchel, Edmonds, a member of Carpenters Local 206, commented at the mayors
debate a few weeks ago, every candidate mentioned the importance of good infrastructure in Edmonds. He
agreed good infrastructure was very important, Edmonds is a beautiful city and we should strive to keep it
that way and continue beautiful growth. He referred to federal funds the state has available for housing,
commenting a lot of the buildings will be mixed use, apartments or condos over storefronts which is very
good for the economy. He encouraged the council to consider using union labor to build these buildings.
He recognized the tension with upzoning, noting union labor does so much related to the construction of
buildings. The Department of Transportation uses union labor, the light rail is being built with union labor
and he has seen numerous projects that enhance cities when they are built. He currently commutes to
Bellevue and before that he commuted to Des Moines; on his way, he passes non -union jobs within the City
of Edmonds. He would be proud to have the wealth his labor generates go to the economy that he
participates in, to have his labor build parks, housing and infrastructure, to be able to show his future
children what he built, and would love the city council to show their support. He referred to market share
recovery, a program offered by unions in the State of Washington that allows cities to dip their toe in the
water; get a bid from a non -union company and a bid from a union company and if the City choses the
union company over the non -union company, the union pays the difference in the bid cost.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 2
Brian Kelly, a member of the Carpenters Local 206, commented on the importance of keeping Edmonds'
money in Edmonds. Union carpenters who work in Edmonds will spend money in Edmonds. He concluded
if you go union, you can't go wrong. The members of Local 206 are here and ready to work.
Doug Sage, Edmonds, recognized Jack Evans in the audience who has lived on Olympic View Drive for
35 years just as his family has. Over those 35 years, traffic has increased in volume and has gotten more
aggressive and noisier. He encouraged the council to consider noise mediation and traffic calming. Olympic
View Drive is a collector street in a residential area and it is often difficulty for residents to get in and out
of their driveways. His house is across from the gated community Vista Del Mar and has a long driveway
with the mailbox on Olympic View Drive. When he stops to get his mail, regardless of the time of day, cars
behind him honk and tailgate. He notices speeding the most after 9 p.m., likely younger people driving fast
cars and motorcycles. Speeding on Olympic View Drive is dangerous to animals and pedestrians who cross
the street. He echoed Mr. Moon's comments.
6. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2023
2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 5, 2023
3. APPROVAL OF PSPHSP COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2023
4. APPROVAL OF PPW COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2023
5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
7. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT VEHICLE DONATION (LYNNWOOD HONDA)
8. BODY WORN CAMERA (BWC) REDACTION FEES
9. TREE BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENT APPROVAL
10. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
11. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
12. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
13. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
14. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
15. BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
RESOLUTION INCREASING VEHICLE LICENSE FEE - TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT
Public Works Director Oscar Antillon explained over the past few y ears revenues have not kept up with
expenses. He reviewed:
• Why?
o Street Fund Revenues and Expenses
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 3
Street Fund Revenues and Expenses
xoi� xoµ wµ xoi6 wxx -0 x xwo xoxx wxx
—srR-F—Fip — --1-11—d Re --
• Authority
o RCW 82.80.140
o RCW 36.73.065
o RCW 36.73.010
Intent. The legislature finds that the citizens of the state can benefit by cooperation of
the public and private sectors in addressing transportation needs. This cooperation can be
fostered through enhanced capability for cities, towns, and counties to make and fund
transportation improvements necessitated by economic development and to improve the
performance of the transportation system.
It is the intent of the legislature to encourage joint efforts by the state, local
governments, and the private sector to respond to the need for those transportation
improvements on state highways, county roads, and city streets. This goal can be better
achieved by allowing cities, towns, and counties to establish transportation benefit districts in
order to respond to the special transportation needs and economic opportunities resulting
from private sector development for the public good. The legislature also seeks to facilitate
the equitable participation of private developers whose developments may generate the need
for those improvements in the improvement costs.
[ 2005 c 336 § 2; 1987 c 327 § 1.]
Effective date-2005 c 336: see note following RCW 36.73.015.
o 3.65.030 Functions of the city.
A. The city, by a majority vote of the city council, may authorize a motor vehicle license fee
as follows:
1. A vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as provided for by RCW 82.80.140;
2. A vehicle fee of up to $40.00 as provided in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee of $20.00
has been imposed for at least 24 months; or
3. A vehicle fee of up to $50.00 as provided by RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee of $40.00
has been imposed for at least 24 months and the city has met all the requirements of
RCW 36.73.065(6).
What is funded with this revenue?
o Edmonds City Coded 3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded. "The funds generated by
vehicle fees authorized by the city council in accordance with RCW 82.80.140 shall be used
solely for transportation improvements that preserve, maintain and operate the existing
transportation infrastructure of the city."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 4
• 290 Lane MILES of roads
59 City owns Street lights (cobra head
• 143 Linier miles of painted lines (painted yearly)
lighting)
• 497 crosswalks that are applied with Hot Tape
26 City owned decorative lighting (Light post
(heat applied reflective markings)
in Downtown streets)
• 4444 Hot Tape symbols i.e. turn arrows, stop
145 Locations that the City must do
bars, H/C and such
vegetation control with the tractor mower.
• 25 signalized intersections
6971 stormwater catch basins
• 33 flashing signs
1682 stormwater manholes
• 71 RRFB's (rectangular rapid flashing beacons)
2309 stormwater culvert
located at crosswalks
632 detention systems, Bio Swales and Rain
• 24 school zone flashers (time of day flashing for
gardens
school times)
140 lineal MILES of stormwater pipes.
• 18 radar feedback signs to notify traveling public
56 creek crossings and areas checked
of their speed
EVERY Friday to assure proper flow
• 7823 signs ranging from Stop signs to 3hr
parking and everything in between.
• Photographs of public works crews working on streets
• Does increasing tab fees heln to advance council nriorities?
1. How can we reduce property crime in our city?
Q
2. How can we improve public safety in high crime areas?
Q
3. How can we add a police substation to Highway 99?
4. How can we significantly improve response to medical/fire emergencies at the
waterfront?
Q
5. How do we improve walkability in all neighborhoods?
Q
6. What are non -sidewalk safety methods to protect pedestrians and non -motorized
traffic?
Q
7. What can we do to reducespeeding on our streets?
Q
8. How can we reduce speeding in key problem areas? 76', Olympic View Drive, 9`
Avenue, 190'?
Q
9. How can we start leveraging our volunteers better?
10. Can we harness volunteer labor and knowledge for the benefit of our city/city
budget?
11. How can we improve our organizational structure to deliver better outcomes?
12. How can we improve the accountability of staff outcomes? (REDI manager, Code
rewrite, comp plan)
Q
13. How can we increase beautification in all business districts in Edmonds?
Q
14. What can we do to increase direct human services to vulnerable populations in the
city, especial y Hwy 99?
15. What city buildings need repair or replacement in the near future and how can we
prioritize a list to fix them?
Q
16. How can we increase our public green spaces and preserve our mature tree canopy?
17. How can we provide watercraft access to Lake Ballinger for our residents?
18. How can we evaluate consultant/ contractorspending to ensure prudent choices?
Q
19. How do we determine the bests stem for electing Councilmembers in Edmonds?
20. How can we collect relevant and statistically valid data for informing decision
makers?
21. How do we work better with other south County regarding Ethics Boards?
22. How can we get trash collection service at SW County Park?
23. How do we deal with graffiti, trash and abandoned shopping cards around town?
Q
24. How can we achieve a balanced budget without drawing down fund balances?
Q
25. How can we have accuracy of questions andprojections?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 5
26. How can we prioritize ADA compliance throughout the city?
0
27. How can we accelerate street and sidewalk installation and maintenance?
0
28. How do we get positive environmental action on our waterways and creeks?
0
29. How can we fix the environmental issues in Perrinville?
0
• Street Fund Report (June)
Projected
End of Year
_« -$ 768,004
r�
a current
°A Deficit
-$ 833,652
soo �
ao
am
• Street Department
o Maintenance and Preservation Funds
. TBD • Fuel TAX . General Fund • Unfunded
• Funding options
Maintenance and Preservation Funds Maintenance and Preservation Funds
w/o additional fee with additional $20 fee
. TBD • Fuel TAX • General Fund . TBD • Fuel TAX • General Fund
• Staff recommendation: Increase car tab fees by $20.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 6
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the ordinance in the packet is missing an effective date section. A
Section 3 needs to be added that reads, "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 days after passage and
publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title."
Councilmember Teitzel asked for clarification, if the council approves a $20 increase in the car tab fee, it
will generate approximately $700,000 annually. Mr. Antillon agreed. Councilmember Teitzel observed by
law that entire amount is required to be dedicated to street projects, and cannot be used for any other
purpose. Mr. Antillon answered the ordinance prevents using it for anything else. Councilmember Teitzel
said during this term as a councilmember as well as during his previous term, citizens have demanded great
streets and great safety. Although he was torn about an increase at any time for citizens, this fee has a
definite purpose and addresses an issue that citizens say they want. He concluded he has heard repeatedly
from citizens that streets and sidewalks are their priorities.
Councilmember Paine referred to the list of things that can be funded, commenting it can fund a lot of
things the community asks for, but it does not specifically say sidewalks, it is mainly street pavement. Mr.
Antillon agreed it was street pavement. Councilmember Paine commented the RCW is pretty explicit about
that. Mr. Antillon agreed, noting the City does spend some money on ADA features, but the City does not
own all the sidewalks. Councilmember Paine agreed with Councilmember Teitzel's comments that streets
are a priority for the community, safety is a public safety issue and the council hears daily about the need
to repair potholes. She asked if the new Fix It app was generating work orders for potholes. Mr. Antillon
answered the app was getting lots of reports regarding potholes. Councilmember Paine assumed that will
also be a good data collection device. Mr. Antillon agreed it was, commenting there were reports about
everything; it will be a learning process and staff is excited about it. Councilmember Paine commented new
technology provides new information which then expands the workload.
Mr. Taraday advised the council could disregard what he said previously about adding a section to the
ordinance; this a is resolution, not an ordinance and that language is not required.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has received 15-20 emails on this topic. She relayed a citizen's
question, the General Fund provides some funds for streets since the fee was not raised previously and
asked what happened if the council did not approve the increase, whether the General Fund would continue
to support streets as it has over the past four years. Mr. Antillon answered either less maintenance is done
or the General Fund provides approximately 50% of the necessary funding. It is a matter of priorities; the
General Fund has contributed $400,000-$2 million/year. Even with this increase, the contribution from the
General Fund will still be needed.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a regressive tax and it should have come to the council in
2020, 2021 or 2022 because now the timing is wrong due to hyperinflation. At the two town halls, she heard
citizens say they are being priced out of their homes due to inflation and high taxes. Property taxes in
Snohomish County increased significantly in the past year. Further, this is premature and should be brought
up as part of the budget process.
Councilmember Chen referred to reports about traffic issues and heavier traffic, and recognized that traffic
calming requires resources as the General Fund cannot cover it all. This tax, like most taxes, is regressive,
but he recognized the need.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RAISE THE CAR TAB FEE BY $20.
Councilmember Olson referred to the presentation slides with pie charts. She pointed out regardless of
whether the council approved the increase in the car tab fee, the City will spend the same amount on streets.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 7
Mr. Antillon agreed the pie charts illustrate the need. Councilmember Olson recognized that is a source of
frustration by the council and citizens; the council sees the need and hears that residents support spending
for this need. It is frustrating that the City is also spending a lot on projects that do not have as much resident
support and residents prefer to move money from those projects. She recognized the need for the TBD tax
for this purpose, but wanted the pie for streets to be bigger and to spend less General Fund monies in other
ways. It is important make this change and acknowledged that the current spending is not adequate. The
TBD fee has been not increased since 2008; approximately half the increase accounts for inflation to do the
same amount of work and there is a backlog. In the upcoming budget process, the council will be looking
for less other programs and more road work.
Councilmember Nand did not think a $20 or $40 vehicle licensing fee would break the bank for anyone,
but the problem is state government has chosen to fund itself on the backs of working and middle class
citizens in an effort to protect the incomes of very high net worth individuals. Even though this is a relatively
small ask, a small amount of what a person pays annual for their car tabs, it will be damaging to the budgets
of certain people in the community. The tax is regressive because a person earning a six figure salary and
driving a late model BMW pays the same tax from their income as a person earning minimum wage and
driving a 20 year old car. There is a push to raise revenue to address the City's new spending especially as
ARPA funds go away. After getting a lot of feedback from the community, she will offer an amendment
that will make her more comfortable to vote in favor of an increase in the car tab fee. She offered the
amendment in the spirit of vulnerable members of the community, some of whom may be living in their
cars and for whom this $20/year increase on top of the hundreds of dollars the state government is gouging
out of their income so they have the privilege of driving on the roads.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD A
NEW SECTION 2, RENUMBERING THE CURRENT SECTION 2 TO SECTION 3, THAT READS,
"ANY RESIDENT OF EDMONDS WHO IS ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THIS INCREASE IN
FEES MAY APPLY FOR MONETARY RELIEF FROM THE ENTIRE $40 FEE COLLECTED AS
A CITY PORTION OF THE VEHICLE LICENSING FEE THROUGH THE CITY'S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ANYONE WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY QUALIFIED IN THE
LAST 24 MONTHS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP)
BENEFITS, ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER (EBT) BENEFITS, HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT
THROUGH THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON APPLE HEALTH ALSO KNOWN AS
MEDICAID, OR A SECTION 8 HOUSING VOUCHER ADMINISTERED BY HASCO
AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFIES FOR A $40 REBATE ON THEIR VEHICLE LICENSING FEE
ISSUED AS A SEPARATE CHECK BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ONCE THEY SUBMIT PROOF
OF QUALIFICATION FOR ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED PROGRAMS AND EVIDENCE THEY
HAVE PAID THE $40 VEHICLE LICENSING FEE FOR A VEHICLE REGISTERED TO AN
ADDRESS LISTED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
Councilmember Paine said she loves the amendment, her only comment would be not to specify HASCO,
and instead state any housing authority grant, because Everett Housing Authority still has the authority to
write housing grants in Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis found the amendment wonderful, but said it likely would be very difficult to
administer. At the town hall meetings, she heard some people may be priced out by the vehicle license fee
increase, but may not qualify for the rebate. Without sufficient data, she was unsure she could support the
amendment.
Councilmember Olson said she liked the idea philosophically, but wanted to know what allowing rebates
would mean to what does/does not get done on the City's streets before voting on the amendment. She
asked if the council could pass the TBD fee increase tonight and revisit a program like Councilmember
Nand suggested. Mr. Antillon commented it would require Finance and Public Works to track the
information and a process would need to be developed. If council approved this, he did not think staff could
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 8
implement it because it would be too burdensome for staff. Councilmember Olson suggested revisiting
development of a program in the spirit of the amendment in the future.
Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmember Paine for offering the amendment related to Everett
Housing Authority providing housing vouchers in Edmonds. She thanked Councilmembers Buckshnis and
Olson and Mr. Antillon for their feedback. Creating an affirmative obligation for someone to seek out and
apply for this program, she anticipated it would be narrowly targeted to those for whom $40/year meant a
lot to their annual budget so she did not think thousands would apply. There are people in the community
utilizing the programs she mentioned in the amendment, people already connected to social services in
Edmonds and in Snohomish County, and this would just be another tool to help support marginalized and
vulnerable members of the community. Edmonds is a fairly pretty prosperous place; most people can afford
the increase to $40, but for the small number of people for whom this would have an adverse impact, this
could be very helpful for them. It is also an acknowledge that this is a regressive tax and should not be
impacting minimum wage workers the same as workers earning six figure incomes.
Councilmember Teitzel said he did not think he was supportive of the amendment tonight as he needed to
learn more about it. It needs more vetting with staff to ensure it can be done and is reasonable. He applauded
the notion and intent, but felt it was premature. He has heard from citizens if the council contemplates and
potentially approves an increase in the TBD fee, they want the entire amount dedicated to streets in addition
to the amount already dedicated. He supported the council committing to increasing the focus on funding
the street program.
Councilmember Chen applauded Councilmember Nand's intent to help people negatively impacted by the
increase. The City currently has a household support program, $2500/household, that residents can apply
for. Assistance is available and the City may need to advertise it more so residents are aware of its
availability. That $2500 could be used to cover this $20/year increase and much more. The $20 increase
will provide additional funds so the City's streets can be maintained; the funds will be dedicated for use on
City streets.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND
NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
OLSON, PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS AND NAND VOTING NO.
2. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH VIA ARCHITECTURE
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Planning Manager David Levitan reviewed:
• Comp Plan Scope and Contract review
o July 5 — Staff briefed city council on proposed scope and approach
o July 7 — Staff emailed community members who commented on Highway 99
o July 11 — Council committee further discussed scope and approach
o July 12 — Planning board provided feedback on and general support for scope and approach,
including consolidated EIS approach
o July 18 — Request additional feedback on scope of work and authorization for mayor to sign
contract with VIA
• Consultant RFP and selection process
o RFP issued in March and closed in late April; included optional task for Highway 99 SEIS
o City received four proposals, which were reviewed in early May
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 9
■ Two proposals included optional Highway 99 SEIS task (with different approaches)
■ Top two consultant teams were interviewed in mid -May (one with optional SEIS and one
without)
o Interview panel unanimously selected VIA Architecture Team
o City negotiated scope of work, budget and schedule, including:
■ Highway 99
■ Waterfront issues
■ Environment and natural resources
■ Economic development plan
■ Scale of outreach
o The Comp Plan will include all other mandatory elements (housing, transportation, climate
change/sustainability, utilities, capital facilities, etc.)
Scope of Work, Budget and Schedule
o VIA's scope and fee proposal ($650k) includes:
■ Production of the comprehensive plan document
■ Citywide EIS
■ Additional focus on the Highway 99 subarea, including dedicated community outreach,
potential plan/code refinements, and SEPA review
■ Development of an Economic Development Plan
■ Illustrative waterfront vision
■ Inclusive engagement with graphic -rich materials
o Contract active until plan is approved by Department of Commerce (by December 31, ,2024)
o Includes numerous touchpoints with boards/commission and the public including:
■ Five meetings with planning board and two meetings with city council in advance of public
hearing; staff will provide additional frequent updates
■ 2-3 meetings in each of the City's neighborhood commercial areas
■ Public EIS scooping and review meetings
■ Online engagement strategies
Questions/comments from council and planning board:
o Will the Highway 99 area receive the same level of SEPA review as a separate SEIS?
■ Staff and the consultant team are confident that this approach will provide the same level
of environmental review as would occur in a standalone EIS, perhaps more, considering
the citywide analysis that will afford a more systematic view
o What are the consultant travel costs and can they be included in the not to exceed contract
amount?
■ The maximum identified travel costs are —$3000 and would be utilized on a time and
materials basis. They will be included in the total contract amount. The bulk of the team is
based in Seattle.
o Concerns about specific community engagement components, such as a small group or 1 on 1
sessions
■ Stepherson and Associates will be developing a community engagement plan upon contract
approval; small group sessions will inherently be limited due to cost constraints
o Preference for Community Champions to apply and be selected (rather than appointed)
■ The Community Champions is intended to utilize professional staff from historically
underrepresented groups.
• Next steps
o Finalize and approve contract with VIA
o Draft community vision statement public hearing (August 2) and additional community
outreach
o Form Community Champions steering committee
o Begin preparing background/technical analysis
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 10
Councilmember Paine asked if the Community Champions steering committee was the same as the
City/Steering Committee described in Section 1.1 of the scope of services. Mr. Levitan answered the
City/Steering Committee will be a staff level group. He anticipated there would be representation from
boards/commissions. Councilmember Paine appreciated building in a distinction regarding the environment
and the data driven statistically valid survey.
Councilmember Olson asked if a statistically significant survey had been added and where that was
referenced in the scope of services. Mr. Levitan answered it was referenced in the staff report and in the
context of developing the community engagement plan. A statistically valid survey is difficult to do, but if
that is a council priority, there could be focus as part of the development of the community engagement
plan on developing a framework and survey that would accurately reflect the community. Councilmember
Olson commented the timing of the survey is relevant. One of the deliverables was asking the community's
their priorities, something she wanted determined by a well -constructed, statistically valid survey.
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin explained given the cost of a statistically valid survey,
the timing of the survey during the 1 %2 year process would need to be strategic. Consideration of a
statistically valid survey would be included in the development of the community engagement plan. A
statistically valid survey would be more valuable once the process gets into technical topics such as housing,
distribution of density, etc. to understand where the community stands before significant policy decisions
are made. Plans for a very robust outreach process are reflected in the fee proposal, looking at issues at the
neighborhood level as well as the citywide level and employing multiple outreach tactics. She was confident
community priorities could be gleaned via multiple conversations and other data points.
Councilmember Olson referred to the up to $3,000 for travel, and asked if that was part of the $649,000
fee. Ms. McLaughlin answered in the current fee proposal, it is separate, but based on council interest, it
can be included in the not to exceed amount which would increase the total cost of contract by $3,000.
Councilmember Olson recalled the council budgeted $400,000 for the base comprehensive plan update;
with the removal of the EIS and the Economic Development Plan based on the itemization, it is still about
$500,000. She asked why the cost was still $100,000 higher than budgeted. Ms. McLaughlin answered there
is a baseline of inclusive engagement and significantly more due to the hyper focus on the Highway 99 area
which added to the cost as well as project management included in each task. A lot of the costs associated
with the additional Highway 99 attention are in project management, overall outreach, production of
documents, etc.
Mr. Levitan said he would need to look at the budget approval as he was not with the City last fall when
the budget was prepared to see if the budget anticipated a full EIS. He referred to Shoreline and Mountlake
Terrace's consultant contracts; Shoreline's contract is about $450,000 and does not include the Highway
99 type work, community engagement consultant or an economic development plan. Mountlake Terrace's
budget is $500,000 which includes a full EIS, but does not include the equivalent of a subarea plan SEIS or
an economic development plan. He summarized the bulk of the additional amount is related to the Highway
99 area which was budgeted as a separate $200,000. Staff has not asked to utilize that full amount due to
cost savings from the combined approach to the EIS.
Councilmember Olson referred to page 12 of the contract, observing the total is $649,000 and subtracting
$111,000 for the Highway 99 PAO supplementary scope and $40,000 for the economic development vision
is approximately $500,000 which is still $100,000 in excess of the comprehensive plan update budget. Ms.
McLaughlin answered the budget is an estimate, made with limited information; the responses to the RFP
reflect the true cost. The reality is this is a significant scope of work. For example, the waterfront vision
would likely be a $100,000 effort if done separately. Councilmember Olson asked if the illustrative
waterfront vision was planning work or a fancy graphic model. Everyone agrees planning is needed, but
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 11
she questioned whether a big, fancy picture was needed and that may a place to save money. Ms.
McLaughlin commented creating a vision often requires inspiring people who do not typically think in a
future sense and the use of pictures and graphics helps to draw out the best ideas and outcomes. It will
inform the land use strategy, land use designations, densities, areas of preservation, rezone opportunities
relative to the marsh, etc. She concluded that process would include both.
Councilmember Olson commented the "up to" language related to engagement did not cover the council's
interests well. For example, up to five means doing one would meet the contract terms which she doubted
would be acceptable if five was the preferred number. She did not want to approve the contract with the
"up to" amounts and had sent an email to staff relaying that concern.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she sent several detailed questions to staff on July 7 and has not received
answers. She asked if all four consultants who responded to the RFP were out of state or only VIA. Mr.
Levitan answered the bulk of the VIA team is in Seattle; only the principal, who is not the project manager,
is out of state, the rest of the VIA team is local. The Herrera team is local, the economic development
consultant is based in Portland. With regard to the other consultants that responded to the RFP, one was
based entirely in Seattle with some staff in Vancouver, Washington, one was based out of Chicago, and one
was based in Seattle and the Bay area. He commented a lot of larger firms have multiple offices and utilize
staff from multiple locations.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was extremely concerned about moving forward with this firm. This is
a comprehensive plan update that will include rewriting and visioning. The City already did visioning via
Everybody's Edmonds which the council was not part of. VIA's scope very convoluted, there is reference
to Highway 99 subarea focus, but the delivery documents do not include the Highway 99 subarea plan. The
economic development element is being prepared by a Portland consultant; it could be done by the EDC,
volunteers who understand Edmonds. She was having a difficult time with how the scope was put together
and believed the contract should be rejected and have Herrera do the EIS and SEIS. The council has yet to
see documents such as the Equitable Engagement Framework, the Five Corners Alternatives Analysis and
Fact Sheet, the Highway 99 Lake Ballinger Subarea Plan and PAO, Reimaging Neighborhoods and Streets
that are being provided to the consultant to create a vision when all that is necessary is updating the
comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis continued, $650,000 is a lot of money. She did not think that much needed to
be spent when the comprehensive plan could be updated via an EIS and the SEIS as required by Ordinance
4079. She feared so much was being put into the scope that it was getting so convoluted with pretty pictures,
when in fact the comprehensive plan update needs to be completed by next year. That could be done by
updating the comprehensive plan and adding elements regarding the environment and climate change which
should not cost anywhere near $650,000. She reiterated her recommendation to reject the VIA contract and
have Herrera do the EIS and SEIS which would avoid the markup from VIA using them and the Portland
firm as a subcontractors.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not understand why everything was being combined; each element
of the update needs to be done well and not thrown together. She asked why staff decided to put everything
together. Ms. McLaughlin answered the scope included so much because there was budget allocation for
an economic development plan, the additional Highway 99 work, specificity and council direction about
including the waterfront plan as part of the comprehensive plan, and to consider a rezone of the marsh
property. A baseline comprehensive plan update is a significant body of work. She referred to
Councilmember Buckshnis' comments about the City's ability to handle 20-year growth from a utility
standpoint. That is a body of work that is incorporated into the comprehensive plan and requires significant
analysis. The council has also talked about city facilities, how the City can grow and provide resources to
the community, community centers, parks, where to house staff, etc. The capital facilities plan is also
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 12
included in this comprehensive plan update. The City's past updates have been quite slim and a
comprehensive EIS has not been done since 1995.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Kirkland did not do a citywide EIS. The reason the council adopted
Ordinance 4079 was because developers would not use SEPA. The intent is to protect citizens in the
Highway 99 subarea which is why she supports doing an SEIS. Regarding the marsh rezone, the only thing
council has been asking the administration to since 2019 is remove the Edmonds Crossing from the
comprehensive plan which does not require visioning and could have been done in 2020 or 2021. She
preferred not to do anything related to the marsh because it is still in WSDOT's hands. She questioned
spending money to create a vision statement when in fact we know what it is going to be and Edmonds
Crossing just needs to be removed from the comprehensive plan. She agreed pretty pictures can be provided,
but it needs to be done by 2024 and convoluting everything and adding different elements does not save
money.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested using BERK Consulting, a local firm that knows Edmonds, to do the
economic development plan. She expressed concern that the update did not utilize consultants that know
Edmonds and she did not want Edmonds to become an urban metropolitan area. Mr. Levitan advised staff
reached out to all the local consultants, but they indicated they did not have adequate staffing. Edmonds did
not receive proposals from the traditional update firms because they have been overwhelmed with work for
several years. BERK does a lot of work on housing action plans which has dominated their work for the
past few years including developing a plan for Lake Stevens when he worked there. The unavailability of
traditional update firms is reflected in the proposals the City received.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she asked for the RFP and RFQ. She suggested if everything hadn't been
combined into one RFP, the City may have received a better response. She expressed concern that the scope
was so convoluted that the end product would be like the PROS Plan which went off base and another
$150,000 had to be spent. She noted this $650,000 does not include updating the transportation element so
the entire comprehensive plan update will likely cost $800,000-$900,000. Mr. Levitan said the difference
between this comprehensive plan update and other comprehensive plan updates that have happened in
Edmonds in the last 30 years is this is the first time the City has a large projected deficit in meeting its
housing growth targets. That is not just a minor comprehensive plan update, that is basically opening up
the entire comprehensive plan in a way he did not believe the City had done in the past several decades.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, but said the comprehensive plan can be updated when HB 1110 is
implemented.
Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, advising Councilmember Buckshnis has had two touches
and asked two questions and it would be beneficial for other councilmembers to have an opportunity to
speak. Mayor Nelson concurred. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Councilmember Olson asked more
than two questions. Mayor Nelson observed Councilmember Buckshnis was repeating the same argument
about her concern the proposal was convoluted and everyone understands her point. He suggested
Councilmember Buckshnis continue after other councilmembers have had an opportunity to speak.
Councilmember Nand commented this is her first time going through a comprehensive plan update, unlike
Councilmember Buckshnis who is an old hand at this. The City funds boards and commission so there are
residents of the community to provide feedback. They volunteer and spend dozens of hours per year;
multiple board/commission members have expressed to her that they feel invalidated and that their work
and input is being ignored. Tonight the council passed a regressive tax increase to cover new spending at a
time when the community is suffering financially. She knows the planning department works very hard and
did not want them to take her comments as personal criticism or her attempting to impugn their work; she
was trying to better understand what value the City would get from this contract.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 13
Councilmember Nand asked if VIA would be rewriting the entire comprehensive plan or updating the
existing plan. Mr. Levitan answered they will analyze the current plan. There may be goals and policies
that would remain. A periodic update checklist has been done to identify areas that are consistent with state
law; a number of things need to be updated as a result of the last couple legislative sessions. There would
be significant changes to a number of topics, but that will differ by topic area. He anticipated the housing
element, the land use element and potential map amendments and associated rezones will be the biggest
tasks and will require a lot of technical analysis. That is featured in the scope due to the scale and scope of
the changes that are required to be consistent with the GMA and countywide planning policies. He
acknowledged not every goal and policy in every element will be changed; there will definitely be carryover
goals and policies, but a significant amount of work will be required to review the existing goals and policies
and to check in with the community. He concluded it was difficult to generalize for every element; not
every goal and policy will be updated, but they will be reviewed to determine which ones stay and where
new language is required.
In terms of substance in the final product, Councilmember Nand asked how much of the comprehensive
plan document did staff expect to be new material generated by VIA by the end of the process. Mr. Levitan
answered it was difficult to say. The background analysis that goes into the first several pages of each
element will be new information because it is outdated. The goals and policies will be reviewed individually
and new goals and policies developed as needed to provide the regulatory framework for any potential
zoning changes or other implementation measures related to the comprehensive plan. The intent is to
develop a comprehensive plan policy document that provides the foundation. The comprehensive plan is a
good guide but it needs to provide a foundation for code implementation, implement ordinances, programs,
etc. All the background information will be updated to reflect current conditions.
Councilmember Nand asked for an estimate such as would 50% be new material generated by VIA. Ms.
McLaughlin answered it was impossible for staff to estimate at this time. Every policy in the document is
codependent on other policies; one change requires changing multiple references. Even the slightest change
requires comprehensive edits. For example, removing Edmonds Crossing, it is referenced at least 38 times
in the document as well as on maps, etc.
Councilmember Nand referred to a very detailed criticism of the VIA contract that she and other
councilmembers received. One of the points she found troubling was whether members of the community
champions steering committee would be residents of Edmonds. As a member of a historically
underrepresented community, the idea that someone is selected and has the ability to speak for the
community based on their diverse identity is something that people like her deal with frequently. She did
not want to proceed with the community champions being appointed and compensated in a way other than
a public process where candidates apply. If staff has already identified people they feel would be good
participants, she suggested they go through a public application process. She wanted to ensure the selection
of the community champions steering committee was done in the most respectful, transparent and open way
possible.
Ms. McLaughlin encouraged councilmembers to reach out to staff with any questions. The equitable
engagement framework suggests a community champions model; that structure has not been formed, a list
of members has not been compiled, no one has been invited to participate, etc. That will be done as part of
the engagement plan which will be shared and transparent. She assured that was not accurate information
that Councilmember Nand heard. Councilmember Nand said that is why she wanted to share the criticism
so staff can get ahead of it. She would hate for people to be engaged in the process and then read in the
media they are not really members of the community or that they were given an unfair leg up because of
their diverse or minority status,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 14
Councilmember Nand expressed concerned with the push to roll the Highway 99 SEIS into a citywide EIS.
The reason there was a subarea plan with very tall building heights was because in 2017 the council agreed
with the planning department that Highway 99 deserved a streamlined approach for permitting new projects.
The council has now heard a tidal wave of anger from that community because applications and permits for
new projects are being approved and residents are concerned with giant buildings being constructed in their
backyard without being informed that changes to the zoning had occurred. She encouraged the council to
pursue a separate Highway 99 SEIS or at least discussion in the upcoming public hearing where feedback
on the comprehensive plan update and visioning will be pursued.
Councilmember Nand suggested consideration be given to separating out certain items. She asked what
value the City gets from Task 3.2, Economic Development — Existing Conditions Review, and how it plays
into the need for a comprehensive plan update. She was trying to categorize tasks and justify the price tag
for each item the City was hiring VIA for. Mr. Levitan answered typically when developing a plan or vision,
an existing conditions report needs to be done first to provide the technical foundation for the economic
development vision. It is not superfluous, it is intended to inform that plan and vision and would utilize Mr.
Tatum and his team as well as the EDC to provide feedback. He summarized it is the technical background
information for the economic development plan.
Council President Tibbott observed the state has imposed new housing requirements and as a result, new
zoning will be required in the City. As more housing comes on line and there is more population, there will
be new infrastructure needs and new utility requirements as well as new amenities for a growing population.
He noted this is not just an update, it is also accommodating the requirements placed on the City by other
entities. It sounds great that everything was put everything together in one package. Once everything is put
together and the comprehensive plan is written, he asked how that helps the City accomplish its goals. Ms.
McLaughlin answered many headaches and heartaches are due to outdated policies or approaches or
disconnects related to Edmonds Crossing, how to move forward with desirable land use, etc.; the
comprehensive plan provides a north star. The point of GMA is to provide a vision, an alignment for growth
and transportation to guide the City over the next 20 years. Once the City has that planning framework,
zoning amendments can effectuate those changes. That consistency allows for a smoother operating City
and clear expectations for stakeholders including private development, business owners, residents, etc.
Mr. Levitan explained the key term in the comprehensive plan is comprehensive; the comprehensive plan
establishes a policy framework and prioritization and reflects community feedback for not just zoning
changes but program development. Funding decisions by the city council utilizing the community
engagement is the hidden value of the comprehensive plan, it goes above and beyond GMA and countywide
planning policies compliance by providing a roadmap for the future. The City's growth targets and recent
legislation will require a fundamental reassessment in the way the City looks at things like housing.
Although not part of this contract, examining multimodal level of service in a completely different way is
reflected in the budget for that contract. Having a consultant team to tie all these things together is the value
of this consultant team and their proposal. Staff is generally comfortable with the SEPA approach, the
policy approach, the engagement approach, etc.
Council President Tibbott referred to an EIS for the entire City, commenting the environmental impact on
Highway 99 impacts others parts of the City and vise versa. For example, the City may make a
transportation change in one area of the City, but it can push traffic to the Highway 99 corridor. A citywide
EIS allows those issues to be addressed citywide and there are still plans for robust engagement for the
Highway 99 area. He concluded it seemed synergistic to him. Mr. Levitan explained when developing
alternatives for the comprehensive plan EIS, it obviously looks at the entire City. The proposal is for two
alternatives plus a no action alternative, although no changes to land use designations, zone capacity, or
zoning would not be an option because the City would be out of compliance with state law and not meet its
growth targets.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 15
Mr. Levitan continued, alternatives need to consider the growth targets; there are currently about 3,000
units of zone capacity in the Highway 99 area that has not been utilized through the PAO, only about 400
units of the 3,325 have been spoken for. That zone capacity is based on 2015 growth targets that extended
to 2035. Since then, Edmonds' projected population for the 2044 horizon is expected to be 55,000-56,000,
almost 10,000 more than was anticipated in 2015 which is a major change. It is difficult to look at the
Highway 99 area in a vacuum to accommodate up to 9,000 additional units within the City. Walling off
Highway 99 and evaluating only the Highway 99 area in a SEIS and saying there should not be any
additional zone capacity in Highway 99 would require those 9,000 units to be spread out through the rest
of the City. A lot of them should be spread out through the City which will considered in the update
including looking at the housing commission recommendations related to middle housing beyond what is
required by HB 1110, courtyard apartments, etc. That is the reason staff and the consultant have proposed
this consolidated approach. It is difficult to analyze a specific subarea in the context of a full comprehensive
plan EIS and it would be difficult to do them concurrently.
Councilmember Teitzel said he did some research into VIA, looking into their portfolio of work, and it
appears they are a credible firm that has done work relevant to what Edmonds is asking for. He was also
comforted by their plan to work with Herrera Environmental, who is familiar with Edmonds, on the
environmental components. He referred to his email exchange with Ms. McLaughlin regarding Ordinance
4079 and whether council should rescind it and her indication that staff was not suggesting council could
or should rescind it. He read from their email, "The city council would also have the option to rescind the
planned action ordinance and instead rely on project level environmental review until an updated SEIS is
prepared." He asked what staff meant by that.
Ms. McLaughlin answered staff has the level of confidence that this is the right way to integrate the work
into the citywide EIS for the purpose of a system wide analysis that is needed for equity and balance and to
ensure the City has the capacity in zoning, utility and transportation to accommodate growth in an equitable
way. Staff is confidence in the approach that is outlined and in the proposed contract with VIA. Staff is
saying trust us, but if council doesn't, at the end of the analysis, there will still be the opportunity to rescind
or amend the subarea plan or the corresponding planned action EIS. That is still an option so the council
may as well see what community members want at a depth that can be analyzed relative to the systems and
then make a very intentional decision whether a citywide EIS captures what is wanted. That is the most
efficient way to get there, but at the end of the day, if the council wants to change the planned action and
the subarea plan, that is the time to do it. She was confident in the approach of an integrated effort.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if Ordinance 4079 remains in effect and the City proceeds with this
consolidate planning approach, whether that approach was in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Levitan asked
what part of the ordinance the City would be in violation of. Councilmember Teitzel said in terms of the
approach to the Highway 99 subarea. Mr. Levitan said Ordinance 4079 requires a 5-year check -in which
was done in October 2022. The specific language in the ordinance delegates authority for determining the
need for a supplemental environmental review to the SEPA responsible official which is the planning
manager. Former Planning Manager Kernen Lien prepared a document last fall in which he determined a
supplemental EIS was not needed. The council still budgeted for and requested an SEIS be done. In
consulting with a number of firms and with VIA, it was determined a SEIS was not needed. Ordinance 4079
does not calls for the preparation of a SEIS, only supplemental environmental review as needed and
determined by the SEPA responsible official.
Councilmember Teitzel said in his opinion, the City has not done justice to ADA issues. The scope of work
is silent related to ADA. He asked if that could be added. Ms. McLaughlin advised the transportation plan
was the most likely place for an ADA-related scope of work. That is not part of this scope of work, but staff
will be working closely with the transportation plan and will need to be consistent with all the elements of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 16
the comprehensive plan. The capital facilities plan will touch on ADA needs, but typically that level detail
would be in a granular plan rather than comprehensive plan elements such as an ADA transition plan or as
part of the CIP/CFP.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to Task 2.2.1 Highway 99/Lake Ballinger Subarea Focused Engagement
The team will conduct 3-meetings with Highway 99 community supporting the 6' neighborhood
commercial center at Lake Ballinger to coordinate the subarea plan with the comprehensive plan, and
address community concerns and opportunities. He asked about the 6t' neighborhood commercial center at
Lake Ballinger and whether that was the Burlington Coat Factory property. Mr. Levitan said VIA has
identified six neighborhoods of focus and combined the Lake Ballinger and Highway 99 area to overlap
with the subarea boundaries. He offered to clarify that with VIA. That task addresses an additional
engagement effort to learn about perceived impacts and issues identified by community members in those
areas. Councilmember Teitzel asked if it was referring specifically to the Burlington Coat Factory property.
Mr. Levitan answered it was not.
Councilmember Chen observed the housing bills passed by the legislature will result in dramatic change
for Edmonds and he saw the value of comprehensively updating the comprehensive plan. The $650,000 fee
is a heavy price tag; Phase 1, project management, meetings and community engagement appears to cost
$142,000. He asked if there was an opportunity to save money by using planning board members or
volunteers to conduct some of those tasks. Mr. Levitan answered there is a different dynamic when utilizing
consultants with specific expertise in community engagement in the way meetings are run and community
outreach. He suggested council provide direction regarding a specific dollar amount they were seeking and
he could look through the scope to determine how to utilize existing community resources.
Councilmember Chen referred to Councilmember Olson's comments that the original budget was $400,000
and with the additional items, it was about $500,000, but the current fee is $650,000, about $150,000 over
budget, so there is room for cost saving opportunities. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification regarding
Councilmember Chen's suggestion to utilize planning board members, and whether he was suggesting
instead of community meetings, discussing topics at planning board meetings, or having planning board
members host and do the legwork for the community meetings.
Councilmember Chen suggested the consultant could provide the structure and the volunteers could do the
legwork, host the meetings, etc. to avoid consultant travel costs to conduct meetings. Ms. McLaughlin
commented planning board members are volunteers, and they already do quite a lot on their own time. She
was uncomfortable asking volunteers to do as much legwork as she knew community engagement takes.
An inclusive engagement process costs a lot and she suggested discussing the value of an inclusive
engagement process and the value of neighborhood level conversations. It costs money to prepare specific
neighborhood materials. There could be a process where public engagement occurs at planning board or
city council meetings, but she did not think it would meet the inclusive engagement goals.
Councilmember Chen commented there are already extensive resources from the 2017 subarea plan, the
work done by the housing commission as well as other existing resources; the wheel does not need to be
recreated for every aspect. Ms. McLaughlin explained after doing this for decades, when people aren't
engaged and the City relies on a 2017 document, people who were not engage in 2017 now want to be part
of the conversation. The City cannot rely on old planning efforts and needs to continue to involve
community members in the process of making real time decision to build trust and a community vision for
the 20-year strategy to ensure it is inclusive. She empathized with the frustration; there were 8,500
comments during the visioning process, but the City still needs to commit to an inclusive engagement
process which takes time and money.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 17
Councilmember Chen referred to the comprehensive, in-depth visioning process and questioned the need
to continue to spend more money on that process. Ms. McLaughlin used middle housing as an example,
that wasn't part of the level of granularity that people were asked about in the visioning process. People
were asked what they valued about Edmonds and how it shaped the vision for the comprehensive plan.
Now the City needs to get into a level of detail with community members about specific housing and
transportation needs which is different than the value conversation.
Councilmember Chen saw the value of the long term comprehensive plan and asked how the recent
Highway 99 landmark acquisition fits into the comprehensive plan. Ms. McLaughlin answered the
landmark site is zoned CG which allows the most flexibility and highest density in the City. Conversations
around land use and density as it relates to the recent housing bills will affect the landmark site if the City
choses to downzone certain aspects of Highway 99. While the comprehensive plan won't master plan that
site, that will be a separate process, the two will go hand -in -hand. Councilmember Chen commented that is
somewhat contradictory, on one hand the City is doing long term comprehensive planning and the other is
let's do this. Ms. McLaughlin explained the assumption for the landmark site is CG zoning and planning
will move forward with that assumption. The City is not waiting for the comprehensive plan update to
advance on that site. Councilmember Chen said the landmark acquisition is contradictory to long term
planning. Mayor Nelson suggested councilmembers keep their comments to the agenda topic.
Councilmember Chen asked what happens if council rejects this contract. Mr. Levitan asked for
clarification if Councilmember Chen was asking what happens if the council asks staff to refine the scope
or if the council is not comfortable with this team and this approach. Councilmember Chen answered
probably refine it. Mr. Levitan explained the comprehensive plan update needs to be completed by
December 31, 2024. If the council is not comfortable with the contract or the team, then something needs
to be figured out asap and go with a different approach because that deadline is looming. A good amount
of the work, vision outreach and the legwork on housing bill implementation has been done, but the update
process needs to start. If a consultant was not hired for another several months, it would make it difficult to
meet the December 31, 2024 deadline.
Councilmember Paine commented all but 3 of the 11 items in the RFP were produced in last 5 years and
are not reflected in the City's current comprehensive plan such as the gap analysis and equitable engagement
framework. It is important for the City to continually ask the community for input. The City has great
volunteers who do a lot of work for the City, but the community will lose trust if the City does not
continually check in with them. She referred to the Gateway community as an example, an effort that
occurred in 2017. Other items in the RFP include the climate action plan, waterfront issues study, the
housing needs study, the citizens housing commission policy recommendations, reimaging neighborhoods
and streets, the PROS plan and the shoreline master plan. If the council rejects this contract, she assumed
those same things will need to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Paine continued, the 8,500 comments from Everybody's Edmonds were amazing but
engagement from the broader community is still necessary; otherwise the City loses the community's trust
and the City ends up with moratoria. The state has handed cities a big body of work to incorporate. The
comprehensive plan began with housing and transportation and now includes the environment. She was
concerned there would not be enough time to update the comprehensive plan which would result in short
shrift which the City has suffered from in last comprehensive plans. She was surprised the City had not
done a comprehensive EIS since 1995. That was unfair to the community and she was dismayed at that gap.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO
ACCEPT THE PLAN AND CONTRACT AS WRITTEN FOR VIA ARCHITECTS FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 18
Councilmember Paine commented this is an important step and the council will have time during the year
to finetune things. This is a not to exceed amount contract. If there are ways to mobilize volunteers, that
can be done. If the council does not approve this contract, it will take another six weeks to get another RFP
out and then the council will be in the midst of the budget. She urged councilmembers to consider this very
good contract and the need to get started.
Council President Tibbott was confident in the work staff did to develop the scope and the cost is within
the range of what other cities are spending on their comprehensive plans. The additional work to engage
the Ballinger area is justified and desirable. The update also incorporates new requirements from the state
and Snohomish County. If there is a possibility of saving money by not doing something if there is already
enough information, he encouraged staff to remove it.
Councilmember Buckshnis said council has not been given a lot of the information. The comprehensive
plan gap analysis by Echo NW outlines everything that needs to be changed. She asked why the City did
not continue using them. Mr. Levitan answered they did not apply; their focus is on the gap analysis and he
had not seen them prepare a full comprehensive plan update. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how much
the City paid for the gap analysis report and why was it not provided to council. Ms. McLaughlin advised
the equity gap analysis was on the council agenda in Received for Filing. She offered to distribute it again
and/or do a presentation. It is background information to provide a sense of the scope as it related to some
of the new state bills. She did not know the cost off the top of her head.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed it had been added to the website and she was glad staff had added the
8,500 tweets to the website.
Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, requesting councilmembers speak to the motion. Mayor
Nelson agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was looking at the background documents and the
scoping and suggested some needed to be pulled out because they had not been vetted by the citizens or the
council.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
REMOVE THE EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it had not been brought to the council and she could not find it on the
website. This is an important document that council should review before it is provided to the consultant
and they spend money reading it.
Councilmember Olson said that was one of things she had not seen and agreed it should be removed. She
will vote in favor of the amendment.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
PULL THE EDMONDS WATERFRONT ISSUES STUDY.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled this was presented to council and councilmembers had numerous issues
with it. The council requested it be updated and errors corrected and returned to council. She did not want
to provide documentation to the consultant that was inaccurate and that the council wanted revised.
Council President Tibbott relayed his understanding that the council wanted to have Makers come back,
but they were not available to continue work on that document. He suggested this was the opportunity to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 19
take that plan to the next level to have a complete waterfront plan. Ms. McLaughlin recalled in previous
council meetings she has expressed willingness to bring the report back for discussion and/or editing and
has suggested scheduling it on the extended agenda. It is a background document that will serve
development of the waterfront plan. Council President Tibbott relayed his understanding VIA would help
with the additional information. Ms. McLaughlin advised Makers is no longer on contract related to the
waterfront issues paper. Insignificant edits to the document could be made administratively; more
substantial edits could be addressed in the waterfront plan itself. Council President Tibbott said that was
the benefit of including it in VIA's scope.
Councilmember Olson relayed there were not multiple things wrong with the waterfront issues study but
recalled she did not agreed with one of the recommendations which is why she wanted it to come back to
council. To the point Councilmember Buckshnis made that it is not a good idea for VIA to spend time
reading the report until council makes those modifications, she suggested council have an opportunity to
make the changes before VIA utilizes it. She did not necessarily want it removed from the scope, but wanted
the final document to be what council agreed to.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND
TEITZEL VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE, OLSON AND NAND AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to reimaging neighborhood and streets in the list of background
documentation and materials, commenting she has not seen it, did not know what it meant, and did not want
it provided to the consultant for review before the council has vetted it.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
REMOVE REIMAGING NEIGHBORHOOD AND STREETS.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO.
Councilmember Nand referred to Task 3.1, Project Understanding and Existing Conditions Review, and
asked if the City was billed an hourly rate or a flat fee for the consultant's review of background
information. Mr. Levitan answered it was a flat fee on a time and materials basis. If it did not require the
full amount of time, the consultant would not bill the full amount. Councilmember Nand observed the City
was being billed on hourly basis. Mr. Levitan said there is an estimated amount of time they believe it will
take to review these documents.
Councilmember Nand said Councilmember Buckshnis is attempting to refine the scope which
Councilmember Chen was also in favor of. Other tasks and subtasks could be refined and potentially have
less impact than removing these documents. She asked how many hours were allocated to this review and
what the cost savings from removing them would be. Ms. McLaughlin said the documents and materials
allow the consultant to be well versed on the breadth of things that are of recent interest to the community.
Inevitably they will need to review these documents anyway as they get into specific topics.
Councilmember Nand said that was her assumption. She referred to the $92,000 for community
engagement, specifically $21,000 for meetings with the planning board and city council, and $9,000 for
engagement with community champions and asked if there were ways to utilize boards and commissions
and other community stakeholders to do more volunteer work. She reiterated several board and commission
members have expressed frustration that they feel underutilized. She appreciated the point Councilmember
Buckshnis is trying to make by removing these item, however, if she was in the consultant's shoes, these
are documents she would want to review. She preferred to refine other budget items in the contract instead
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 20
of removing background information. Mr. Levitan asked for clarification that the motions to remove
documents was intended for the consultant not to review or utilize the documents at all or just not until they
were brought before council. Councilmember Olson answered until they had been approved by council.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that the consultant may be provided information the council
has never seen or vetted or that needs to be corrected.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
REMOVE FIVE CORNERS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND FACT SHEET.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is probably six years old and it never come before the public,
the planning board or any other boards for review so it is premature for the consultant to review.
Councilmember Chen understood Councilmember Buckshnis' intent was to reduce costs, however, these
are important historical documents related to the City that the consultant needs to be aware of. He asked if
there was a way to deliver the message differently. He referred to Task 3 under Phase 2, Project
Understanding and EIS Scoping $50,000 and suggested having the experts brief the consultants instead of
them reviewing the documents and possibly having a different interpretation because they are from
California and don't know Edmonds. He suggested taking the consultant on a tour of the City. Ms.
McLaughlin answered for staff to synthesize this list and present on it would be a significant amount
compared to the consultant flipping through documents which is what planners do. Whether they are in
Seattle or Dubai, a consultant needs an overview of all the relevant documents before beginning a plan. It
is a scan, an awareness; as they get into topical meetings with stakeholders, community members, agency
partners, etc., their awareness of a document allows them to reference it at a different depth. Councilmember
Chen reiterated his concern with the $50,000 cost.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to keep the Revisioning Westgate document because the City
did an extensive public process for Westgate which was not done for Five Corners. The Five Corners study
was done by the University of Washington and never came to council. It has been on the shelf for years and
she did not think information should be provided to the consultant that has not had policy or legislative
review.
Councilmember Nand proposed the planning department revise the scope and propose a more streamlined
and less expensive alternative to the present scope with items that could be compressed or refined without
damaging the quality of work from the consultant. She suggested reducing the scope by $100,0004200,000.
Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, suggesting councilmembers speak to the amendment.
Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND
TEITZEL VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE, OLSON AND NAND AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Nand asked if it would be possible for the planning department to prepare an alternative
scope and budget for engagement with VIA that is $100,000-$200,000 less than the proposed contract by
removing or compressing items from the present scope. Ms. McLaughlin answered staffs job is to bring
the council a contract that meets the need as well as is the most fiscally conservative. The scope has been
refined and negotiated. Reducing it by $100,000 would result in significant changes to what would be
delivered in the comprehensive plan update and she would be wildly uncomfortable doing that without very
specific council direction about what they were willing to give up. Understanding GMA and everything
that has significantly changed since 1995 and the 2023 legislative session, the change in growth targets, the
complexity of Highway 99 and expectations of community members, she did not know how the cost could
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 21
be reduced and if it could, it would be $20,000 and it would delay the process another month. She
summarized time is money and this is the best scope with the funding available.
Councilmember Nand said since staff is directly engaged with the consultant and have the expertise and
background, her preference would be for staff to determine what a skinny version of this contract looks like
that would still produce effective deliverables. Mayor Nelson translated Ms. McLaughlin's comments; this
is the skinny version. Ms. McLaughlin agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO
ADD UNDER TASK 2.1, "NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC WILL BE MADE TO RECRUIT THE
COMMUNITY CHAMPIONS AND SELECTIONS WILL BE MADE FROM THE APPLICANTS."
Councilmember Olson commented there was nothing in the contract that stated that would happen, but it is
something she wants and has heard the community wants.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson referred to "The Consultant will host up to two focused rounds..." in Task 2.2,
Neighborhood Community Meetings, and suggested "one to two" so zero meetings would not be an option.
Ms. McLaughlin agreed with the change.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
REVISE TASK 2.2 TO READ, "THE CONSULTANT WILL HOST UP TvrTvTWO ONE TO TWO
FOCUSED ROUNDS..." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson referred to the paragraph in red at the top of page 3 of the contract, pointing out it
does not refer to the environmental impacts. She suggested adding "environmental impacts" to the list in
parentheses. Mr. Levitan suggested modifying the paragraph to read, "Materials will address potential
environmental impacts..." pointing out analysis of environmental impacts is the focus of the SEPA review
process. The list refers to specific types of mitigation measures, not the environmental impacts.
Councilmember Olson reiterated the paragraph does not address the environment which is a major point.
Ms. McLaughlin explained 2.2.1 has two paragraphs, the first is regarding engaging the community on
broader issues that may be relevant to the subarea, and the second paragraph is incorporating the community
feedback into environmental analysis and potential impacts. She recommended leaving the paragraph as is
other than Mr. Levitan's suggestion to change to first sentence on page 3 to read, "Materials will address
potential environmental impacts..."
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
MODIFY THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IN TASK 2.2.1 TO READ,
"MATERIALS WILL ADDRESS POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..."
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Task 2.2.1, Highway 99/Lake Ballinger Subarea Focused
Engagement, pointing out Lake Ballinger is not part of the subarea. Ms. McLaughlin answered the first
paragraph in Task 2.2.1 states for the purpose of neighborhood conversations in six neighborhood districts,
the Lake Ballinger area will be included with the Highway 99 subarea. The citywide EIS will include
environmental analysis for the City as a whole.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Highway 99 Lake Ballinger Subarea Plan and PAO in the list of
documents in Task 3.1, noting Lake Ballinger is not part of the subarea plan or the PAO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 22
Councilmember Nand asked if adding "environmental" would address climate change and climate action,
specifically extreme weather events and impermeability. Mr. Levitan said climate change impacts would
be looked at on a citywide level and would not be a focus of a specific neighborhood. Obviously areas with
taller buildings along transportation corridors may experience heat island effects that do not occur as much
in other areas, but he anticipated "environmental" would cover that. Staff could advise the consultant that
environmental includes analysis of climate change.
Councilmember Nand expressed interest in an analysis of shade equity impacts created by tall buildings,
increased impermeable surface, and tree removal and asked if that needed to be specifically called out in
the contract. Mr. Levitan commented the City is the client and can inform the consultant what should be
considered. It is difficult to provide the level of specificity for each topic. He suggested if that was a concern,
the wording could be changed to "environmental including impacts of climate change and required
adaptation and mitigation." He anticipated the City had enough discretion that staff could direct the
consultant team to look at that. Ms. McLaughlin advised a citywide tree canopy assessment was done
recently and presented to council, possibly before Councilmember Nand was appointed. It would be
relevant to include that on the list of existing conditions documents that will feed into the policy. That
would be the best way to address that versus the environmental methodology which typically does not have
as much focus on climate change resilience.
Councilmember Nand commented the reason councilmembers were struggling with the scope was they
were not sure what the deliverable would be in the final product for the cost of the contract.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO
AMEND THE SECOND ASSUMPTION IN 2.2.1 TO READ, "ALL DIRECT EXPENSES... ROOM
RENTAL WHEN CITY FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE... ".
Councilmember Olson wanted to ensure the consultant was aware of the expectation that they should use
City facilities to avoid the cost of rentals.
Councilmember Paine said that was already covered in the fourth bullet which states neighborhood
meetings may leverage City events and the City may provide support for logistics and facilitation.
Councilmember Olson said that did not address her concern. Councilmember Paine commented the
language Councilmember Olson suggested could result in the consultant paying for a City building versus
having a free event at a church.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO ADD
THE TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT PER DIRECTION FROM DIRECTOR MCLAUGHLIN.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
REFERRED TO THE HIGHWAY 99 LAKE BALLINGER SUBAREA PLAN AND PAO AND
REQUESTED "LAKE BALLINGER" BE REMOVED.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised Lake Ballinger not part of the subarea plan or included in Ordinance
4079.
Councilmember Paine objected to having Highway 99, the Lake Ballinger subarea plan or the PAO
removed as they were essential components and removing them would be inequitable.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 23
Council President Tibbott asked if there was a neighborhood map. Mr. Levitan said that was a typo, the
subarea plan and the PAO do not cover Lake Ballinger. Staff can tell the consultant that that reference was
incorrect.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT,
TO ADD THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS A DOCUMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if the tree canopy assessment is included, the consultant should also
see the Urban Forest Management Program which addresses issues such as shading, etc.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADD THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Council President Tibbott asked whether that would already be included in the scope of work. Mr. Levitan
answered yes, it would be included as part of the update, but there was no harm in clarifying.
Councilmember Paine advised that is addressed in Task 3.2, Economic Development — Existing Conditions
Review.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not see economic development in the list of documentation or that
there are plans to update the economic development element. There is more to economic development
existing conditions review than just barriers to middle housing and assessing real estate development
patterns so even though it is implied, it is best to have it included so it is clear that the consulting should
consider the economic development element. Ms. McLaughlin suggested adding review of the entire
comprehensive plan rather than a specific chapter.
Councilmember Olson asked if there was value to adding review of the economic development element
under Task 3.2. Ms. McLaughlin preferred to include review of the entire existing comprehensive plan in
Task 3.1, Project Understanding and Existing Conditions Review. Amending the scope to itemize review
of each chapter is unnecessary.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there is inconsistency because the 2023 Climate Action Plan which
is GHG specific was docketed. She wanted to ensure the consultant considered other issues related to
economic development and not just barrier housing and real estate development.
Councilmember Chen cautioned the addition of documents to the consultant's workload will increase the
$650,000 fee.
Councilmember Nand asked the consultant's billable hourly rate. Ms. McLaughlin answered it varies based
on the task and the level of professional doing that task. Councilmember Nand asked the range. Mr. Levitan
said he did not have their full proposal in front of him. Councilmember Nand commented it would be
helpful to have an understanding of how much these edits were saving. Ms. McLaughlin advised the
contract did not identify the staff member responsible for each task. Councilmember Nand said the dollar
amounts in the contract are based on a presumption of a certain number of hours at a certain rate. Mr.
Levitan agreed, explaining this was meant to reflect a holistic assessment of conditions, especially more
recent analysis that has been done in Edmonds to provide a foundation for the policy document and guide
the community engagement. Tasks are typically estimated and then billed at an hourly rate on a time and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 24
materials basis. If a task does not take as long as the consultant estimated, they do not bill the entire amount.
Ms. McLaughlin observed the council has added some items and removed some items and she did not
expect it would change the not to exceed dollar amount.
Councilmember Nand observed staff did not have the range for the hourly rate. Mayor Nelson requested
the council keep the discussion to the amendment. Councilmember Nand said she was not comfortable
voting on amendments that change the scope if the council did not have an understanding of the financial
impact based on the consultant's hourly rates.
Councilmember Olson asked if amendment was to add the economic development chapter or the entire
comprehensive plan. Councilmember Buckshnis advised it was the economic development chapter.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER CHEN AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the state passed legislation requiring climate change components
be added to the comprehensive plan. The City's climate action plan is GHG centric and does not address
sea level rise, carbon sequestering, tree canopy, etc. She asked whether the climate change element would
be GHG specific or would it address those other issues. Mr. Levitan advised an element would be developed
that was consistent with state law and best management practices. The existing sustainability element was
updated in 2020; information from the updated CAP will be incorporated. The CAP is not the same as the
climate change and sustainability element so a wider variety of issues will be considered.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
REMOVE TASK 5.1, CREATIVE ANALYSIS AND PLAN ALTERNATIVES.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with moving away from a comprehensive plan update and
doing GIS modeling, testing land use, zoning and massing as that should occur after the comprehensive
plan has been updated. She did not think it was appropriate for scenario planning to be in a comprehensive
plan update and recommended it be removed. Mr. Levitan commented if the term scenario planning was an
issue, that section was intended to provide the goal and policy foundation for the alternatives analyzed in
the EIS. The City is required to look at a couple different alternatives or scenarios to meet its growth targets
when preparing a comprehensive EIS. This would occur after all the analysis and engagement is done and
feedback has been provided by the community regarding how to meet growth targets. It could be called
something else so it does not seem like some esoteric scenario analysis. This is the bread and butter of the
policy development, the link between policy writing, background analysis community engagement.
Councilmember Olson said that satisfied her concerns.
Councilmember Buckshnis said her concern is the EIS should be a subcomponent of the comprehensive
plan. Mr. Levitan referred to the environmentally focused analysis, explaining based on that analysis, the
evaluation of the alternatives and the preferred alternative leads to specific land uses in specific parts of the
City. The integrated EIS is not technically an element of comprehensive plan, but is required in this case
because the City has not done one in so long and enough things need to be changed. Councilmember
Buckshnis reiterated Kirkland did not do an EIS. She commented the complete EIS will be a subcomponent
of the comprehensive plan and elements of the EIS will be integrated via this scenario planning. Mr. Levitan
explained it is cyclical; as the plan alternatives are developed and policies are considered, they feed into the
environmental review that includes a preferred alternative. If the preferred alternative is to put more growth
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 25
downtown, on Highway 99 or in neighborhood commercial centers, the policy development is far enough
along that it is evaluated in the preferred alternative.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Task 5.1 is to implement the EIS into comprehensive plan. Mr.
Levitan responded the analysis is incorporated, there will not be specific language included in the
comprehensive plan.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
REVISE "CONDUCT TARGETED ONE-ON-ONE BRIEFINGS (UP TO 5) IN THE FOURTH
BULLET IN TASK 3.1 TO "A MINIMUM OF THREE TO FIVE." AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
REVISE "UP TO (2) ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS" IN THE FIFTH BULLET IN TASK 3.1 TO
"TWO." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REVISE
THE FIRST BULLET UNDER DELIVERABLES IN TASK 5.2 TO READ, "PRESENTATION FO
TO AND VETTING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VISION AND ACTION STRATEGY
TO BY THE EDC AND PLANNING BOARD IN A JOINT SESSION."
Councilmember Olson explained the intent was a participatory, collaborative process and the input of the
EDC and planning board do matter.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she planned to make the same motion. She was concerned about the amount
of money and wondered whether this high level analysis needed to be performed when there is no code yet
for ADUs, cottages, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. She was concerned about the cost of developing
scenarios. She supported the motion because there would be some vetting, commenting this is Edmonds,
not Seattle or some big city and this seems way over the top.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson pointed out a scrivener's error in the last item on Task 6.1, "streeting" should be
changed to "steering." She referred to the deliverables under Task 6.3 which include presentation with
vision for neighborhood commercial areas and asked who will receive that presentation and should be it be
presentation and vetting. Ms. McLaughlin answered it was a presentation to the neighborhood stakeholders
at the three neighborhood meetings. It would be a presentation of the vision as a result of the feedback.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out inconsistencies between Task 6.2 that refers to submitting an
Economic Development Vision and Strategies Memo; Task 6.3 refers to an Economic Development Plan
Memo. She was worried about the cost and asked if the element was being updated or was a vision and
strategy being developed. Mr. Levitan answered this task is specifically related to an economic development
plan that would be adopted by reference with items outside the typical goals and policies. This is a separate
budget item approved for community services and economic development which is why there are elements
beyond the traditional comprehensive plan element. It is basically an economic development vision that
would be used as the goal and policy framework for the comprehensive plan element.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed she had a problem with all the deliverables. She asked why the
consultant would be asked for recommended code changes for the ECDC, envisioning code comes after the
vision is provided. She asked why the City would pay a consultant to provide code changes. Mr. Levitan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 26
answered it is not a mandatory part of the comprehensive plan contract, but a common deliverable for a
firm that has done the goal and policy is to take the next step knowing the City will make changes to the
code as statutory required within six months of the adoption of the comprehensive plan. If the council
wanted to rely entirely on staff, that could be done, but this is a common deliverable.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed code writing is much different that visioning and writing a
comprehensive plan. She anticipated getting rid of some of the deliverables could lower the cost of the
contract. She did not think the City needed the consultant to make development code recommendations.
Ms. McLaughlin explained per GMA, the zoning code must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The consultant will not write the code, but will identify aspects of the existing code that will need to be
changed due to changes in the comprehensive plan. It gives the City a springboard into making those code
changes which she suspected would be significant based on the scale of the comprehensive plan update.
She highly recommended utilizing that service to ensure the City meets the GMA requirements.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the City was incorporating the new state housing bills in this
comprehensive plan update. She hoped that would be done in a future comprehensive plan update as not all
the information is known. Mr. Levitan answered the goal and policy framework will be provided to be
consistent with state law. To be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning code will need to be
consistent with state law with regard to recent housing bills. It would be irresponsible not to consider those
in creating a goal and policy document and provide a foundation for those zoning changes that will need to
be implemented. The housing bills cannot be ignored knowing that within after six months after adoption,
the City's zoning will need to be changed to allow duplexes on a majority of lots and up to fourplexes on
certain lots within proximity to transit.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out HB 1110 takes effect in 2025. Mr. Levitan said the code has to be
updated by 2025. The City will need to work on it during the comprehensive plan update and cannot wait
until January 1, 2025. Consideration needs to be given to creating a goal and policy document that will be
consistent with state law at the time of adoption. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there has not been
a ruling from the Department of Commerce on the specifics. Mayor Nelson reminded councilmembers to
keep their comments relevant to the main motion.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
TEITZEL, CHEN, OLSON, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND NAND VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson thanked Mr. Levitan and Ms. McLaughlin for their professionalism and expertise and said
he values everything they do for the City.
3. RESOLUTION REGARDING 2024 BUDGET PRIORITIES
Council President Tibbott suggested in light of the vast amount of input and documentation in the packet
and subsequent edits and amendments that have been sent to the council office this week, the amended
resolution be on next week's consent agenda. Any further amendments or suggestions can be incorporated
in the document. It was the consensus of the council to put the resolution on the consent agenda next week.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reminded of the Edmonds Police Department Guns for Gift Cards buyback event on Saturday
from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Public Works building.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 27
Councilmember Chen promoted the Fit It Edmonds app, commenting he has tried it, it works and is very
effective. The response was quick and action was taken quickly. He encouraged the public to use it and
make Edmonds an even better place.
Councilmember Paine thanked Lynnwood Honda for the community engagement vehicle and Commander
Hawley for putting that program together. She liked the Fit It app, finding it great for data collection as well
as ensuring issues on the City's roads and parks are addressed. The Coffee with Cops event was very
successful and she was happy the message about speeding got carried forward.
Council President Tibbott commented councilmembers all learned a lot about the comprehensive plan
tonight which will make them better participants in future deliberations.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND TO 10:22. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson reminded of the public hearing regarding the comprehensive plan vision statement
on August 2. The raw data used to create the draft vision statement is available on the City's website.
Councilmember Nand reported prior to tonight's meeting, the council held a special meeting to interview
candidates for the salary commission and the planning board alternate. Those appointments were approved
on tonight's consent agenda. She welcomed Kathy Erhlich, Gary Holton, Angela Zhang, Bill Taylor and
Brook Roberts to the salary commission and Emily Nutsch as the alternate on the planning board. She
thanked them for volunteering, commenting the City is greatly enriched by its volunteers.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Todd Cloutier who is retiring after serving on the planning board for
over decade. She was invited to participate on a panel along with David Trout, Chair, Puget Sound
Partnership Salmon Recovery Council, and Laura Blackmore, Executive Director, Puget Sound
Partnership, to talk about salmon recovery issues, regional and local collaboration, and what needs to
happen to make Puget Sound a better place.
Councilmember Chen announced his appointment of Ian Egan to the tree board, commenting he was the
right person with the expertise.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
SCOTT PASSEY, -Zi l Y CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 18, 2023
Page 28